Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-04T23:42:55.487Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Stability and Rigidity: Politics and Design of the WTO's Dispute Settlement Procedure

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2005

B. PETER ROSENDORFF
B. PETER ROSENDORFF
Affiliation:
University of Southern California
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The increased “legalization” embodied in the revised Dispute Settlement Procedure (DSP) of the World Trade Organization (WTO) is shown to be an institutional innovation that increases the opportunities for states to temporarily suspend their obligations in periods of unexpected, but heightened, domestic political pressure for protection. This increased flexibility in the system reduces per-period cooperation among states but also reduces the possibility that the regime may break down entirely. There is shown to be a trade-off between rigidity and stability in international institutional design in the face of unforeseen, but occasionally intense, domestic political pressure. In a model with a WTO that serves both an informational and adjudicatory role, it is established that agreements with DSPs are self-enforcing, are more stable, and are more acceptable to a wider variety of countries than agreements without DSPs. Evidence drawn from data on preferential trading agreements supports the key hypotheses.

Type
ARTICLES
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 99 , Issue 3 , August 2005 , pp. 389 - 400
Copyright
© 2005 by the American Political Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bagwell Kyle, and Robert W. Staiger. 1999. “An Economic Theory of the GATT.” American Economic Review 89 (March): 215– 48.Google Scholar
Baldwin Richard. 1987. “Politically Realistic Objective Functions and Trade Policy.” Economics Letters 24 (3): 287– 90.Google Scholar
Bello Judith Hippler. 1996. “The WTO Dispute Settlment Understanding: Less is More.” American Journal of International Law 90: 416– 18.Google Scholar
Bhagwati Jagdish and Hugh T. Palrick (eds.) 1990. Aggressive Unilateralism: America's 301 Trade Policy and the World Trading System. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Bown Chad P. 2004. “On the Economic Success of GATT/WTO Dispute Settlement.” The Review of Economics and Statistics 86 (August): 811– 23.Google Scholar
Busch Marc. 1999. “Forum Shopping for Dispute Resolution in US–Canada Trade.” Presented at International Studies Association Meetings, Washington DC.
Chayes Abram, and Antonia Handler Chayes. 1993. “On Compliance.” International Organization 47 (Spring): 175– 205.Google Scholar
Downs George W., and David M. Rocke. 1995. Optimal Imperfection? Domestic Uncertainty and Institutions in International Relations. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Downs George W., D.M. Rocke, and P.B. Barsoom. 1996. “Is the Good News about Compliance Good News about Cooperation?” International Organization 50 (Summer): 379– 406.Google Scholar
Dunoff Jeffrey L., and Joel P. Trachtman. 1999. “Economic Analysis of International Law.” Yale Journal of International Law 24 (1): 1– 59.Google Scholar
Ethier Wilfred J. 2001. “Punishments and Dispute Settlement in Trade Agreements.” PIER Working Paper No. 01-021.Google Scholar
Fearon James D. 1998. “Bargaining, Enforcement and International Cooperation.” International Organization 52 (Spring): 269– 305.Google Scholar
Garrett Geoffrey, and James McCall Smith. 2002. “The Politics of WTO Dispute Settlement.” UCLA International Institute. Occasional Paper Series.
Goldstein Judith, and Lisa L. Martin. 2000. “Legalization, Trade Liberalization, and Domestic Politics: A Cautionary Note.” International Organization 54 (Summer): 603– 32.Google Scholar
Goldstein Judith, Miles Kahler, Robert Keohane, and Anne-Marie Slaughter. 2000. “Introduction: Legalization and World Politics.” International Organization 54 (Summer): 385– 400.Google Scholar
Grossman Gene M., and Elhanan Helpman. 1994. “Protection for Sale.” American Economic Review 84 (September): 833– 50.Google Scholar
Gruber Lloyd G. 1999. “Rethinking the Rational Foundations of Supranational Governance: Lessons from the North American Free Trade Agreement.” Presented at International Studies Association Meetings. Washington, DC.
Hoekman Bernard M., and Michel M. Kostecki. 2001. The Political Economy of the World Trading System. 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press.
