Baetens, F. (Ed.), 2019. Legitimacy of Unseen Actors in International Adjudication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Blustein, P. 2017. “China Inc. in the WTO Dock, Tales from a System under Fire,” Centre for International Governance Innovation Papers No. 157.Google Scholar

Brutger, R. and Morse, J. 2015. “Balancing Law and Politics: Judicial Incentives in WTO Dispute Settlement,” Review of International Organizations 10(2): 179–205.Google Scholar

Busch, M. L. and Pelc, K. 2010. “The Politics of Judicial Economy at the World Trade Organization,” International Organization 64(2): 257–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Busch, M. L. and Pelc, P. 2019. “Words Matter: How International Courts Handle Political Controversy,” International Studies Quarterly 63(2): 464–76.Google Scholar

Busch, M. L., Reinhardt, E. and Shaffer, G. 2009. “Does Legal Capacity Matter? A Survey of WTO Members,” World Trade Review 8(4): 559–77.Google Scholar

Charlotin, D. 2019. “Identifying the Voices of Unseen Actors in Investor-State Dispute Settlement.” In Baetens, F. (Ed.), Legitimacy of Unseen Actors in International Adjudication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 392–426.Google Scholar

Creamer, C. D. and Godzimirska, Z. 2019. “Trust in the Court: The Role of the Registry of the European Court of Human Rights,” European Journal of International Law 30(2): 665–87.Google Scholar

Daku, M. and Pelc, P. 2017. “Who Holds Influence over WTO Jurisprudence?” Journal of International Economic Law 20(2): 233–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Davis, C. L. and Bermeo, S. B. 2009. “Who Files? Developing Country Participation in GATT/WTO Adjudication,” The Journal of Politics 71(3): 1033–49.Google Scholar

Douglas, Z. 2013. “The Secretary to the Arbitral Tribunal.” In Berger, B. and Schneider, M. (Eds.), Inside the Black Box: How Arbitral Tribunals Operate and Reach Their Decisions, ASA Special Series, No. 42, pp. 87–92.Google Scholar

Dunoff, J. and Pollack, M. 2017. “The Judicial Trilemma,” American Journal of International Law 111(2): 225–76.Google Scholar

Elsig, M. 2011. “Principal–Agent Theory and the World Trade Organization: Complex Agency and ‘Missing Delegation’,” European Journal of International Relations 17(3): 495–517.Google Scholar

Ferejohn, J. 2002. “Judicializing Politics, Politicizing Law,” Law and Contemporary Problems 65(3): 41–68.Google Scholar

Johannesson, L. and Mavroidis, P. 2017. “The WTO Dispute Settlement System 1995–2016: A Data Set and Its Descriptive Statistics,” Journal of World Trade 51(3): 357–408.Google Scholar

Johns, L. and Pelc, K. 2016. “Fear of Crowds in WTO Disputes: Why Don’t More Countries Participate?” Journal of Politics 78(1): 88–104.Google Scholar

Lowenfeld, A. 1994. “Remedies along with Rights: Institutional Reform in the New GATT,” American Journal of International Law 88(3): 477–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Marceau, G. (Ed.), 2015. A History of Law and Lawyers in the GATT/WTO: The Development of the Rule of Law in the Multilateral Trading System. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Nossek, S. and Pelc, K. 2020. “Do International Tribunals Time Their Rulings Strategically?” Working paper.Google Scholar

Owens, R. and Wedeking, J. 2011. “Justices and Legal Clarity: Analyzing the Complexity of US Supreme Court Opinions,” Law and Society Review 45(4): 1027–61.Google Scholar

Pauwelyn, J. and Pelc, K. 2020a. “Who Writes the Rulings of the World Trade Organization? A Critical Assessment of the Role of the Secretariat in WTO Dispute Settlement.” Working paper. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3458872.Google Scholar

Pauwelyn, J. and Pelc, K. 2020b. “Lifting the Veil of Anonymity in Dissenting Opinions: Implications for Institutional Design.” Working paper.Google Scholar

Pelc, K. 2014. “The Politics of Precedent in International Law: A Social Network Application,” American Political Science Review 108(3): 547–64.Google Scholar

