Collective Intelligence and the Possibility of Dissent: Anonymous Individual Opinions in WTO Jurisprudence
Anonymous individual opinions in World Trade Organisation (WTO) jurisprudence are occurring more frequently. This article describes and critiques the 14 individual opinions expressed to-date; discusses related legal issues; and compares the position in other international courts. It argues that the WTO strikes a balance by permitting individual opinions, if in the report and anonymous; but that 10 of the 14 were incorrect or unnecessary, and the others avoidable. It further argues that different views are adequately recorded in the summary of the parties' arguments or the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) minutes; and that if the Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU) (Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes) is functioning correctly, the collective intelligence of reasonable judges should lead them to common ground. Considering some of the particular characteristics of the WTO compared to other international courts, the article concludes that it is in the long-term interests of the WTO that individual opinions remain exceptional. Oxford University Press 2010, all rights reserved, Oxford University Press.
If 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.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Volume (Year): 13 (2010)
Issue (Month): 2 (June)
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: |
Fax: 01865 267 985
Web page: http://www.jiel.oupjournals.org/Email:
|Order Information:||Web: http://www.oup.co.uk/journals|
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:jieclw:v:13:y:2010:i:2:p:287-320. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Oxford University Press)or (Christopher F. Baum)
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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.