The case for tradable remedies in WTO dispute settlement
AbstractIt has been almost two years since the process leading to the reform of the Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU) was initiated. The Ministerial Conference in Doha provided the legal mandate to do so. Negotiations started in early March 2002 and were supposed to be concluded by end of May 2003. This has not been the case. The situation is quite ambivalent from a purely legal perspective right now: negotiators seem to take the view (WTO Doc. TN/DS/9 of 6 June 2003) that although the deadline for concluding negotiations has lapsed, they still have the mandate to continue negotiating, which is what they have been doing ever since. The negotiations so far reveal convergence on some issues and divergence on others. The proposals with a "high level of support" have been reflected in a document (WTO Doc. TN/DS/9 of 6 June 2003) and those that could not gather momentum are, at least for the time being, kept aside (although, technically, they are still on the negotiating table since it is up to the country proposing them to introduce them at some stage).1 In this paper we essentially focus on one proposal of the latter kind, the Mexican proposal to allow WTO Members to trade their rights for retaliation. This proposal is definitely the most ambitious and innovative proposal (judging by the pace of institutional reforms throughout the history of dispute settlement in the GATT/WTO) ever submitted in this context. At the same time, it is a meritorious proposal and deserves to be discussed in a comprehensive manner. This paper aims to offer arguments in this perspective.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoPaper provided by Columbia University, Department of Economics in its series Discussion Papers with number 0405-05.
Length: 61 pages
Date of creation: 2004
Date of revision:
Contact details of provider:
Postal: 1022 International Affairs Building, 420 West 118th Street, New York, NY 10027
Phone: (212) 854-3680
Fax: (212) 854-8059
Web page: http://www.econ.columbia.edu/
More information through EDIRC
Other versions of this item:
- Bagwell, Kyle & Mavroidis, Petros C. & Staiger, Robert W., 2004. "The case for tradable remedies in WTO dispute settlement," Policy Research Working Paper Series 3314, The World Bank.
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Horn, Henrik & Mavroidis, Petros C & Nordström, Håkan, 1999. "Is The Use Of The WTO Dispute Settlement System Biased?," CEPR Discussion Papers 2340, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
- Jehiel, Philippe & Moldovanu, Benny, 2001.
"Efficient Design with Interdependent Valuations,"
Econometric Society, vol. 69(5), pages 1237-59, September.
- Philippe Jehiel & Benny Moldovanu, 1998. "Efficient Design with Interdependent Valuations," Discussion Papers 1244, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.
- Jehiel, Phillipe & Moldovanu, Benny, 1999. "Efficient Design with Interdependent Valuations," Sonderforschungsbereich 504 Publications 99-74, Sonderforschungsbereich 504, Universität Mannheim & Sonderforschungsbereich 504, University of Mannheim.
- Jehiel, Phillipe & Moldovanu, Benny, 1998. "Efficient Design with Interdependent Valuations," Sonderforschungsbereich 504 Publications 98-22, Sonderforschungsbereich 504, Universität Mannheim & Sonderforschungsbereich 504, University of Mannheim.
- Petros C. Mavroidis & Kyle Bagwell & Robert W. Staiger, 2004.
"The case for auctioning countermeasures in the WTO,"
0405-08, Columbia University, Department of Economics.
- Kyle Bagwell & Petros C. Mavroidis & Robert W. Staiger, 2003. "The Case for Auctioning Countermeasures in the WTO," NBER Working Papers 9920, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Bagwell,K. & Mavroidis,P.C. & Staiger,R.W., 2003. "The case for auctioning countermeasures in the WTO," Working papers 14, Wisconsin Madison - Social Systems.
- Haile, Philip A., 2000. "Partial Pooling at the Reserve Price in Auctions with Resale Opportunities," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 231-248, November.
- repec:ner:dauphi:urn:hdl:123456789/5431 is not listed on IDEAS
- Bown, Chad P. & Hoekman, Bernard, 2007.
"Developing Countries and Enforcement of Trade Agreements: Why Dispute Settlement Is Not Enough,"
CEPR Discussion Papers
6459, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
- Bown, Chad P. & Bernard M., Hoekman, 2007. "Developing countries and enforcement of trade agreements : why dispute settlement is not enough," Policy Research Working Paper Series 4450, The World Bank.
- Limão, Nuno & Saggi, Kamal, 2006.
"Tariff Retaliation versus Financial Compensation in the Enforcement of International Trade Agreements,"
CEPR Discussion Papers
5560, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
- Limão, Nuno & Saggi, Kamal, 2008. "Tariff retaliation versus financial compensation in the enforcement of international trade agreements," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 76(1), pages 48-60, September.
- Limao, Nuno & Saggi, Kamal, 2006. "Tariff retaliation versus financial compensation in the enforcement of international trade agreements," Policy Research Working Paper Series 3873, The World Bank.
- Chad P. Bown & Meredith Crowley, 2004.
"Policy externalities: how U.S. antidumping affects Japanese exports to the EU,"
Working Paper Series
WP-04-12, Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago.
- Bown, Chad P. & Crowley, Meredith A., 2006. "Policy externalities: How US antidumping affects Japanese exports to the EU," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 22(3), pages 696-714, September.
- Fritz Breuss, 2004. "WTO Dispute Settlement: An Economic Analysis of four EU-US Mini Trade Wars," WIFO Working Papers 231, WIFO.
- Simon Schropp, 2007. "Revisiting the "Compliance-vs.-Rebalancing" Debate in WTO Scholarship a Unified Research Agenda," IHEID Working Papers 29-2007, Economics Section, The Graduate Institute of International Studies, revised Dec 2007.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Discussion Paper Coordinator).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.