Pelc, K. 2016. Making and Bending International Rules: The Design of Exceptions and Escape Clauses in Trade Law. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Pelc, K. 2017. “Twenty Years of Third Party Participation at the WTO: What Have We Learned?” In Elsig, M., Hoekman, B. and Pauwelyn, J. (Eds.), Assessing the World Trade Organization: Fit for Purpose? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 203–22.Google Scholar

Petersmann, E.-U. 2015. “The Establishment of a GATT Office of Legal Affairs and the Limits of ‘Public Reason’ in the GATT/WTO Dispute Settlement System.” In Marceau, G. (ed.), A History of Law and Lawyers in the GATT/WTO: The Development of the Rule of Law in the Multilateral Trading System. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 182–207.Google Scholar

Porges, A. 2015. “The Legal Affairs Division and Law in the GATT and the Uruguay Round.” In Marceau, G. (Ed.), A History of Law and Lawyers in the GATT/WTO: The Development of the Rule of Law in the Multilateral Trading System. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 223–35.Google Scholar

Roessler, F. 2015. “The Role of Law in International Trade Relations and the Establishment of the Legal Affairs Division of the GATT.” In Marceau, G. (Ed.), A History of Law and Lawyers in the GATT/WTO: The Development of the Rule of Law in the Multilateral Trading System. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 161–74.Google Scholar

Shell, R. 1995. “Trade Legalism and International Relations Theory: An Analysis of the World Trade Organization,” Duke Law Journal 44(5): 830–927.Google Scholar

Sim, C. 2019. “The Essence of Adjudication: Legitimacy of Case Managers in International Arbitration.” In Baetens, F. (Ed.), Legitimacy of Unseen Actors in International Adjudication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 217–37.Google Scholar

Soave, T. 2019. “The Politics of Invisibility: Why Are International Judicial Bureaucrats Obscured from View?” In Baetens, F. (Ed.), Legitimacy of Unseen Actors in International Adjudication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 323–46.Google Scholar

Staton, J. and Romero, A. 2019. “Rational Remedies: The Role of Opinion Clarity in the Inter-American Human Rights System,” International Studies Quarterly 63(3): 477–91.Google Scholar

Andersen, S. et al. 2017 “Using Arbitration Under Article 25 of The DSU to Ensure the Availability of Appeals,” CTEI-2017–17, CTEI Working Papers.Google Scholar

Bacchus, J. 2018. “Saving the WTO’s Appeals Process,” Cato at Liberty, 12 October 2018, www.cato.org/blog/saving-wtos-appeals-process. Accessed on 20 October 2019.Google Scholar

Davey, W. J. 2009. “Compliance Problems in WTO Dispute Settlement,” Cornell International Law Journal: 42(1): 119–28.Google Scholar

Hughes, V. 2004. “7. Arbitration with the WTO.” In Ortino, F. and Petersmann, E-U. (Eds.), The WTO Dispute Settlement System 1995–2003. The Hague: Kluwer Law International, pp. 78–9.Google Scholar

Jaswant, S. 2020. “Arbitration in the WTO: Changing Regimes Under the New Multi-party Interim Appeal Arbitration Arrangement,” 14 May 2020, Kluwer Arbitration Blog, http://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/2020/05/14/arbitration-in-the-wto-changing-regimes-under-the-new-multi-party-interim-appeal-arbitration-arrangement/?doing_wp_cron=1598359995.3023118972778320312500. Accessed on 23 August 2020.Google Scholar

Lester, S. 2020. “The New Multi-Party Interim Appeal Arbitration Arrangement Pursuant to Article 25 of the DSU,” https://ielp.worldtradelaw.net/dsu-25-interim-appeals/. Accessed on 23 August 2020.Google Scholar

Pauwelyn, J. 2019. “WTO Dispute Settlement Post 2019: What to Expect?,” Journal of International Economic Law 22(3): 297–321.Google Scholar

Vidigal, G. 2019. “Living Without the Appellate Body: Multilateral, Bilateral and Plurilateral Solutions to the WTO Dispute Settlement Crisis,” Journal of World Investment & Trade 20(20): 862–90.Google Scholar

Appellate Body Report, Canada – Continued Suspension of Obligations in the EC – Hormones Dispute, WT/DS321/AB/R, adopted 14 November 2008, DSR 2008:XIV, p. 5373.Google Scholar

Appellate Body Report, India – Measures Affecting the Automotive Sector, WT/DS146/AB/R, WT/DS175/AB/R, adopted 5 April 2002, DSR 2002:V, p. 1821.Google Scholar

