IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ucp/jlstud/v31y2002i2p303-26.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Cost of Credibility: Explaining Resistance to Interstate Dispute Resolution Mechanisms

Author

Listed:
  • Guzman, Andrew T

Abstract

This paper explains why the use of mandatory dispute resolution clauses is the exception rather than the rule in international agreements. On one hand, these clauses increase the sanction for violation of the agreement and thereby increase the probability that the parties will comply. On the other hand, dispute resolution clauses impose a loss on the parties when violations occur. States, therefore, must balance the credibility and compliance benefits of a mandatory dispute resolution provision against the joint costs imposed by those provisions in the event of a violation. The paper develops a series of predictive and normative results based on the trade-off. For example, dispute resolution clauses are more likely in low-stakes than high-stakes agreements, in multilateral rather than bilateral agreements, and when tribunals are more accurate. The paper also offers support for the view that money damages (or other zero-sum transfers) should be encouraged in international dispute resolution. Copyright 2002 by the University of Chicago.

Suggested Citation

  • Guzman, Andrew T, 2002. "The Cost of Credibility: Explaining Resistance to Interstate Dispute Resolution Mechanisms," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 31(2), pages 303-326, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:ucp:jlstud:v:31:y:2002:i:2:p:303-26
    DOI: 10.1086/340811
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/340811
    Download Restriction: Access to the online full text or PDF requires a subscription.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1086/340811?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Mondré, Aletta, 2011. "Choosing a forum for peaceful dispute settlement," TranState Working Papers 153, University of Bremen, Collaborative Research Center 597: Transformations of the State.
    2. Tan Li & Larry D. Qiu, 2021. "Beyond trade creation: Preferential trade agreements and trade disputes," Pacific Economic Review, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 26(1), pages 23-53, February.
    3. Horn, Henrik & Mavroidis, Petros C., 2006. "A Survey of the Literature on the WTO Dispute Settlement System," CEPR Discussion Papers 6020, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    4. Bernauer, Thomas & Kalbhenn, Anna & Koubi, Vally & Ruoff, Gabi, 2010. "On commitment levels and compliance mechanisms: Determinants of participation in global environmental agreements," University of Göttingen Working Papers in Economics 94, University of Goettingen, Department of Economics.
    5. repec:got:cegedp:94 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Jon Hovi & Tora Skodvin, 2017. "Why the United States Supports International Enforcement for Some Treaties but not for Others," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 5(2), pages 79-92.
    7. Tan LI & Larry D. QIU, 2015. "Beyond Trade Creation: Free Trade Agreements and Trade Disputes," Working Papers DP-2015-28, Economic Research Institute for ASEAN and East Asia (ERIA).
    8. Thomas Bernauer & Anna Kalbhenn & Vally Koubi & Gabriele Spilker, 2013. "Is there a “Depth versus Participation” dilemma in international cooperation?," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 8(4), pages 477-497, December.
    9. Lee, Jiwon & Wittgenstein, Teresa, 2017. "Weak vs. Strong Ties: Explaining Early Settlement in WTO Disputes," ILE Working Paper Series 7, University of Hamburg, Institute of Law and Economics.

    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:ucp:jlstud:v:31:y:2002:i:2:p:303-26. 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: Journals Division (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/JLS .

    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.