59 Pages Posted: 28 Mar 2011 Last revised: 10 Jul 2011
Date Written: August 1, 2010
WTO litigation presents an empirical puzzle: complaining parties “win” close to 90 percent of cases, while standard theories of litigation predict a strong tendency towards a 50 percent plaintiff win-rate.
This Article explains the high win-rate by examining the reputational costs and benefits of filing a case. The WTO’s lack of centralized enforcement means that the consequence of a judgment is merely to disseminate information that alters a party’s reputation for compliance with its trade obligations. Such a “reputational sanction” applies to both losing respondents and complainants. The result is that only cases with a very high probability of success on the merits have a positive expected value and will be filed.
Several, inter-related implications follow: (1) primarily “easy cases” that are clear on the merits are filed at the WTO; (2) because only easy cases are filed, the voluminous opinions of the Appellate Body represent a dysfunctional tendency towards unwarranted law-creation; (3) discussions of “WTO constitutionalism” are largely misguided; and (4) the resource/legal capacity of developing countries is not the biggest constraint on their ability to file cases.
Keywords: World Trade Organization, WTO, Litigation, Law and Economics, International Courts, International Law
Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation
Turk, Matthew C., Why Does the Complainant Always Win at the WTO?: A Reputation-Based Theory of Litigation at the World Trade Organization (August 1, 2010). Northwestern Journal of International Law & Business, Vol. 31, p. 385, 2011. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1780558