IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/jieclw/v9y2006i4p895-931.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Lack of Dissent in WTO Dispute Settlement

Author

Listed:
  • Meredith Kolsky Lewis

Abstract

This article analyses in detail the fact that there has been almost no dissent in World Trade Organization (WTO) dispute settlement reports. Only a handful of articles have noted this phenomenon, even in passing. The article first examines the empirical data with respect to dissenting and concurring opinions at both the panel and Appellate Body levels. Fewer than 5% of panel reports and 2% of Appellate Body reports contain separate opinions of any kind. Second, it shows that the WTO is in fact actively discouraging dissents and discusses why this might be the case. The article argues that dissents are valuable in general and assesses whether more dissents would be a positive for the WTO. It then reviews the few dissents that have been published and demonstrates that 50% of the arguments raised in dissents at the panel level were adopted in whole or in part on appeal by the Appellate Body, thus illustrating dissents can and do make a difference. The article concludes that keeping the lid on dissents may ultimately erode the strength of the dispute settlement system and hinder the ability of the WTO Members to make appropriate changes to the Agreements. Copyright 2006, Oxford University Press.

Suggested Citation

  • Meredith Kolsky Lewis, 2006. "The Lack of Dissent in WTO Dispute Settlement," Journal of International Economic Law, Oxford University Press, vol. 9(4), pages 895-931, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:jieclw:v:9:y:2006:i:4:p:895-931
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    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:9:y:2006:i:4:p:895-931. 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.

    We have no bibliographic 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.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/jiel .

    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.