IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/usg/auswrt/2005600127-61.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

WTO Dispute Settlement at Ten: Evolution, Experiences, and Evaluation

Author

Listed:
  • Thomas A. Zimmermann

Abstract

ENGLISH ABSTRACT: On 1 January 1995, the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (DSU) entered into force. During its first ten years, the DSU has since been applied to 324 complaints – more cases than dispute settlement under the GATT 1947 had dealt with in nearly five decades. The system is perceived, both by practitioners and in academic literature, to work generally well. However, it has also revealed some flaws. Negotiations to review and reform the DSU have been taking place since 1997 (“DSU review”), however, without yielding any result so far. In the meantime, WTO Members and adjudicating bodies managed to develop the system further through evolving practice. While this approach may remedy some practical shortcomings of the DSU text, the more profound imbalance between relatively efficient judicial decisionmaking in the WTO (as incorporated in the DSU) and nearly blocked political decisionmaking evolves into a serious challenge to the sustainability of the system. This article provides an overview of the first ten years of DSU practice, the on- going DSU review negotiations, and the challenges to the dispute settlement system. GERMAN ABSTRACT: Am 1. Januar 1995 trat das Übereinkommen über Regeln und Verfahren für die Streitschlichtung (Dispute Settlement Understanding; DSU) als Teil des WTO-Abkommens in Kraft. In den ersten zehn Jahren seines Bestehens fand das DSU auf 324 Klagebegehren Anwendung – mehr Fälle, als unter den Streitschlichtungsregeln des GATT 1947 in dessen nahezu fünfzigjähriger Geschichte behandelt wurden. Die Funktionsweise des Systems wird sowohl in der handelspolitischen Praxis als auch in der wissenschaftlichen Literatur als gut eingestuft. Gleichwohl hat der Mechanismus in seiner Anwendung auch einige Schwächen offenbart. Diese sollen auf dem Verhandlungswege („DSU Review“) behoben werden, doch blieben die seit Ende 1997 laufenden Gespräche bislang erfolglos. Zugleich ist es den Mitgliedstaaten und den
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Suggested Citation

  • Thomas A. Zimmermann, 2005. "WTO Dispute Settlement at Ten: Evolution, Experiences, and Evaluation," Aussenwirtschaft, University of St. Gallen, School of Economics and Political Science, Swiss Institute for International Economics and Applied Economics Research, vol. 60(01), pages 27-61, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:usg:auswrt:2005:60:01:27-61
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://ux-tauri.unisg.ch/RePEc/usg/auswrt/AW_60-01__02_Zimmermann.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Petersmann, Ernst-Ulrich, 1999. "Dispute Settlement in International Economic Law--Lessons for Strengthening International Dispute Settlement in Non-economic Areas," Journal of International Economic Law, Oxford University Press, vol. 2(2), pages 189-248, June.
    2. Claude Barfield, 2002. "WTO dispute settlement system in need of change," Intereconomics: Review of European Economic Policy, Springer;ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics;Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS), vol. 37(3), pages 131-135, May.
    3. Robert W. Staiger & Kyle Bagwell, 1999. "An Economic Theory of GATT," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 89(1), pages 215-248, March.
    4. Anderson, Kym, 2002. "Peculiarities of retaliation in WTO dispute settlement," World Trade Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 1(2), pages 123-134, July.
    5. John H. Jackson, 1997. "The World Trading System, 2nd Edition: Law and Policy of International Economic Relations," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262600277, December.
    6. Claude Barfield, 2001. "Free Trade, Sovereignty, Democracy: The Future of the World Trade Organization," Books, American Enterprise Institute, number 52877, September.
    7. Petersmann, Ernst-Ulrich, 1998. "How to Promote the International Rule of Law? Contributions by the World Trade Organization Appellate Review System," Journal of International Economic Law, Oxford University Press, vol. 1(1), pages 25-48, March.
    8. Thomas Cottier, 2003. "The WTO Permanent Panel Body: a Bridge Too Far?," Journal of International Economic Law, Oxford University Press, vol. 6(1), pages 187-202, March.
    9. S. K. Mitchell, 1997. "GATT, Dispute Settlement and Cooperation: A Note," Economics and Politics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 9(1), pages 87-93, March.
    10. Butler, Monika & Hauser, Heinz, 2000. "The WTO Dispute Settlement System: First Assessment from an Economic Perspective," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 16(2), pages 503-533, October.
    11. Jacques H.J. Bourgeois, 2003. "Comment on a WTO Permanent Panel Body," Journal of International Economic Law, Oxford University Press, vol. 6(1), pages 211-235, March.
    12. Thomas Cottier & Satoko Takenoshita, 2003. "The Balance of Power in WTO Decision-Making: Towards Weighted Voting in Legislative Response," Aussenwirtschaft, University of St. Gallen, School of Economics and Political Science, Swiss Institute for International Economics and Applied Economics Research, vol. 58(02), pages 169-214, June.
    13. repec:aei:rpbook:24252 is not listed on IDEAS
    14. Jeffrey J. Schott & Jayashree Watal, 2000. "Decision-Making in the WTO," Policy Briefs PB00-2, Peterson Institute for International Economics.
    15. Guzman, Andrew & Simmons, Beth A, 2002. "To Settle or Empanel? An Empirical Analysis of Litigation and Settlement at the World Trade Organization," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 31(1), pages 205-235, January.
    16. Jackson, John H., 2002. "Perceptions about the WTO trade institutions," World Trade Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 1(01), pages 101-114, March.
    17. Rosendorff, B. Peter, 2005. "Stability and Rigidity: Politics and Design of the WTO's Dispute Settlement Procedure," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 99(3), pages 389-400, August.
    18. Hudec, R. E., 2002. "Free trade, sovereignty, democracy: the future of the World Trade Organization," World Trade Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 1(2), pages 211-222, July.
    19. William J. Davey, 2003. "The Case for a WTO Permanent Panel Body," Journal of International Economic Law, Oxford University Press, vol. 6(1), pages 177-186, March.
    20. Claus-Dieter Ehlermann, 2003. "Reflections on the Appellate Body of the WTO," Journal of International Economic Law, Oxford University Press, vol. 6(3), pages 695-708, September.
    21. Steve Charnovitz, 2002. "The WTO's Problematic "Last Resort" Against Noncompliance," Aussenwirtschaft, University of St. Gallen, School of Economics and Political Science, Swiss Institute for International Economics and Applied Economics Research, vol. 57(04), pages 407-440, December.
    22. John Greenwald, 2003. "WTO Dispute Settlement: an Exercise in Trade Law Legislation?," Journal of International Economic Law, Oxford University Press, vol. 6(1), pages 113-124, March.
    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. Fritz Breuss, 2004. "WTO Dispute Settlement: An Economic Analysis of Four EU–US Mini Trade Wars—A Survey," Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, Springer, vol. 4(4), pages 275-315, December.
    2. Chau, Nancy H. & Färe, Rolf, 2011. "Shadow pricing market access: A trade benefit function approach," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 146(4), pages 1631-1663, July.
    3. Johannesson, Louise, 2018. "Efficiency Gains and Time-savings of Permanent Panels in the WTO Dispute Settlement," Working Paper Series 1219, Research Institute of Industrial Economics.
    4. Fritz Breuss, 2004. "WTO Dispute Settlement: An Economic Analysis of four EU-US Mini Trade Wars," WIFO Working Papers 231, WIFO.
    5. Hartigan, James C., 2018. "Punching out of one's weight class? Cross agreement retaliation in the WTO," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 274-288.
    6. R A Read, 2005. "Trade dispute settlement mechanisms: the WTO dispute settlement understanding in the wake of the GATT," Working Papers 564824, Lancaster University Management School, Economics Department.
    7. Tadashi Ito, 2007. "NAFTA and productivity convergence between Mexico and the US," IHEID Working Papers 26-2007, Economics Section, The Graduate Institute of International Studies, revised 27 Nov 2007.
    8. Javelosa, Josyline C. & Schmitz, Andrew, 2006. "Costs and Benefits of a WTO Dispute: Philippine Bananas and the Australian Market," Estey Centre Journal of International Law and Trade Policy, Estey Centre for Law and Economics in International Trade, vol. 7(1), pages 1-26.
    9. Jeheung Ryu & Randall W. Stone, 2018. "Plaintiffs by proxy: A firm-level approach to WTO dispute resolution," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 13(2), pages 273-308, June.
    10. Antoine Bouet & Jeanne Métivier, 2017. "Is the WTO Dispute Settlement Procedure Fair for Developing Countries?," Working Papers hal-02149414, HAL.
    11. repec:lan:wpaper:860 is not listed on IDEAS
    12. Euan MacMillan, 2009. "Explaining rising regionalism and failing multilateralism: Consensus decision-making and expanding WTO membership," Working Papers 200916, School of Economics, University College Dublin.
    13. Richard E. Baldwin, 2011. "Multilateralising Regionalism: Spaghetti Bowls as Building Blocks on the Path to Global Free Trade," Chapters, in: Miroslav N. Jovanović (ed.), International Handbook on the Economics of Integration, Volume I, chapter 2, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    14. Heinz Hauser & Alexander Roitinger, 2002. "A Renegotiation Perspective on Transatlantic Trade Disputes," University of St. Gallen Department of Economics working paper series 2002 2002-09, Department of Economics, University of St. Gallen.
    15. Frischmann Brett M. & Hartigan James C., 2011. "Compliance Institutions in Treaties," Review of Law & Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 7(1), pages 86-117, May.
    16. Lee, Jiwon & Wittgenstein, Teresa, 2017. "Weak vs. Strong Ties: Explaining Early Settlement in WTO Disputes," ILE Working Paper Series 7, University of Hamburg, Institute of Law and Economics.
    17. Euan MacMillan, 2009. "Explaining rising regionalism and failing multilateralism : consensus decision-making and expanding WTO membership," Working Papers 200921, School of Economics, University College Dublin.
    18. Baybars Karacaovali & Nuno Limão, 2018. "The clash of liberalizations: Preferential vs. multilateral trade liberalization in the European Union," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Policy Externalities and International Trade Agreements, chapter 14, pages 373-401, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    19. Johan Lindeque & Steven McGuire, 2007. "The United States and trade disputes in the World Trade Organization: Hegemony constrained or confirmed?," Management International Review, Springer, vol. 47(5), pages 725-744, September.
    20. Talya Bobick & Alastair Smith, 2013. "The impact of leader turnover on the onset and the resolution of WTO disputes," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 8(4), pages 423-445, December.
    21. Wilfred J. Ethier, "undated". "Punishment and Dispute Settlement in Trade Agreements," EPRU Working Paper Series 01-14, Economic Policy Research Unit (EPRU), University of Copenhagen. Department of Economics.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • F02 - International Economics - - General - - - International Economic Order and Integration
    • F13 - International Economics - - Trade - - - Trade Policy; International Trade Organizations
    • K33 - Law and Economics - - Other Substantive Areas of Law - - - International Law
    • K41 - Law and Economics - - Legal Procedure, the Legal System, and Illegal Behavior - - - Litigation Process

    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:usg:auswrt:2005:60:01:27-61. 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: Stefan Legge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/siasrch.html .

    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.