No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Is Compliance the Name of the Effectiveness Game? Goal-Shifting and the Dynamics of Judicial Effectiveness at the WTO
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 March 2016
Abstract
In line with current research on the effectiveness of international law and institutions, much of the literature on the effectiveness of the WTO dispute settlement system (DSS) has settled on compliance as its primary effectiveness benchmark. This article challenges this trend. It argues that common models gauging the DSS effectiveness through the narrow lens of compliance disregard many other institutional goals pursued by the system, and the conflicts latent among them. Furthermore, existing models are also static in nature—predicated on problematic assumptions regarding the constant supremacy of the DSS compliance objective—what leads them to overlook important shifts amidst the multiple and conflicting goals of the DSS that take place over time and across disputes. Building on the goal-based approach developed in the social sciences, the article introduces a multidimensional framework for analyzing the DSS effectiveness, using the multiple, conflicting and shifting goals set for the system by WTO Members as key effectiveness benchmarks. The article then turns to closely examine the novel concept of ‘goal-shifting’ – essential for effectiveness assessment – and through interview-based analysis of different categories of WTO disputes shows how the DSS goals change with time and context, as a consequence of the changing modalities in which the system operates.
- Type
- Review Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Shlomo Agon 2016
References
Abi-Saab, G. (2010), ‘The Normalization of International Adjudication: Convergence and Divergencies’, NYU Journal of International Law and Politics, 43(1): 1–14.Google Scholar
Alter, K. J. (2003), ‘Resolving or Exacerbating Disputes? The WTO's New Dispute Resolution System’, International Affairs, 79(4): 783–800.Google Scholar
Brimeyer, B. L. (2001), ‘Banana, Beef, and Compliance in the World Trade Organization: The Inability of the WTO Dispute Settlement Process to Achieve Compliance from Superpower Nations’, Minnesota Journal of Global Trade, 10(1): 133–168.Google Scholar
Broude, T. (2004), International Governance in the WTO: Judicial Boundaries and Political Capitulation, London: Cameron May.Google Scholar
Buchanan, A. and Keohane, R. O. (2006), ‘The Legitimacy of Global Governance Institutions’, Ethics and International Affairs, 20(4): 405–437.Google Scholar
Busch, M. L. and Reinhardt, E. (2003), ‘Transatlantic Trade Conflicts and GATT/WTO Dispute Settlement’, in Petersmann, E.-U. and Pollack, M. A. (eds.), Transatlantic Economic Disputes: The EU, the US, and the WTO Economic Disputes, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 465–486.Google Scholar
Cameron, J. and Gray, K. R. (2001), ‘Principles of International Law in the WTO Dispute Settlement Body’, International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 50(2): 248–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cogan, J. C. (2006), ‘Noncompliance and the International Rule of Law’, Yale Journal of International Law, 31(1):189–210.Google Scholar
Connolly, T., Conlon, E. J., and Deutsch, S. J. (1980), ‘Organizational effectiveness: A Multiple-Constituency Approach’, Academy of Management Review, 5(2): 211–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davey, W. J. (2009), ‘Compliance Problems in WTO Dispute Settlement’, Cornell International Law Journal, 42(1): 119–128.Google Scholar
Davey, W. J. (2005), ‘The WTO Dispute Settlement System: The First Ten Years’, Journal of International Economic Law, 8(1): 17–50.Google Scholar
DiMascio, N. and Pauwelyn, J. (2008), ‘Nondiscrimination in Trade and Investment Treaties: Worlds Apart or Two Sides of the Same Coin?’, American Journal of International Law, 102(1): 48–89.Google Scholar
Epstein, D., O'Halloran, S., and Widsten, A. L. (2009), ‘Implementing the Agreement: Partisan Politics and WTO Dispute Settlement’, in Beladi, H. and Choi, K. E. (eds.), Trade Disputes and the Dispute Settlement Understanding of the WTO: An Interdisciplinary Assessment, Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing, pp. 121–138.Google Scholar
Esty, C. D. (2002), ‘The World Trade Organization's Legitimacy Crisis’, World Trade Review, 1(1): 7–22.Google Scholar
Franck, M. T. (1990), The Power of Legitimacy Among Nations, New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Garret, G. and Smith, J. M. (2002), ‘The Politics of WTO Dispute Settlement’, UCLA International Institute Occasional Paper Series, http://escholarship.org/uc/item/4t4952d7#page-3 (accessed 4 November 2015).Google Scholar
George, A. L. and Bennett, A. (2005), Case Studies and Theory Development in Social Sciences, Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Gerring, J. (2007), Case Study Research Principles and Practices, New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gibson, J. L. and Caldeira, G. A. (1995), ‘The Legitimacy of Transnational Legal Institutions: Compliance, Support, and the European Court of Justice’, American Journal of Political Science, 39(2): 459–489.Google Scholar
Ginsburg, T. and McAdams, R. H. (2004), ‘Adjudicating in Anarchy: An Expressive Theory of International Dispute Resolution’, William and Mary Law Review, 45(4): 1229–1339.Google Scholar
Guzman, A. T. (2008), ‘International Tribunals: A Rational Choice Analysis’, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 157(1): 171–235.Google Scholar
Hafner-Burton, E. M.