Appellate Body Report, Indonesia – Safeguard on Certain Iron or Steel Products, WT/DS490/AB/R, WT/DS496/AB/R, and Add.1, adopted 27 August 2018, DSR 2018:VII, p. 3393.Google Scholar

Appellate Body Report, Japan – Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages, WT/DS8/AB/R, WT/DS10/AB/R, WT/DS11/AB/R, adopted 1 November 1996, DSR 1996:I, p. 97.Google Scholar

Appellate Body Report, Morocco – Anti-dumping Measures on Certain Hot-Rolled Steel from Turkey, WT/DS513/AB/R and Add.1, adopted 8 January 2020.Google Scholar

Appellate Body Report, United States – Continued Suspension of Obligations in the EC – Hormones Dispute, WT/DS320/AB/R, adopted 14 November 2008, DSR 2008:X, p. 3507.Google Scholar

Appellate Body Report, United States – Final Anti-Dumping Measures on Stainless Steel from Mexico, WT/DS344/AB/R, adopted 20 May 2008, DSR 2008:II, p. 513.Google Scholar

Appellate Body Report, United States – Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products – Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by Malaysia, WT/DS58/AB/RW, adopted 21 November 2001, DSR 2001:XIII, p. 6481.Google Scholar

Award of the Arbitrator, European Communities – The ACP-EC Partnership Agreement – Recourse to Arbitration Pursuant to the Decision of 14 November 2001, WT/L/616, 1 August 2005, DSR 2005:XXIII, p. 11669.Google Scholar

Award of the Arbitrator, United States – Section 110 (5)of the US Copyright Act – Recourse to Arbitration under Article 25 of the DSU, WT/DS160/ARB25/1, 9 November 2001, DSR 2001:II, p. 667.Google Scholar

Panel Report, European Communities and Certain Member States – Measures Affecting Trade in Large Civil Aircraft, WT/DS316/R, adopted 1 June 2011, as modified by Appellate Body Report WT/DS316/AB/R, DSR 2011:II, p. 685.Google Scholar

Panel Report, European Communities – Regime for the Importation, Sale and Distribution of Bananas, Complaint by Ecuador, WT/DS27/R/ECU, adopted 25 September 1997, as modified by Appellate Body Report WT/DS27/AB/R, DSR 1997:III, p. 1085.Google Scholar

Panel Report, Guatemala – Definitive Anti-Dumping Measures on Grey Portland Cement from Mexico, WT/DS156/R, adopted 17 November 2000, DSR 2000:XI, p. 5295.Google Scholar

Panel Report, Indonesia – Safeguard on Certain Iron or Steel Products, WT/DS490/R, WT/DS496/R, and Add.1, adopted 27 August 2018, as modified by Appellate Body Report WT/DS490/AB/R, WT/DS496/AB/R, DSR 2018:VII, p. 3707.Google Scholar

Panel Report, United States – Measures Affecting Trade in Large Civil Aircraft (Second Complaint), WT/DS353/R, adopted 23 March 2012, as modified by Appellate Body Report WT/DS353/AB/R, DSR 2012:II, p. 649.Google Scholar

Annex to Recourse to Article 25 of the DSU, para. 2, WT/DS160/15, 3 August 2001.Google Scholar

Canada – Measures Concerning Trade in Commercial Aircraft (Brazil), “Agreed Procedures for Arbitration under Article 25 of the DSU,” WT/DS522/20, 3 June 2020.Google Scholar

Canada – Measures Governing the Sale of Wine (Australia), “Agreed Procedures for Arbitration under Article 25 of the DSU,” WT/DS537/15, 3 June 2020.Google Scholar

Colombia – Anti-Dumping Duties on Frozen Fries from Belgium, Germany and the Netherlands, “Agreed Procedures for Arbitration under Article 25 of the DSU,” WT/DS591/3, 15 July 2020.Google Scholar

Communication from Switzerland, “Arbitration within GATT,” MTN.GNG/NG13/W/33, 19 July 1989, paras 2, 9, 11, 12.Google Scholar

Costa Rica – Measures Concerning the Importation of Fresh Avocados from Mexico, “Agreed Procedures for Arbitration under Article 25 of the DSU,” WT/DS524/5, 3 June 2020.Google Scholar

