Skip to main content
    • Aa
    • Aa
  • Get access
    Check if you have access via personal or institutional login
  • Cited by 39
  • Cited by
    This article has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by CrossRef.

    Allee, Todd and Elsig, Manfred 2016. Why do some international institutions contain strong dispute settlement provisions? New evidence from preferential trade agreements. The Review of International Organizations, Vol. 11, Issue. 1, p. 89.

    Gómez-Mera, Laura 2016. Region-Building in Africa.

    Narh, Peter 2016. Sand winning in Dormaa as an interlocking of livelihood strategies with environmental governance regimes. Environment, Development and Sustainability, Vol. 18, Issue. 2, p. 467.

    Welz, Martin 2016. Multi-actor peace operations and inter-organizational relations: insights from the Central African Republic. International Peacekeeping, Vol. 23, Issue. 4, p. 568.

    Buffardi, Anne L. Pekkanen, Robert J. and Smith, Steven Rathgeb 2015. Shopping or Specialization? Venue Targeting among Nonprofits Engaged in Advocacy. Policy Studies Journal, Vol. 43, Issue. 2, p. 188.

    Demortain, David 2015. The tools of globalization: ways of regulating and the structure of the international regime for pharmaceuticals. Review of International Political Economy, Vol. 22, Issue. 6, p. 1249.

    Drezner, Daniel W. 2015. America, China, and the Struggle for World Order.

    Kikuchi, Tsutomu 2015. Asian Leadership in Policy and Governance.

    Kuyper, Jonathan 2015. Deliberative capacity in the intellectual property rights regime complex. Critical Policy Studies, Vol. 9, Issue. 3, p. 317.

    Mazumder, Soumyajit 2015. Can I stay a BIT longer? The effect of bilateral investment treaties on political survival. The Review of International Organizations,

    Panke, Diana Lang, Stefan and Wiedemann, Anke 2015. Regional actors in the United Nations: exploring the regionalization of international negotiations. Global Affairs, Vol. 1, Issue. 4-5, p. 431.

    Bayer, Patrick Marcoux, Christopher and Urpelainen, Johannes 2014. Choosing international organizations: When do states and the World Bank collaborate on environmental projects?. The Review of International Organizations, Vol. 9, Issue. 4, p. 413.

    Dür, Andreas Baccini, Leonardo and Elsig, Manfred 2014. The design of international trade agreements: Introducing a new dataset. The Review of International Organizations, Vol. 9, Issue. 3, p. 353.

    Gehring, Thomas and Faude, Benjamin 2014. A theory of emerging order within institutional complexes: How competition among regulatory international institutions leads to institutional adaptation and division of labor. The Review of International Organizations, Vol. 9, Issue. 4, p. 471.

    Gomez-Mera, Laura and Molinari, Andrea 2014. Overlapping Institutions, Learning, and Dispute Initiation in Regional Trade Agreements: Evidence from South America. International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 58, Issue. 2, p. 269.

    MORIN, JEAN-FRÉDÉRIC and ORSINI, AMANDINE 2014. Policy coherency and regime complexes: the case of genetic resources. Review of International Studies, Vol. 40, Issue. 02, p. 303.

    Rabitz, Florian 2014. Explaining institutional change in international patent politics. Third World Quarterly, Vol. 35, Issue. 9, p. 1582.

    Bobick, Talya and Smith, Alastair 2013. The impact of leader turnover on the onset and the resolution of WTO disputes. The Review of International Organizations, Vol. 8, Issue. 4, p. 423.

    JOHNSTON, ADRIAN M. and TREBILCOCK, MICHAEL J. 2013. Fragmentation in international trade law: insights from the global investment regime. World Trade Review, Vol. 12, Issue. 04, p. 621.

    Murphy, Hannah and Kellow, Aynsley 2013. Forum Shopping in Global Governance: Understanding States, Business and NGOs in Multiple Arenas. Global Policy, Vol. 4, Issue. 2, p. 139.


Overlapping Institutions, Forum Shopping, and Dispute Settlement in International Trade

  • Marc L. Busch (a1)
  • DOI:
  • Published online: 01 October 2007

Preferential trade agreements offer members an alternative to dispute settlement at the World Trade Organization. This gives rise to forum shopping, in that complainants can file regionally, multilaterally, or not at all. What explains this choice of forum? I argue that complainants strategically discriminate among overlapping memberships: on a given measure(s), some prefer to set a precedent that bears only on a subset of their trade relations, others a precedent that bears on all their trade relations, while still others prefer not to set a precedent. Thus, the key to forum shopping is not simply which institution is likely to come closest to the complainant's ideal ruling against the defendant, but where the resulting precedent will be more useful in the future, enabling the complainant to bring litigation against other members, rather than helping other members bring litigation against the complainant. I consider disputes over Mexican brooms and Canadian periodicals.For comments, I thank Vinod Aggarwal, Raj Bhala, Jane Bradley, Bill Davey, Rob Howse, Miles Kahler, Simon Lester, Rod Ludema, Ed Mansfield, Lisa Martin, Petros C. Mavroidis, John Odell, Joost Pauwelyn, Amy Porges, Eric Reinhardt, Peter Rosendorff, Ken Scheve, Ed Schwartz, Christina Sevilla, Michael Simon, Jay Smith, Debra Steger, Joel Trachtman, Todd Weiler, seminar participants in the Program on International Politics, Economics, and Security (PIPES) at the University of Chicago, and two anonymous referees. All shortcomings are, of course, my own. For research support, I thank the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research and the Social Science and Humanities Research Council of Canada. For research assistance, I thank Alex Muggah, Krzysztof Pelc, and Scott Winter.

Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

International Organization
  • ISSN: 0020-8183
  • EISSN: 1531-5088
  • URL: /core/journals/international-organization
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *