Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T05:02:42.875Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Overlapping Institutions, Forum Shopping, and Dispute Settlement in International Trade

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 October 2007

Marc L. Busch
Marc L. Busch
Affiliation:
Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service, Georgetown University, Washington, D.C., E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

Preferential trade agreements offer members an alternative to dispute settlement at the World Trade Organization. This gives rise to forum shopping, in that complainants can file regionally, multilaterally, or not at all. What explains this choice of forum? I argue that complainants strategically discriminate among overlapping memberships: on a given measure(s), some prefer to set a precedent that bears only on a subset of their trade relations, others a precedent that bears on all their trade relations, while still others prefer not to set a precedent. Thus, the key to forum shopping is not simply which institution is likely to come closest to the complainant's ideal ruling against the defendant, but where the resulting precedent will be more useful in the future, enabling the complainant to bring litigation against other members, rather than helping other members bring litigation against the complainant. I consider disputes over Mexican brooms and Canadian periodicals.For comments, I thank Vinod Aggarwal, Raj Bhala, Jane Bradley, Bill Davey, Rob Howse, Miles Kahler, Simon Lester, Rod Ludema, Ed Mansfield, Lisa Martin, Petros C. Mavroidis, John Odell, Joost Pauwelyn, Amy Porges, Eric Reinhardt, Peter Rosendorff, Ken Scheve, Ed Schwartz, Christina Sevilla, Michael Simon, Jay Smith, Debra Steger, Joel Trachtman, Todd Weiler, seminar participants in the Program on International Politics, Economics, and Security (PIPES) at the University of Chicago, and two anonymous referees. All shortcomings are, of course, my own. For research support, I thank the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research and the Social Science and Humanities Research Council of Canada. For research assistance, I thank Alex Muggah, Krzysztof Pelc, and Scott Winter.

Type
Research Article
Information
International Organization , Volume 61 , Issue 4 , October 2007 , pp. 735 - 761
Copyright
© 2007 The IO Foundation and Cambridge University Press