Draft Decision on the Functioning of the Appellate Body, WT/GC/W/791, 28 November 2019.Google Scholar

Draft Final Act Embodying the Results of the Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations, MTN.TNC/W/35/Rev.1, 3 December 1990.Google Scholar

Draft Text on Dispute Settlement, MTN.GNG/NG13/W/45, 21 September 1990, p. 9.Google Scholar

DSU in Draft Final Act Embodying the Results of the Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations, MTN.TNC/W/FA, 20 December 1991.Google Scholar

Minutes of the DSB Meeting of 22 May 2017, WT/DSB/M/397, 18 August 2017, paras 7.1–7.24.Google Scholar

Minutes of the DSB Meeting of 22 November 2019, WT/DSB/M/437, 30 January 2020, paras 3.1–3.4.Google Scholar

Minutes of the DSB Meeting of 18 December 2019, WT/DSB/M/438, 25 February 2020, paras 1.22–1.26.Google Scholar

Note by the Secretariat, “Concept, Forms and Effects of Arbitration,” MTN.GNG/NG13/W/20, 22 February 1988, paras 12–17.Google Scholar

Note by the Secretariat, “Summary and Comparative Analysis of Proposal for Negotiations,” MTN.GNG/NG13/W/14, 3 November 1987, paras 72–4.Google Scholar

Notification of a Mutually Satisfactory Temporary Arrangement, WT/DS160/23, 26 June 2003.Google Scholar

Recourse to Article 25 of the DSU, WT/DS160/15, 3 August 2001.Google Scholar

Report by DSB Chair Amb. David Walker to the General Council on the Areas of Convergence, JOB/GC/222, 15 October 2019.Google Scholar

“Statement on a Mechanism for Developing, Documenting and Sharing Practices and Procedures in the Conduct of WTO Disputes,” Addendum, JOB/DSB/1/Add.11, 25 July 2019, as amended by JOB/DSB/1/Add.11/Rev.1, 22 October 2019, para. 7.Google Scholar

“Statement on a Mechanism for Developing, Documenting and Sharing Practices and Procedures in the Conduct of WTO Disputes,” Addendum, JOB/DSB/1/Add.11/Suppl.1, 21 October 2019, para. 7.Google Scholar

“Statement on a Mechanism for Developing, Documenting and Sharing Practices and Procedures in the Conduct of WTO Disputes,” Addendum, JOB/DSB/1/Add.12, 30 April 2020.Google Scholar

“Statement on a Mechanism for Developing, Documenting and Sharing Practices and Procedures in the Conduct of WTO Disputesv” Supplement, JOB/DSB/1/Add.12/Suppl.5, 3 August 2020.Google Scholar

Understanding Between Indonesia and Chinese Taipei Regarding Procedures under Articles 21 and 22 of the DSU in Indonesia – Safeguard on Certain Iron or Steel Products, WT/DS490/13, 15 April 2019.Google Scholar

Understanding Between Indonesia and Viet Nam Regarding Procedures under Articles 21 and 22 of the DSU in Indonesia – Safeguard on Certain Iron or Steel Products, WT/DS496/14, 27 March 2019.Google Scholar

Understanding Between the Republic of Korea and United States Regarding Procedures under Articles 21 and 22 of the DSU in United States – Anti-Dumping Measures on Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods from Korea, WT/DS488/16, 10 February 2020.Google Scholar

United States – Section 110 (5) of the US Copyright Act, Status Report by the United States, WT/DS160/24/Add.178, 17 January 2020.Google Scholar

European Commission, Statement by Ministers, Davos, Switzerland, 24 January 2020, https://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2020/january/tradoc_158596.pdf. Accessed on 28 February 2020.Google Scholar

United States Trade Representative, Report on the Appellate Body of the World Trade Organization, February 2020, https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/Report_on_the_Appellate_Body_of_the_World_Trade_Organization.pdf. Accessed on 14 August 2020.Google Scholar

ARMO 2018. “Draft Rules of Procedure for Mediation Conducted under the Asia-Pacific Regional Mediation Organization,” Asian Journal for WTO and International Health Law and Policy 13: 17–26.Google Scholar

ARMO Initiative 2020. Background and Essence of ARMO Initiative, www.armomediation.com/backgroud-and-essence-of-armo-initiativeGoogle Scholar