Jackson John H. 1997a. “Editorial Comment: The WTO Dispute Settlement Understanding—Misunderstandings on the Nature of Legal Obligation.” American Journal of International Law 91: 59– 64.Google Scholar
Jackson John H. 1997b. The World Trading System. 2nd ed. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Jackson John H. 1998. “Designing and Implementing Effective Dispute Settlement Procedures: WTO Dispute Settlement, Appraisal and Prospects.” In The WTO as an International Institution, ed. Anne O. Krueger. Chicago: Chicago University Press. chap. 5, 161– 80.
Keohane Robert O. 1984. After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Kovenock Dan, and Marie Thursby. 1994. “GATT, Dispute Settlement, and Cooperation.” In Analytical and Negotiating Issues in the Global Trading System, ed. Alan V. Deardorff and Robert M. Stern. Ann Arbor: Michigan University Press, 361– 90.
Lawrence Robert Z. 2003. Crimes and Punishments: Retaliation Under the WTO. Washington, DC: Institute for International Economics.
Levy Philip I., and T. N. Srinivasan. 1996. “Regionalism and the (Dis)Advantage of Dispute Settlement Access.” American Economic Review 86 (May): 93– 8.Google Scholar
Maggi Giovanni. 1999. “The Role of Multilateral Institutions in International Trade Cooperation.” American Economic Review 89 (March): 190– 214.Google Scholar
Mansfield Edward D., Helen V. Milner, and B. Peter Rosendorff. 2000. “Free to Trade: Democracies, Autocracies and International Trade American Political Science Review, 94 (June): 305– 322.Google Scholar
Mansfield Edward D., Helen V. Milner, and B. Peter Rosendorff. 2002. “Why Democracies Cooperate More: Electoral Control and International Trade Agreements,” International Organization 56 (Fall): 477– 514.Google Scholar
Milgrom Paul R., Douglass C. North, and Barry R. Weingast. 1990. “The Role of Institutions in the Revival of Trade: The Law Merchant, Private Judges, and the Champagne Fairs.” Economics and Politics 2 (March): 1– 23.Google Scholar
Milner Helen V., and B. Peter Rosendorff 1996. “Trade Negotiations, Information and Domestic Politics.” Economics and Politics 8 (July): 145– 89.Google Scholar
North Douglass C. 1990. Institutions, Institutional Change, and Economic Performance. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Oye Kenneth. 1986. Cooperation Under Anarchy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Ozden Caglar. 2001. “Trade Agreements Under Asymmetric Information and Efficiency Gains from WTO's Dispute Settlement Process.” Manuscript, Emory University.
Pevehouse Jon C., Emilie Hafner-Burton, and Matthew Zierler. 2002. “Regional Trade and Institutional Design: Long after Hegemony?” Presented at the 2002 MPSA Meetings, Chicago, IL.
Putnam Robert D. 1988. “Diplomacy and Domestic Politics: The Logic of Two-Level Games.” International Organization 42 (Summer): 427– 60.Google Scholar
Reinhardt Eric. 1999. “Aggressive Multilateralism: The Determinants of GATT/WTO Dispute Initiation, 1948–1998.” Presented at International Studies Association Meetings, Washington.
Reinhardt Eric. 2001. “Adjudication Without Enforcement in GATT Disputes.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 45 (April): 174– 95.Google Scholar
Rosendorff B. Peter, and Helen V. Milner. 2001. “The Optimal Design of International Trade Institutions: Uncertainty and Escape.” International Organization 55 (Fall): 829– 57.Google Scholar
Setear John K. 1997. “Responses to Breach of a Treaty and Rationalist International Relations Theory: The Rules of Release and Remediation in the Law of Treaties and the Law of State Responsibility.” Virginia Law Review 83: 1– 127.Google Scholar
Smith James McCall. 2000. “The Politics of Dispute Settlement Design: Explaining Legalism in Regional Trade Pacts.” International Organization 54 (Winter): 137– 80.Google Scholar
Staiger Robert, and Guido Tabellini. 1999. “Do GATT Rules Help Governments Make Domestic Commitments?” Economics and Politics 11 (July): 109– 44.Google Scholar
Sykes Alan. 1991. “Protectionism as a Safeguard.” University of Chicago Law Review 58: 255– 305.Google Scholar
Trebilcock Michael J., and Robert Howse. 1999. The Regulation of International Trade. 2nd ed. New York: Routledge.
Yarbrough Beth V., and Robert M. Yarbrough. 1997. Dispute Settlement in International Trade: Regionalism and Procedural Coordination. In The Political Economy of Regionalism, ed. Edward D. Mansfield and Helen V. Milner. New York: Columbia University Press, 134– 63.
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.