Book contents
- International Economic Dispute Settlement
- International Economic Dispute Settlement
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Preface
- Abbreviations
- 1 Introduction
- 2 Contracting v. Multilateralism in Global Economic Governance
- Part I Current Challenges in International Trade Dispute Settlement
- 3 Sausage-Making at the WTO
- 4 Operationalizing MPIA Appeal Arbitrations:
- 5 Re-Designing the WTO Mediation Mechanism
- 6 Adjudication vs “Frontier Justice” in International Economic Law Disputes
- 7 WTO Dispute Settlement: “Will of the Strongest” or “Rule of Law”? Attempting to View Recent U.S. Actions through the Proper Lens
- Part II Current Challenges in International Investment Dispute Settlement
- Part III New Issue Areas and Dispute Settlement
- Part IV Regional Approaches for International Economic Dispute Settlement
- Index
- References
3 - Sausage-Making at the WTO
Looking Behind the Curtain of Dispute Settlement Procedures Over Time
from Part I - Current Challenges in International Trade Dispute Settlement
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 07 August 2021
Book contents
- International Economic Dispute Settlement
- International Economic Dispute Settlement
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Preface
- Abbreviations
- 1 Introduction
- 2 Contracting v. Multilateralism in Global Economic Governance
- Part I Current Challenges in International Trade Dispute Settlement
- 3 Sausage-Making at the WTO
- 4 Operationalizing MPIA Appeal Arbitrations:
- 5 Re-Designing the WTO Mediation Mechanism
- 6 Adjudication vs “Frontier Justice” in International Economic Law Disputes
- 7 WTO Dispute Settlement: “Will of the Strongest” or “Rule of Law”? Attempting to View Recent U.S. Actions through the Proper Lens
- Part II Current Challenges in International Investment Dispute Settlement
- Part III New Issue Areas and Dispute Settlement
- Part IV Regional Approaches for International Economic Dispute Settlement
- Index
- References
Summary
There often exists a gap between public perceptions about how the proverbial sausage is made, and the reality of sausage-making. Just as often, sausage-makers have an incentive to preserve this gap between facts and perception. This chapter considers the analogous incentives of the various sausage-makers in international judicial settings, with a focus on the World Trade Organization (WTO). I show how recent empirical advances can offer an unprecedented glimpse into the sausage-making of international adjudication.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- International Economic Dispute SettlementDemise or Transformation?, pp. 47 - 67Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2021
References
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.Google 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.Google 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.Google 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