IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/lan/wpaper/564824.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Trade dispute settlement mechanisms: the WTO dispute settlement understanding in the wake of the GATT

Author

Listed:
  • R A Read

Abstract

A critical feature of the GATT Uruguay Round negotiations was the establishment of a new and more effective system of dealing with international trade disputes, known as the WTO Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU). The original GATT dispute settlement system comprised rudimentary remnants of a more thorough framework contained in the defunct Havana Charter of the International Trade Organization (ITO). By the time of the start of the Uruguay Round negotiations in Punta del Este in 1986, the effectiveness and credibility of the GATT dispute settlement system was being very seriously questioned. The primary reason for the increasing lack of confidence in the system was the propensity of GATT contracting countries to ignore the findings of Panels, resulting in a stalemate in a number of high profile trade disputes. Several trade disputes between the EU and the United States discussed were initiated under the GATT dispute settlement system but remained unresolved. These disputes became increasingly acrimonious as a direct consequence of the failure of the GATT system to enforce a satisfactory resolution. This paper provides an outline of the workings of the GATT and WTO dispute settlement systems underlie several recent trade disputes. The first two sections deal with the GATT system of settling trade disputes. The first details the key elements of the GATT dispute settlement system while the second considers its performance in resolving disputes. Section 3 outlines the origins of the WTO DSU and summarises its principal Articles. The WTO DSU is appraised on the basis of its first nine years of operation in Section 4 followed by a brief discussion of the key issues that have arisen from its operation. The final Section makes some concluding comments on the relative efficacy of the GATT and WTO dispute settlement systems.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
  • Handle: RePEc:lan:wpaper:564824
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.lancaster.ac.uk/media/lancaster-university/content-assets/documents/lums/economics/working-papers/TradeDispute.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. Chad P. Bown, 2004. "Developing Countries as Plaintiffs and Defendants in GATT/WTO Trade Disputes," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 27(1), pages 59-80, January.
    3. 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.
    4. Horn, Henrik & Mavroidis, Petros C & Nordström, Håkan, 1999. "Is The Use Of The WTO Dispute Settlement System Biased?," CEPR Discussion Papers 2340, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    5. Holmes, Peter & Rollo, Jim & Young, Alasdair R., 2003. "Emerging trends in WTO dispute settlement : back to the GATT?," Policy Research Working Paper Series 3133, The World Bank.
    6. 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.
    7. Davey, William J, 2000. "The WTO Dispute Settlement System," Journal of International Economic Law, Oxford University Press, vol. 3(1), pages 15-18, March.
    8. Young Duk Park & Marion Panizzon, 2002. "WTO Dispute Settlement 1995--2001: A Statistical Analysis," Journal of International Economic Law, Oxford University Press, vol. 5(1), pages 221-244, March.
    9. Jackson, John H, 2000. "International Economic Law in Times That Are Interesting," Journal of International Economic Law, Oxford University Press, vol. 3(1), pages 3-14, March.
    10. Bernard M. Hoekman & Petros C. Mavroidis, 2000. "WTO Dispute Settlement, Transparency and Surveillance," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 23(04), pages 527-542, April.
    11. Kara Leitner & Simon Lester, 2003. "WTO Dispute Settlement I995--2002: A Statistical Analysis," Journal of International Economic Law, Oxford University Press, vol. 6(1), pages 251-261, March.
    12. Salas, Mauricio & Jackson, John H, 2000. "Procedural Overview of the WTO EC-Banana Dispute," Journal of International Economic Law, Oxford University Press, vol. 3(1), pages 145-166, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Knobel, Alexander (Кнобель, Александр) & Baeva, Marina (Баева, Марина), 2017. "Protective Measures in Integration Agreements and Their Impact on Mutual Trade and Trade with Third Countries: Features of Russia and the Countries of the Eurasian Economic Union [Защитные Меры В И," Working Papers 051735, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration.

    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. repec:lan:wpaper:860 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. repec:lan:wpaper:872 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. repec:lan:wpaper:859 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Fabien BESSON & Racem MEHDI, 2010. "Is WTO Dispute Settlement System Biased Against Developing Countries? An Empirical Analysis," EcoMod2004 330600022, EcoMod.
    5. Antoine Bouet & Jeanne Métivier, 2017. "Is the WTO Dispute Settlement Procedure Fair for Developing Countries?," Working Papers hal-02149414, HAL.
    6. 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.
    7. Antoine Bouët & Jeanne Métivier, 2020. "Is the dispute settlement system, “jewel in the WTO’s crown”, beyond reach of developing countries?," Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), Springer;Institut für Weltwirtschaft (Kiel Institute for the World Economy), vol. 156(1), pages 1-38, February.
    8. Götz, Christian & Heckelei, Thomas & Rudloff, Bettina, 2010. "What makes countries initiate WTO disputes on food-related issues?," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(2), pages 154-162, April.
    9. 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.
    10. Bown, Chad, 2007. "Developing Countries and Enforcement of Trade Agreements: Why Dispute Settlement Is Not Enough," CEPR Discussion Papers 6459, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    11. 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.
    12. Fritz Breuss, 2004. "WTO Dispute Settlement: An Economic Analysis of four EU-US Mini Trade Wars," WIFO Working Papers 231, WIFO.
    13. Ziaul Abedin & Mohammad Ali Tareq, 2008. "Trends of Trade Disputes During the WTO Regime," AIUB Bus Econ Working Paper Series AIUB-BUS-ECON-2008-04, American International University-Bangladesh (AIUB), Office of Research and Publications (ORP), revised Jan 2008.
    14. 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.
    15. Francois, Joseph & Horn, Henrik & Kaunitz, Niklas, 2008. "Trading Profiles and Developing Country Participation in the WTO Dispute Settlement System," Working Paper Series 730, Research Institute of Industrial Economics.
    16. Tan Li & Larry D. Qiu, 2021. "Beyond trade creation: Preferential trade agreements and trade disputes," Pacific Economic Review, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 26(1), pages 23-53, February.
    17. Pao-Li Chang, 2002. "The Evolution and Utilization of the GATT/WTO Dispute Settlement Mechanism," Working Papers 475, Research Seminar in International Economics, University of Michigan.
    18. Aydin B. Yildirim & J. Tyson Chatagnier & Arlo Poletti & Dirk De Bièvre, 2018. "The internationalization of production and the politics of compliance in WTO disputes," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 13(1), pages 49-75, March.
    19. Horn, Henrik & Mavroidis, Petros C., 2006. "A Survey of the Literature on the WTO Dispute Settlement System," Working Paper Series 684, Research Institute of Industrial Economics.
    20. 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.
    21. 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.
    22. 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.
    23. Chad P. Bown, 2005. "Trade Remedies and World Trade Organization Dispute Settlement: Why Are So Few Challenged?," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 34(2), pages 515-555, June.

    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:lan:wpaper:564824. 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: Giorgio Motta (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/delanuk.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.