CETA 2017. Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) between Canada and the European Union and Its Member States, provisionally in force since 21 September 2017.Google Scholar

Energy Charter 2016. Decision of the Energy Charter Conference. Adoption by Correspondence of the Guide on Investment Mediation, CCDEC 2016, 19 July 2016.Google Scholar

EU – Korea FTA 2011. Free Trade Agreement Between the European Union and Its Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Korea, of the other part, OJ L 127/6, 14 May 2011.Google Scholar

EU – Mexico Global Agreement 2018. New EU – Mexico agreement: The Agreement in Principle and its texts, https://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/press/index.cfm?id=1833Google Scholar

EU – Viet Nam FTA 2020. Free Trade Agreement Between the European Union and the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam, OJ L 186/3, 12 June 2020.Google Scholar

Fraser, V. 2012. “Horizontal Mechanism Proposal for the Resolution of Non-Tariff Barrier Disputes at the WTO: An Analysis,” Journal of International Economic Law 15(4): 1033–73.Google Scholar

Goldberg, S. B., Sander, F. E. A., Rogers, N. H. and Cole, S. R. 2012. Dispute Resolution. Negotiation, Mediation, Arbitration, and Other Processes. New York: Wolters Kluwer.Google Scholar

Greig, J. M. and Diehl, P. F. 2012. International Mediation. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar

Holzer, K. 2018. “Addressing Tensions and Avoiding Disputes: Specific Trade Concerns in the TBT Committee,” Staff Working Paper ERSD-2018–11, 31 October 2018.Google Scholar

IBA 2012. IBA Rules for Investor-State Mediation, adopted by a resolution of the IBA Council, 4 October 2012.Google Scholar

ICC 2014. ICC Mediation Rules, 1 January 2014, https://iccwbo.org/dispute-resolution-services/mediation/mediation-rules/Google Scholar

ICSID 2020. “Proposals for Amendment of the ICSID Rules,” Working Paper No. 4, February 2020. Rules for Mediation Proceedings (ICSID Mediation Rules), pp. 213–26, https://icsid.worldbank.org/sites/default/files/documents/WP_4_Vol_1_En.pdfGoogle Scholar

McDougall, R. 2017. “Making Trade Dispute Settlement More Accessible and Inclusive,” Centre for International Governance Innovation, 2 November 2017.Google Scholar

Palmeter, D. and Mavoridis, P. C. 2004. Dispute Settlement in the World Trade Organization. Practice and Procedure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Park, N. and Chung, M.-H. 2016. “Analysis of a New Mediation Procedure under the WTO SPS Agreement,” Journal of World Trade 50(1): 93–115.Google Scholar

Payosova, T. 2018. “Mediation in the Future WTO Dispute Settlement Governance,” Harvard Law School, LLM thesis.Google Scholar

SCC 2014. “Mediation Rules 2014,” Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce, https://sccinstitute.com/media/49819/medlingsregler_eng_web.pdfGoogle Scholar

TTIP 2015. Textual Proposal. Dispute Settlement, http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2015/january/tradoc_153032.pdfGoogle Scholar

UNCTAD 2010. “Investor–State Disputes: Prevention and Alternatives to Arbitration,” UNCTAD Series on International Investment Policies for Development, United Nations, New York and Geneva.Google Scholar

Vukovic, S. 2016. International Multiparty Mediation and Conflict Management. Challenges of Cooperation and Coordination. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Wolfe, R. 2015. “How Can We Know (More) about the Trade Effects of Regulation?” E15 Task Force on Regulatory Systems Coherence, Think Piece, September 2015.Google Scholar

WTO 1966. “Decision of 5 April 1966 on Procedures under Article XXIII,” BISD 14S/18.Google Scholar

WTO 1995. “Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures, Working Procedures of the Committee,” G/SPS/1, 4 April 1995.Google Scholar

WTO 2001. “Article 5 of the Dispute Settlement Understanding, Communication from the Director-General,” WT/DSB/25, 17 July 2001.Google Scholar

WTO 2002a. “Communication from Paraguay, Negotiations on Improvements and Clarifications of the Dispute Settlement Understanding,” Special Session of the Dispute Settlement Body, 25 September 2002, TN/DS/W/16.Google Scholar

