IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Login to save this article or follow this journal

In Search of Relevant Discretion: The Role of the Mandatory/Discretionary Distinction in WTO Law

  • Nicolas Lockhart
  • Elizabeth Sheargold
Registered author(s):

    When deciding whether a general rule is inconsistent with the law of the World Trade Organization (WTO), a distinction has been drawn between rules that 'mandate' violations of WTO law, and rules that provide the 'discretion' to violate WTO law. Measures that include a discretionary element have, under the 'mandatory/discretionary distinction', been saved from a finding that they are 'as such' WTO-inconsistent. This article explores how the mandatory/discretionary distinction has been developed and applied in WTO law. It also questions the sharp divide between 'mandatory' and 'discretionary' measures that is implied by the distinction; and it argues that discretion comes in different forms, which should not all have the same relevance when assessing the WTO-consistency of rules. The article proposes a basic taxonomy involving three different types of discretion: the discretion to adopt or withdraw rules; the discretion to apply or not apply rules; and the discretion to select meaning through the interpretation and application of rules. For each category, the article offers views on the relevance of that type of discretion in examining the WTO-consistency of a general rule. 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.

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    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.

    Article provided by Oxford University Press in its journal Journal of International Economic Law.

    Volume (Year): 13 (2010)
    Issue (Month): 2 (June)
    Pages: 379-421

    in new window

    Handle: RePEc:oup:jieclw:v:13:y:2010:i:2:p:379-421
    Contact details of provider: Postal: Oxford University Press, Great Clarendon Street, Oxford OX2 6DP, UK
    Fax: 01865 267 985
    Web page:

    Order Information: Web:

    No references listed on IDEAS
    You can help add them by filling out this form.

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:jieclw:v:13:y:2010:i:2:p:379-421. 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.

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.