IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/wotrrv/v8y2009i03p417-437_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Consensus and majority voting in the WTO

Author

Listed:
  • TIJMES-LHL, JAIME

Abstract

This article's subject is the implications that consensus/unanimity and majority voting might have for the World Trade Organization's (WTO) decision-making system. First it looks at some consequences that replacing the consensus rule with majority voting might have for the WTO, including justice concerns, legitimacy, homogeneity of WTO membership, and international enforcement. Second, it summarizes some solutions found in the European Union (EU) for coping with unanimity and majority rule, including constructive abstention, reallocation of contractual responsibilities, and the Luxembourg compromise. Finally, it considers some reform options for the WTO and offers some conclusions, namely expanding majority voting on certain areas only, redefining competences, multi-speed proposals (rethinking the single undertaking, constructive abstention, and the scheduling approach), redefining consensus, combining consensus and majority voting, and issuing interpretations.

Suggested Citation

  • Tijmes-Lhl, Jaime, 2009. "Consensus and majority voting in the WTO," World Trade Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 8(3), pages 417-437, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:wotrrv:v:8:y:2009:i:03:p:417-437_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1474745609004388/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Luke Kemp, 2015. "A climate treaty without the US Congress: Using executive powers to overcome the 'Ratification Straitjacket'," CCEP Working Papers 1513, Centre for Climate & Energy Policy, Crawford School of Public Policy, The Australian National University.
    2. Nakatomi, Michitaka, 2013. "Plurilateral Agreements: A Viable Alternative to the World Trade Organization?," ADBI Working Papers 439, Asian Development Bank Institute.
    3. Hoekman, Bernard M. & Mavroidis, Petros C., 2015. "Embracing Diversity: Plurilateral Agreements and the Trading System," World Trade Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 14(1), pages 101-116, January.
    4. Steve Charnovitz, 2010. "A Post-Montesquieu Analysis of the WTO," Working Papers 2010-3, The George Washington University, Institute for International Economic Policy.
    5. Bernard Hoekman, 2014. "Supply Chains, Mega-Regionals and Multilateralism: A Road Map for the WTO," RSCAS Working Papers 2014/27, European University Institute.
    6. Cottier, Thomas, 2011. "Confidence-Building for Global Challenges: The Experience of International Economic Law and Relations," Papers 206, World Trade Institute.
    7. Bernard Hoekman, 2014. "Sustaining multilateral trade cooperation in a multipolar world economy," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 9(2), pages 241-260, June.
    8. Kemp, Luke, 2015. "A climate treaty without the US Congress: Using executive powers to overcome the ‘Ratification Straitjacket’," Working Papers 249518, Australian National University, Centre for Climate Economics & Policy.
    9. Bernard M. Hoekman & Petros C. Mavroidis, 2013. "WTO 'à la carte' or WTO 'menu du jour'? Assessing the case for Plurilateral Agreements," RSCAS Working Papers 2013/58, European University Institute.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:wotrrv:v:8:y:2009:i:03:p:417-437_00. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/wtr .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.