Punishment and Dispute Settlement in Trade Agreements
This paper interprets dispute settlement procedures and punishments as responses to the fact that trade agreements are incomplete contracts. If no weight is given to the adjudication phase and if the degree of trade relatedness is known with certainty, the negotiated trade agreement will feature commensurate punishments, will induce violation of the dispute settlement ruling, and will deliver optimal liberalization and optimal unilateral trade-related action. With the adjudication phase of concern, the trade agreement will feature less liberalization, but still with a presumption of at least approximate commensurate punishment. The optimal trade agreement will likely induce abiding by the ruling when negotiators attach more importance to the adjudication phase, and violating it when they attach less.
|Date of creation:|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: Øster Farimagsgade 5, Building 26, DK-1353 Copenhagen K., Denmark|
Phone: (+45) 3532 4411
Fax: +45 35 32 30 00
Web page: http://www.econ.ku.dk/epru/
More information through EDIRC
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Ludema, Rodney D., 2001.
"Optimal international trade agreements and dispute settlement procedures,"
European Journal of Political Economy,
Elsevier, vol. 17(2), pages 355-376, June.
- Ludema, R.D., 1990. "Optimal International Trade Agreements And Dispute Settlement Procedures," UWO Department of Economics Working Papers 9101, University of Western Ontario, Department of Economics.
- Butler, M. & Hauser, H., 2000.
"The WTO Dispute Settlement System : A First Assessment from an Economic Perspective,"
2000-21, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
- Butler, Monika & Hauser, Heinz, 2000. "The WTO Dispute Settlement System: First Assessment from an Economic Perspective," Journal of Law, Economics and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 16(2), pages 503-33, October.
- Monika BÜTLER & Heinz HAUSER, 2000. "The WTO Dispute Settlement System : A First Assessment from an Economic Perspective," Cahiers de Recherches Economiques du Département d'Econométrie et d'Economie politique (DEEP) 00.02, Université de Lausanne, Faculté des HEC, DEEP.
- Robert W. Staiger & Kyle Bagwell, 1999.
"An Economic Theory of GATT,"
American Economic Review,
American Economic Association, vol. 89(1), pages 215-248, March.
- Dan Kovenock & Marie Thursby, 1992.
"Gatt, Dispute Settlement And Cooperation,"
Economics and Politics,
Wiley Blackwell, vol. 4(2), pages 151-170, 07.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:kud:epruwp:01-14. 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: (Thomas Hoffmann)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.