WTO 2002b. “Contribution of the European Communities and Its Member States to the Improvement of the WTO Dispute Settlement Understanding,” DSB Special Session, 13 March 2002, TN/DS/W/1.Google Scholar

WTO 2002c. “Request for Mediation by the Philippines, Thailand and the European Communities, Communication from the Director-General, WT/GC/66, 16 October 2002 and WT/GC/66/Add.1,” 23 December 2002.Google Scholar

WTO 2003a. “Report by the Chairman, Ambassador Peter Balas to the Trade Negotiations Committee,” TN/DS/9, 6 June 2003.Google Scholar

WTO 2003b. “Special Session of the Dispute Settlement Body, 14 October 2002, Minutes of the Meeting (27 February 2003),” TN/DS/M/5.Google Scholar

WTO 2008. “Negotiating Group on Market Access, Market Access for Non-Agricultural Products, Negotiating Proposal on WTO Means to Reduce the Risk of Future NTBs and to Facilitate Their Resolution, Communication from the European Communities,” TN/MA/W/11/Add.8, 1 May 2008.Google Scholar

WTO 2009. “Negotiating Group on Market Access, Market Access for Non-Agricultural Products, Answers by the Co-Sponsors to Questions Raised during Chair’s NTB Sessions in 2009 Regarding the Proposed ‘Ministerial Decision on Procedures for the Facilitation of Solutions to Non-Tariff Barriers’,” TN/MA/W/110/Rev.1, 29 October 2009.Google Scholar

WTO 2010. “Negotiating Group on Market Access, Market Access for Non-Agricultural Products, Ministerial Decision on Procedures for the Facilitation of Solutions to Non-Tariff Barriers, Communication from the African Group, Canada, European Union, LDC Group, NAMA-11, Group of Developing Countries, New Zealand, Norway, Pakistan and Switzerland,” TN/MA/W/106/Rev.1, 3 February 2010.Google Scholar

WTO 2012. “Negotiating Group on Market Access, Report by the Chairman,” TN/MA/23, 18 July 2012.Google Scholar

WTO 2014. “SPS Committee, Procedure to Encourage and Facilitate the Resolution of Specific Sanitary or Phytosanitary Issues among Members in accordance with Article 12.2, Decision adopted on 9 July 2014,” G/SPS/61, 8 September 2014.Google Scholar

WTO 2018a. A Handbook on the WTO Dispute Settlement System. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

WTO 2018b. “Catalogue of Instruments Available to WTO Members to Manage SPS Issues,” G/SPS/63, 26 March 2018.Google Scholar

WTO 2020. “Negotiations to Improve Dispute Settlement Procedures,” www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/dispu_negs_e.htmGoogle Scholar

Abbott, K. and Snidal, D. 2000. “Hard and Soft Law in International Governance,” International Organization 54(3): 421–56.Google Scholar

Anesi, V. and Facchini, G. 2019. “Coercive Trade Policy,” American Economic Journal: Microeconomics 2019, 11(3): 225–56.Google Scholar

Bacchus, J., Lester, S. and Zhu, H. 2018. “Disciplining China’s Trade Practices at the WTO: How WTO Complaints Can Help Make China More Market-Oriented,” Cato Policy Analysis No. 856, 15 November 2018, www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/disciplining-chinas-trade-practices-wto-how-wto-complaints-can-help. Accessed 30 January 2020.Google Scholar

Bayard, T. and Elliott, K. 1994. Reciprocity and Retaliation in U.S. Trade Policy. Washington, DC: Institute for International Economics.Google Scholar

Bown, C. 2020. “US-China Trade War Tariffs: An Up-to-Date Chart,” Peterson Institute for International Economics, 14 February 2020, www.piie.com/research/piie-charts/us-china-trade-war-tariffs-date-chart.Google Scholar

Cheng, B. 1983. “Custom: The Future of General State Practice in a Divided World.” In Macdonald, R. and Johnston, D. (Eds.), The Structure and Process of International Law: Essays in Legal Philosophy, Doctrine, and Theory. Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.Google Scholar

Davey, W. J. 2006. “The WTO: Looking Forwards,” Journal of International Economic Law 9(1): 3–29.Google Scholar

Davis, B. 2020. “U.S–China Deal Could Upend the Way Nations Settle Disputes,” Wall Street Journal, 16 January 2020, www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-china-deal-could-upend-the-way-nations-settle-disputes-11579211598.Google Scholar

