The WTO Dispute Settlement System: How, Why and Where? is a ponderous tome, but a pleasant read. On the basis of his experience and knowledge in the field, the world-renowned World Trade Organization (WTO) lawyer, Petros Mavroidis, has produced a comprehensive review of the contributions of the WTO dispute settlement system over the past twenty-five years. The work attempts to raise awareness of the costs associated with retreating from the liberal world order and the WTO adjudication system. Relying on “numbers”, Mavroidis presents an objective and verifiable account of the WTO dispute settlement mechanism, and an argument for its preservation.

Following a brief introduction, the treatise comprises twelve chapters. Chapter 1 presents the context and limits of the work in three concentric circles, with the WTO adjudication being the inner circle; the WTO the middle; and the world order the outer. According to Mavroidis, the crisis of the WTO dispute settlement mechanism is not self-contained but situated within a wider WTO crisis and the recent retreat from liberal world order. An effective WTO dispute settlement mechanism is the necessary, but insufficient, condition for resolving the WTO crisis in general. Chapter 2 introduces the salient feature of the WTO dispute settlement mechanism and presents how disputes are to be resolved before the WTO. Chapters 3 through 10 proceed to examine the track record of the WTO dispute settlement, providing objective numbers and figures with a view to demonstrating “what disputes were resolved, who resolved them, and how were they resolved” (p. xxviii). Based on these data, Mavroidis, in Chapter 11, looks at the aggregate number of disputes, the implementation of adverse rulings, the unilateral withdrawal of measures found to be WTO-inconsistent, and mutually agreed agreements between parties to provide an overview of the accomplishments of the WTO dispute settlement mechanism to date. In Chapter 12, Mavroidis then advances his proposals on how to revamp the existing WTO dispute settlement mechanism given its applaudable accomplishments.

In advancing his proposal to preserve the WTO dispute settlement mechanism, Mavroidis assumes that the collective will of the membership is aimed at resisting populism and de-politicizing the adjudication process – the cornerstone of the WTO dispute settlement mechanism. This assumption, and his confidence, may be contestable in view of the diversity of the WTO membership, in particular in contrast to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade era. The capacity of the GATT regime to de-politicize trade disputes largely lies in the political and economic homogeneity of the membership, but this is not the case for the WTO. Also, as WTO rules become more intrusive and the global economy more integrated, depoliticizing trade disputes seems more challenging than ever. This need not necessarily lead to pessimism or doom, but it is the new reality we face and cannot be neglected when considering the future of the WTO dispute settlement mechanism.