et al. (2012), ‘Political Science Research on International Law: The State of the Field’, American Journal of International Law
106(1): 47–97.Google Scholar
Henkin, L. (1995) International Law: Politics and Values, The Hague: Kluwer Law International.Google Scholar
Horlick, G. and Coleman, J. (2008), ‘A Comment on Compliance with WTO Dispute Settlement Decisions’, in Janow, M. E., Donaldson, V., and Yanovich, A. (eds.), WTO: Governance, Dispute Settlement & Developing Countries, New York: Juris Publishing, pp. 771–76.Google Scholar
Horn, H. and Mavroidis, P. C. (2007), ‘International Trade: Dispute Settlement’, in Guzman, A. T. and Sykes, A. O. (eds), Research Handbook in International Economic Law, London: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 177–210.Google Scholar
Howse, R. and Nicolaidis, K. (2003), ‘Enhancing WTO Legitimacy: Constitutionalization or Global Subsidiarity?’, Governance, 16(1): 73–94.Google Scholar
Howse, R. and Teitel, R. (2010), ‘Beyond Compliance: Rethinking Why International Law Really Matters’, Global Policy, 1(2): 127–135.Google Scholar
Hudec, R. (1980), ‘GATT Dispute Settlement after the Tokyo Round: An Unfinished Business’, Cornell International Law Journal, 13(2): 145–203.Google Scholar
Jackson, J. H. (2006), Sovereignty, the WTO, and Changing Fundamentals of International Law, New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Keisuke, I. (2004), ‘Is WTO Dispute Settlement Effective?’, Global Governance, 10(2): 207–225.Google Scholar
Kingsbury, B. (2012), ‘International Courts: Uneven Judicialization in Global Order’, in Crawford, J. and Koskenniemi, M. (eds.), The Cambridge Companion to International Law, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 203–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kleinlein, T. (2011), ‘Judicial Lawmaking by Judicial Restraint? The Potential of Balancing in International Economic Law’, German Law Journal, 12(5): 1141–1174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kulovesi, K. (2011), The WTO Dispute Settlement System, Challenges of the Environment, Legitimacy and Fragmentation, The Netherlands: Kluwer Law International.Google Scholar
Lang, A. (2011), World Trade Law after Neoliberalism: Reimagining the Global Economic Order, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lee, E. (2011), ‘Measuring TRIPS Compliance and Defiance: The WTO Compliance Scorecard’, Journal of Intellectual Property Law, 18(2): 401–445.Google Scholar
Linarelli, J. (2000), ‘The Role of Dispute Settlement in World Trade Law: Some Lessons from the Kodak-Fuji Dispute’, Law and Policy in International Business, 31(2): 263–372.Google Scholar
Ludema, R. D. (2001), ‘Optimal International Trade Agreements and Dispute Settlement Procedures’, European Journal of Political Economy, 17(2): 355–376.Google Scholar
Marceau, G. (2013), ‘The New TBT Jurisprudence in US–Clove Cigarettes, WTO US–Tuna II and US–COOL
’, Asian Journal of WTO and International Health and Policy, 8(1): 1–39.Google Scholar
Martin, L. L. (2013), ‘Against Compliance’, in Dunoff, J. L. and Pollack, M. A. (eds.), Interdisciplinary Perspectives on International Law and International Relations: The State of the Art
, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 591–610.Google Scholar
McRae, D. (2008), ‘Measuring the Effectiveness of the WTO Dispute Settlement System’, Asian Journal of WTO and International Health and Policy, 3(1): 1–20.Google Scholar
Palmeter, D. and Alexandrov, S. A. (2002), ‘Inducing Compliance in WTO Dispute Settlement’, in Kennedy, D. L. M. and Southwick, J. D. (eds.), The Political Economy of International Trade Law: Essays in Honor of Robert Hudec, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 646–666.Google Scholar
Palmeter, D. and Mavroidis, P. C. (2004), Dispute Settlement in the World Trade Organization, 2nd edn, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pauwelyn, J. (2000), ‘Enforcement and Countermeasures in the WTO: Rules are Rules–Toward a More Collective Approach’, American Journal of International Law, 94(2): 335–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pollack, M. A. (2003), ‘Managing System Friction: Regulatory Conflicts in Transatlantic Relations and the WTO’, in Petersmann, E.-U. and Pollack, M. A. (eds.), Transatlantic Economic Disputes: The EU, the US, and the WTO Economic Disputes, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 595–602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Porges, A. (2004), ‘Settling WTO Disputes: What Do Litigation Models Tell Us?’, Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution, 19(1): 141–184.Google Scholar
