IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/jieclw/v14y2011i2p295-328.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Of Facts and Phantoms: Economics, Epistemic Legitimacy, and WTO Dispute Settlement

Author

Listed:
  • CA Thomas

Abstract

World Trade Organization panels are regularly required to address specifically economic evidence and arguments when resolving disputes. Economic arguments provide the basic foundations for many disputes, and parties are proving increasingly willing to contest the facts underlying those arguments. Despite this, panels have often failed to engage satisfactorily with economic reasoning. The deficiencies in panels' reasoning have been exacerbated by their refusal to seek information and advice from independent economic experts. This approach is neither necessary nor productive. It undermines the epistemic legitimacy of individual panel reports and the political legitimacy of the dispute settlement system more generally. More careful and rigorous panel engagement with economic evidence, as assisted by independent experts acting within appropriate limits, would go some way to reducing this legitimacy deficit while improving the accuracy and finality of the dispute settlement system. Oxford University Press 2011, all rights reserved, Oxford University Press.

Suggested Citation

  • CA Thomas, 2011. "Of Facts and Phantoms: Economics, Epistemic Legitimacy, and WTO Dispute Settlement," Journal of International Economic Law, Oxford University Press, vol. 14(2), pages 295-328, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:jieclw:v:14:y:2011:i:2:p:295-328
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/jiel/jgr018
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    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. Ronen, Eyal & Dawar, Kamala, 2016. "How Necessary? A Comparison of Legal and Economic Assessments GATT Dispute Settlements under: Article XX(b), TBT 2.2 and SPS 5.6," MPRA Paper 83834, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    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:oup:jieclw:v:14:y:2011:i:2:p:295-328. 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). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/jiel .

    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 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.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.