Rule-Based Dispute Resolution in International Trade Law
38 Pages Posted: 27 Jun 2007
Abstract
Why does the United States ever prefer to settle disputes under a system of rules rather than a system of negotiations? Powerful states are advantaged by negotiation-based approaches to settling disagreements because they have the resources to resolve individual disputes on favorable terms. By contrast, rule-based dispute resolution advantages weak states as a means to hold powerful states to the terms of their agreements. Then why did the United States want a rule-based system to settle international disputes in the WTO? To answer this question, we have to understand domestic politics as well as international politics. International constraints, particularly international courts, can influence bargaining at the national level by reallocating bargaining power among members of the government. This work addresses both the puzzle of the United States' preference for rule-based dispute resolution and the broader implications for international law.
Keywords: WTO, international law, international trade
JEL Classification: K33
Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation
Do you have negative results from your research you’d like to share?
Recommended Papers
-
Participation in WTO Dispute Settlement: Complainants, Interested Parties and Free Riders
By Chad P. Bown
-
The Optimal Design of International Trade Institutions: Uncertainty and Escape
-
GATT, Dispute Settlement and Cooperation
By Marie C. Thursby and Dan Kovenock
-
The Case for Auctioning Countermeasures in the WTO
By Kyle Bagwell, Petros C. Mavroidis, ...
-
The Case for Tradable Remedies in WTO Dispute Settlement
By Kyle Bagwell, Petros C. Mavroidis, ...
-
Power Plays and Capacity Constraints: The Selection of Defendants in WTO Disputes
By Andrew T. Guzman and Beth A. Simmons
-
Peculiarities of Retaliation in WTO Dispute Settlement
By Kym Anderson