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

REFERENCES

Abbott, Kenneth W., and Duncan Snidal. 2000. Hard and Soft Law in International Governance. International Organization 54 (3):421–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Acheson, Keith, and Christopher J. Maule. 1999. Much Ado About Culture: North American Trade Disputes. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Bhala, Raj. 1999a. The Myth About Stare Decisis and International Trade Law (Part One of a Trilogy). American University International Law Review 14 (4):845–956.Google Scholar
Bhala, Raj. 1999b. The Precedent Setters: De Facto Stare Decisis in WTO Adjudication (Part Two of a Trilogy). Journal of Transnational Law and Policy 9 (1):1–151.Google Scholar
Bhala, Raj. 2001. The Power of the Past: Towards De Jure Stare Decisis in WTO Adjudication (Part Three of a Trilogy). George Washington International Law Review 33:873–978.Google Scholar
Clermont, Kevin M., and Theodore Eisenberg. 1995. Exorcising the Evil of Forum-Shopping. Cornell Law Review 80 (6):1507–35.Google Scholar
Davey, William J. 1998. The WTO/GATT World Trading System: An Overview. In Handbook of WTO/GATT Dispute Settlement, Vol. 1, edited by Pierre Pescatore, William J. Davey, and Andreas F. Lowenfeld, 7–86. Ardsley, N.Y.: Transnational Publishers.
de Mestral, Armand. 2005. NAFTA Dispute Settlement: Creative Experiment or Confusion? Unpublished manuscript, McGill University, Montreal, QC.
Gantz, David A. 1999. Dispute Settlement Under the NAFTA and the WTO: Choice of Forum Opportunities and Risks for the NAFTA Parties. American University International Law Review 14 (4):1025–106.Google Scholar
Goldstein, Judith. 1996. International Law and Domestic Institutions: Reconciling North American ‘Unfair’ Trade Laws. International Organization 50 (4):541–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldstein, Judith, and Lisa L. Martin. 2000. Legalization, Trade Liberalization, and Domestic Politics: A Cautionary Note. International Organization 54 (3):603–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hedley, Hale E. 1995. Canadian Cultural Policy and the NAFTA: Problems Facing the U.S. Copyright Industries. George Washington Journal of International Law and Economics 28 (3):655–90.Google Scholar
Howse, Robert. 1998. Settling Trade Remedy Disputes: When the WTO Forum Is Better Than the NAFTA. C.D. Howe Institute Commentary 111. Toronto, ON: C.D. Howe Institute.
Huntington, David S. 1993. Settling Disputes Under the North American Free Trade Agreement. Harvard International Law Journal 34 (2):407–43.Google Scholar
Jackson, John H. 1998. Designing and Implementing Effective Dispute Settlement Procedures: WTO Dispute Settlement, Appraisal and Prospects. In The WTO as an International Organization, edited by Anne O. Krueger, 161–80. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Komuro, Norio. 1995. The WTO Dispute Settlement Mechanism: Coverage and Procedures of the WTO Understanding. Journal of World Trade 29 (4):5–95.Google Scholar
Koremenos, Barbara, Charles Lipson, and Duncan Snidal. 2001. The Rational Design of International Institutions. International Organization 55 (4):761–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krikorian, Jacqueline D. 2005. Planes, Trains and Automobiles: The Impact of the WTO “Court” on Canada in Its First Ten Years. Journal of International Economic Law 8 (4):921–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marceau, Gabrielle. 2001. Conflicts of Norms and Conflicts of Jurisdictions: The Relationship Between the WTO Agreement and MEAs and Other Treaties. Journal of World Trade 35 (6):1081–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mavroidis, Petros C., Robert Howse, and George A. Bermann. Forthcoming. The World Trade Organization: Texts, Cases & Materials. St. Paul, Minn.: Thomson West.
Palmeter, David N., and Petros C. Mavroidis. 2004. Dispute Settlement in the World Trade Organization: Practice and Procedure. 2d ed. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Pauwelyn, Joost. 2006. Adding Sweeteners to Softwood Lumber: The WTO-NAFTA “Spaghetti Bowl” Is Cooking. Journal of International Economic Law 9 (1):197–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petersmann, Ernst-Ulrich. 1994. The Dispute Settlement System of the World Trade Organization and the Evolution of the GATT Disputes Settlement System Since 1948. Common Market Law Review 31 (6):1157–244.Google Scholar
Reif, Linda C. 2001. NAFTA, the WTO and the FTAA: From Choice of Forum in Inter-State Disputes to Private Actor Access to Dispute Settlement. Unpublished manuscript, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB.
Rosendorff, B. Peter. 2005. Stability and Rigidity: Politics and the Design of the WTO's Dispute Settlement Procedure. American Political Science Review 99 (3):389–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwartz, Warren F., and Alan O. Sykes. 2002. The Economic Structure of Renegotiation and Dispute Resolution in the World Trade Organization. Journal of Legal Studies 31 (1):S179–S204.Google Scholar
Smith, James McCall. 2000. The Politics of Dispute Settlement Design: Explaining Legalism in Regional Trade Pacts. International Organization 54 (1):137–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steinberg, Richard H. 2004. Judicial Lawmaking at the WTO: Discursive, Constitutional, and Political Constraints. American Journal of International Law 98 (2):247–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sykes, Alan O. 2005. Public versus Private Enforcement of International Economic Law: Standing and Remedy. Journal of Legal Studies 34 (2):631–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trachtman, Joel P., and Philip M. Moremen. 2003. Costs and Benefits of Private Participation in WTO Dispute Settlement: Whose Right Is It Anyway? Harvard International Law Journal 44 (1):221–50.Google Scholar
U.S. Senate. 1992. Finance Committee. North American Free Trade Agreement: Hearings Before the Senate Finance Committee. 102d Cong., 2d sess. 8 September.
Van Bael, Ivo. 1988. The GATT Dispute Settlement Procedure. Journal of World Trade 22 (4):67–77.Google Scholar
World Intellectual Property Organization. 1990. WIPO to Prepare IPR Dispute Settlement Draft Treaty. Available at 〈http://www.sunsonline.org/trade/areas/intellec/03010190.htm〉. Accessed 21 March 2007.