IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/wotrrv/v9y2010i03p457-485_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Seeking mutual understanding: a discourse-theoretical analysis of the WTO Dispute Settlement System

Author

Listed:
  • CEVA, EMANUELA
  • FRACASSO, ANDREA

Abstract

The WTO Dispute Settlement System (DSS) has been the object of many studies in politics, law, and economics focusing on institutional design problems. This paper contributes to such studies by accounting for the argumentative nature and sophisticated features of the DSS through a philosophical analysis of the procedures through which it is articulated. Jürgen Habermas's discourse theory is used as a hermeneutic device to disentangle the types of ‘orientations’ (compromise, consensus, and mutual understanding) pertaining to DSS procedures. We show that these latter are oriented primarily to put the parties in a position to reach mutual understanding. Such an orientation is no mere idiosyncrasy of the DSS but is the only one consistently conducive to the WTO's general aims, in response to the various types of disputes that may arise between its Members. Before closing, we bring our procedural considerations to bear on the reform proposals of the DSS.

Suggested Citation

  • Ceva, Emanuela & Fracasso, Andrea, 2010. "Seeking mutual understanding: a discourse-theoretical analysis of the WTO Dispute Settlement System," World Trade Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 9(3), pages 457-485, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:wotrrv:v:9:y:2010:i:03:p:457-485_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1474745610000285/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Horn, Henrik & Mavroidis, Petros C., 2006. "A Survey of the Literature on the WTO Dispute Settlement System," Working Paper Series 684, Research Institute of Industrial Economics.
    2. Matsushita, Mitsuo & Schoenbaum, Thomas J. & Mavroidis, Petros C., 2006. "The World Trade Organization: Law, Practice, and Policy," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, edition 2, number 9780199208005.
    3. Andrew G. Brown & Robert M. Stern, 2009. "Concepts of Fairness in the Global Trading System," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Globalization And International Trade Policies, chapter 5, pages 109-149, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    4. Kyle Bagwell & Robert W. Staiger, 2004. "The Economics of the World Trading System," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262524341, April.
    5. Chios Carmody, 2008. "A Theory of WTO Law," Journal of International Economic Law, Oxford University Press, vol. 11(3), pages 527-557, September.
    6. Giovanni Maggi & Robert W. Staiger, 2008. "On the Role and Design of Dispute Settlement Procedures in International Trade Agreements," NBER Working Papers 14067, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    7. Matsushita, Mitsuo & Schoenbaum, Thomas J. & Mavroidis, Petros C., 2006. "The World Trade Organization: Law, Practice, and Policy," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, edition 2, number 9780199284566.
    8. Keck, Alexander & Schropp, Simon, 2007. "Indisputably essential: The economics of dispute settlement institutions in trade agreements," WTO Staff Working Papers ERSD-2007-02, World Trade Organization (WTO), Economic Research and Statistics Division.
    9. Wilfred J. Ethier, 2004. "Political Externalities, Nondiscrimination, and a Multilateral World," Review of International Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 12(3), pages 303-320, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Julián Tole Martínez, 2019. "Colombia entre los TLC y la OMC: ¿liberación o administración del comercio internacional?," Books, Universidad Externado de Colombia, Facultad de Derecho, number 1139, October.
    2. Julián Tole Martínez, 2019. "Colombia entre los TLC y la OMC: ¿liberación o administración del comercio internacional?," Books, Universidad Externado de Colombia, Facultad de Derecho, number 1130, October.
    3. Matthew Littleton, 2009. "The TRIPS Agreement and transfer of climate‐change‐related technologies to developing countries," Natural Resources Forum, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 33(3), pages 233-244, August.
    4. Bagwell, Kyle & Staiger, Robert W., 2010. "Backward stealing and forward manipulation in the WTO," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 82(1), pages 49-62, September.
    5. Stephen, Matthew D. & Parízek, Michal, 2019. "New Powers and the Distribution of Preferences in Global Trade Governance: From Deadlock and Drift to Fragmentation," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 24(6), pages 735-758.
    6. Steve Charnovitz, 2014. "Green Subsidies and the WTO," RSCAS Working Papers 2014/93, European University Institute.
    7. Timo Gerres & Manuel Haussner & Karsten Neuhoff & Alice Pirlot, 2019. "Can Governments Ban Materials with Large Carbon Footprint? Legal and Administrative Assessment of Product Carbon Requirements," Discussion Papers of DIW Berlin 1834, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research.
    8. Pol Antràs & Robert W. Staiger, 2012. "Offshoring and the Role of Trade Agreements," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 102(7), pages 3140-3183, December.
    9. Lee Yong-Shik, 2009. "Theoretical Basis and Regulatory Framework for Microtrade: Combining Volunteerism with International Trade towards Poverty Elimination," The Law and Development Review, De Gruyter, vol. 2(1), pages 367-399, December.
    10. Wilfred J. Ethier, 2003. "TRIPS, externalities, trade agreements, hostages," PIER Working Paper Archive 03-034, Penn Institute for Economic Research, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania.
    11. Stephan Wittig, 2021. "Transatlantic Trade Dispute: Solution for Airbus-Boeing Under Biden?," Intereconomics: Review of European Economic Policy, Springer;ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics;Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS), vol. 56(1), pages 23-31, January.
    12. Kyle Bagwell & Robert W. Staiger, 2009. "The WTO: Theory and Practice," NBER Working Papers 15445, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    13. Charnovitz, Steve, 2014. "Green subsidies and the WTO," Policy Research Working Paper Series 7060, The World Bank.
    14. Dong-Hoon Kim & Bong-Chul Kim, 2008. "Safeguard measures in RTAs and Proposals for the KCJ FTA," International Area Studies Review, Center for International Area Studies, Hankuk University of Foreign Studies, vol. 11(1), pages 53-94, March.
    15. Éric Millard, 2016. "Teoría General Del Derecho," Books, Universidad Externado de Colombia, Facultad de Derecho, number 833, October.
    16. Chang Hwan Choi & Jae-Woo Kim, 2014. "Determinants for Macroeconomic Factors of Antidumping: A Comparative Analysis of India and China," The International Trade Journal, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 28(3), pages 229-245, March.
    17. Spagnuolo, Francesca, 2011. "Diversity and pluralism in earth system governance: Contemplating the role for global administrative law," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(11), pages 1875-1881, September.
    18. Wilfred J. Ethier, 2002. "Trade Policies Based on Political Externalities: An Exploration, Third Version," PIER Working Paper Archive 04-006, Penn Institute for Economic Research, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania, revised 04 Feb 2004.
    19. Simo Regis Y., 2013. "Integrating African Markets into the Global Exchange of Services: A Central African Perspective," The Law and Development Review, De Gruyter, vol. 6(2), pages 255-297, September.
    20. Wilfred J. Ethier, 2002. "Trade Agreements Based on Political Externalities, Second Version," PIER Working Paper Archive 03-035, Penn Institute for Economic Research, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania, revised 30 Nov 2003.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • F13 - International Economics - - Trade - - - Trade Policy; International Trade Organizations
    • F53 - International Economics - - International Relations, National Security, and International Political Economy - - - International Agreements and Observance; International Organizations
    • F51 - International Economics - - International Relations, National Security, and International Political Economy - - - International Conflicts; Negotiations; Sanctions

    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:9:y:2010:i:03:p:457-485_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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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.