Dryden, S. 1995. Trade Warriors: USTR and the American Crusade for Free Trade. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Farley, R. 2017. “Trump Wrong About WTO Record,” FactCheck, 27 October 2017, www.factcheck.org/2017/10/trump-wrong-wto-record/.Google Scholar

Franck, T. 1988. “Legitimacy in the International System,” The American Society of International Law 82: 705–59.Google Scholar

Gross, L. 1993. “States as Organs of International Law and the Problem of Autointerpretation.” In Gross, L. (Ed.), Selected Essays on International Law and Organization. New York: Transnational Publishers.Google Scholar

Hollis, D. 2015. “The Existential Function of Interpretation in International Law.” In Bianchi, A., Peat, D. and Windsor, M. (Eds.), Interpretation in International Law. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Hudec, R. 1993. “Thinking about the New Section 301: Beyond Good and Evil.” In Bhagwati, J. N. and Patrick, H. T. (Eds.), Aggressive Unilateralism: America’s 301 Trading Policy and the World Trading System. New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf.Google Scholar

Ikenson, D. and Lighthizer, R. 2007. “Is the WTO Dispute Settlement System Fair?,” Council on Foreign Relations, 27 February 2007, www.cfr.org/article/wto-dispute-settlement-system-fair.Google Scholar

Irwin, D. 2017. Clashing over Commerce: A History of US Trade Policy. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Jackson, J. 1969. World Trade and the Law of GATT. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.Google Scholar

Kim, S. 2015. “Donald Trump Sells Chinese Goods Despite Accusing China of Stealing US Jobs,” abcnews, 17 June 2015, https://abcnews.go.com/Business/donald-trump-sells-chinese-goods-accusing-china-stealing/story?id=31826791.Google Scholar

Lester, S. 2019. “Section 301 as an Enforcement Tool for the USMCA,” International Economic Law and Policy Blog, 6 February 2019, https://worldtradelaw.typepad.com/ielpblog/2019/02/section-301-as-an-enforcement-tool-for-the-usmca.html.Google Scholar

Lester, S. and Manak, I. 2019a. “Enforcement in the USMCA: The Draft SAA and the Trump Administration’s Elevation of Section 301,” Cato-at-Liberty, 12 June 2019, www.cato.org/blog/enforcement-usmca-draft-saa-trump-administrations-elevation-section-301.Google Scholar

Lester, S. and Manak, I. 2019b. “The NAFTA/USMCA Panel Blocking Issue Looks Like It Has Been Fixed (Probably),” International Economic Law and Policy Blog, 11 December 2019, https://ielp.worldtradelaw.net/2019/12/the-naftausmca-panel-blocking-issue-looks-like-it-has-been-fixed.html.Google Scholar

Lester, S., Manak, I. and Arpas, A. 2019. “Access to Trade Justice: Fixing NAFTA’s Flawed State-to-State Dispute Settlement Process,” World Trade Review 18(1)6: 3–79.Google Scholar

Li, H. 2003. Principles of Treaty Law Beijing: Law Press.Google Scholar

Liang, S. 2011. International Law. Beijing: China University of Political Science and Law Press.Google Scholar

Lighthizer, R. 2008. “Grand Old Protectionists,” New York Times, 6 March 2008, www.nytimes.com/2008/03/06/opinion/06lighthizer.html.Google Scholar

Orakhelashvili, A. 2008. The Interpretation of Acts and Rules in Public International Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Pelc, K. J. 2010. “Constraining Coercion? Legitimacy and its Role in US Trade Policy, 1975–2000,” International Organization 64(1): 65–96.Google Scholar

Posner, E. and Yoo, J. C. 2004. “A Theory of International Adjudication,” U. Chicago L. & Economics, Olin Working Paper No. 206; UC Berkeley Public Law, Research Paper No. 146, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=507003. Accessed 30 January 2020.Google Scholar

Provost, R. 2015. “Interpretation in International Law as a Transcultural Project.” In Bianchi, A., Peat, D. and Windsor, M. (Eds.), Interpretation in International Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Roberts, A. 2017. Is International Law International? Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Schröder, C. 2015. “Early Dispute Settlement in the GATT.” In Marceau, G. (Ed.), A History of Law and Lawyers in the GATT/WTO. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Schwartz, I. 2017. “Full Lou Dobbs Interview: Trump Asks What Could Be More Fake Than CBS, NBC, ABC and CNN?,” Real Clear Politics, 25 October 2017, www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2017/10/25/full_lou_dobbs_interview_trump_asks_what_could_be_more_fake_than_cbs_nbc_abc_and_cnn.html.Google Scholar