Posner, E. A. and Yoo, J. C. (2005), ‘Judicial Independence in International Tribunals’, California Law Review, 93(X): 1.Google Scholar
Rainey, H. G. (2014), Understanding and Managing Public Organizations, 5th edn, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Rosendorff, P. B. (2005), ‘Stability and Rigidity: Politics and Design of the WTO's Dispute Settlement Procedure’, American Political Science Review, 99(3): 389–400.Google Scholar
Scott, R. W. (2003), Organizations: Rational, Natural, and Open Systems, 5th edn, New Jersey: Princeton-Hall.Google Scholar
Scott., R. W. and Davis, G. F. (2007), Organizations and Organizing: Rational, Natural, and Open Systems Perspectives, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Shany, Y. (2014), Assessing the Effectiveness of International Courts: A Goal-Based Approach, Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shany, Y. (2012a), ‘Assessing the Effectiveness of International Courts: A Goal-Based Approach’, American Journal of International Law, 106(2): 225–270.Google Scholar
Shany, Y. (2012b), ‘Compliance with Decisions of International Courts as Indicative of Their Effectiveness: A Goal-Based Analysis’, in Crawford, James and Nouen, Sarah (eds.), Select Proceedings of the European Society of International Law 2010, Oxford: Hart Publishing, pp. 229–242.Google Scholar
Shlomo-Agon, S. (2015), ‘Clearing the Smoke: The Legitimation of Judicial Power at the WTO’, Journal of World Trade, 49(4): 539–589.Google Scholar
Shlomo-Agon, S. (2013), ‘Is it All about Compliance: Towards a Multidimensional Goal-Based Approach for Analyzing the Effectiveness of the WTO DSS’, unpublished Ph.D. dissertation.Google Scholar
Steger, D. P. (2004), ‘The Struggle for Legitimacy in the WTO’, in Peace Through Trade: Building the WTO, London: Cameron May, pp. 287–311.Google Scholar
Stewart, T. P. (ed.) (1993), The GATT Uruguay Round: A Negotiating History (1986–1992) Vol. II, Deventer: Kluwer Law Publishers.Google Scholar
Thompson, J. D. and McEwen, W. J. (1958), ‘Organizational Goals and Environment: Goal-Setting as an Interaction Process’, American Sociological Review, 23(1): 23–31.Google Scholar
Tallberg, J. and Smith, J. M. (2014), ‘Dispute Settlement in World Politics: States, Supranational Prosecutors, and Compliance’, European Journal of International Relations, 20(1): 118–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tolbert, P. S. and Hall, R. H. (2009), Organizations: Structures, Processes, and Outcomes, 10th edn, New Jersey: Princeton-Hall.Google Scholar
Taylor, C. O. (2007), ‘Impossible Cases: Lessons from the First Decade of WTO Dispute Settlement’, University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Law, 28(2): 309–447.Google Scholar
Varella, M. D. (2009), ‘The Effectiveness of the Dispute Settlement Body of the World Trade Organization’, Journal of International Trade Law and Policy, 8(2): 100–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
von Bogdandy, A. and Venzke, I., (2013), ‘On the Functions of International Courts: An Appraisal in Light of Their Burgeoning Public Authority’, Leiden Journal of International Law, 26(1): 49–72.Google Scholar
Weiler, J. H. H. (2002), ‘The Rule of Lawyers and the Ethos of Diplomats: Reflections on the Internal and External Legitimacy of WTO Dispute Settlement’, American Review of International Arbitration, 13(1–4): 177–196.Google Scholar
Weiss, F. (2000), ‘Improving WTO Procedural Law: Problems and Lessons from the Practice of Other International Courts and Tribunals’, in Weiss, F. (ed.), Improving WTO Dispute Settlement Procedures, London: Cameron May, pp. 17–26.Google Scholar
Wilson, B. (2007), ‘Compliance by WTO Members with Adverse WTO Dispute Settlement Rulings: The Record to Date’, Journal of International Economic Law, 10(2): 397–403.Google Scholar
WTO, (2005), World Trade Report: Exploring the Links between Trade, Standards and the WTO, Geneva: WTO.Google Scholar
Yin, R. K. (2009), Case Study Research: Design and Methods, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Zald, M. N. (1963), ‘Comparative Analysis and Measurement of Organizational Goals: The Case of Correctional Institutions for Delinquents’, Sociological Quarterly, 4(3): 206–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhou, W. (2012), ‘
US–Clove Cigarettes and US–Tuna II (Mexico): Implications for the Role of Regulatory Purpose under Article III:4 of the GATT’, Journal of International Economic Law, 15(4): 1075–1122.Google Scholar