Trachtman, J. 2004. “Book Review: Joost Pauwelyn, Conflict of Norms in Public International Law: How WTO Law Relates to other Rules of International Law. Cambridge University Press,” American Journal of International Law 98(4): 855–61.Google Scholar

Tzanakopoulos, A. 2011. Disobeying the Security Council: Countermeasures Against Wrongful Sanctions. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Wan, E. 1998. International Treaty Law. Wuhan, Hubei: Wuhan University Press.Google Scholar

Wang, T. 2015. International Law. Beijing: Law Press.Google Scholar

Weiler, J. 1999. The Constitution of Europe: “Do the New Clothes Have an Emperor?” and Other Essays on European Integration. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Xu, G. 2020. “Interpretation of China–US Trade Agreement Dispute Prevention and Settlement Mechanism,” 21 January 2020, www.cqlsw.net/news/overseas/2020012134074.html.Google Scholar

Xu, N. 2008. International Law. Beijing: China University of Political Science and Law Press.Google Scholar

Yu, Y. 2010. International Law. Xiamen, Fujian: Xiamen University Press.Google Scholar

Zarbiyev, F. 2011. “A Genealogy of Textualism in Treaty Interpretation.” In Bianchi, A., Peat, D., and Windsor, M. (Eds.), Interpretation in International Law. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Zhang, X. 2010. “What Has China Waived by the ‘Renunciation of Requests for War Reparations’ Clause in the 1972 Sino-Japanese Joint Communiqué?: Critical Reflections on Treaty Interpretation,” Tsinghua University Law Journal 3 1: 30–144, http://ems86.com/touzi/html/?26211.html. Accessed 20 January 2020.Google Scholar

Zhou, W. and Gao, H. 2020. “US-China Phase One Deal: A Brief Account,” Regulating for Globalization, 22 January 2020, http://regulatingforglobalization.com/2020/01/22/us-china-phase-one-deal-a-brief-account/.Google Scholar

Zhou, Z. 2008. International Law. Beijing: China University of Political Science and Law Press.Google Scholar

Baschuk, B. 2021. “Biden Picks Up Where Trump Left Off in Hard-Line Stances at WTO,” Bloomberg News, February 22.Google Scholar

Craig, P. 1997. “Formal and Substantive Conceptions of the Rule of Law,” Public Law 467–87.Google Scholar

Davis, K. and Trebilcock, M. 2008. “The Relationship between Law and Development: Optimists versus Skeptics,” The American Journal of Comparative Law 56(4): 895–946.Google Scholar

Dicey, A.V. 1885. Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar

Dworkin, R. 1978. “Political Judges and the Rule of Law,” Proceeding of the British Academy 64: 259–87.Google Scholar

Dworkin, R. 1986. Law’s Empire. Cambridge, Mass: Belknap Press.Google Scholar

Fuller, L. 1964. The Morality of Law. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.Google Scholar

Green, L. 2019. “Legal Positivism,” https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/legal-positivism/. Accessed on August 29, 2020.Google Scholar

Hayek, F. 1944. Road to Serfdom. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Habermas, J. 1996. Beyond Facts and Norms, translated by William Rehg. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Habermas, J. 1998. Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Humphreys, S. 2010. Theatre of the Rule of Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Kleinfeld, R. 2012. Advancing the Rule of Law Abroad: Next Generation Reform, Washington, D.C: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.Google Scholar

Neumann, M. 2002. The Rule of Law. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar

Tamanaha, B. 2004. On the Rule of Law: History, Politics, Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Van den Bossche, P. and Zdouc, W. 2017. The Law and Policy of the World Trade Organization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

WorldTradeLaw.net. 2019. ‘Dispute Settlement Commentary (DSC) Panel Report, Russia – Traffic in Transit (WT/DS512/R)’, http://worldtradelaw.net/document.php?id=dsc/panel/russia-trafficintransit(dsc)(panel).pdf. Accessed August 29, 2020.Google Scholar