Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-22dnz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T22:41:37.624Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Amicus Curiae Briefs in the WTO DSM: Good or Bad News for Non-State Actor Involvement?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 March 2017

THERESA SQUATRITO
THERESA SQUATRITO*
Affiliation:
University of Oslo
*
*Email: theresa.squatrito@jus.uio.no
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Since 1998, non-state actors have had access to submit an ‘amicus curiae’ brief to the WTO DSM. Like other forms of non-state actor involvement in the WTO, amicus curiae access has been controversial. Despite this controversy, non-state actors have made use of this access and submitted amicus curiae briefs. This article asks: What has come of these briefs once they are submitted and what explains how amicus are treated by the DSM? This article empirically maps amici in all disputes from 1998 (after amicus access was first recognized) through 2014, arguing that amicus access is conditioned by a combination of political and legal constraints faced by the WTO panels and AB. In particular, whether the content of an amicus is considered hinges on it having the endorsement of a disputing party and whether its consideration interferes with the WTO DSM's reputation for coherence. In all, these findings have implications for the debate over whether amicus curiae access is good or bad news for the WTO and non-state actor involvement.

Type
Review Article
Information
World Trade Review , Volume 17 , Issue 1 , January 2018 , pp. 65 - 89
Copyright
Copyright © Theresa Squatrito 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Previous versions of this paper have been presented at the 2015 ECPR Joint Sessions in Warsaw and the 2014 American Society of International Law Research Forum. Special thanks to Tarald Laudal Berge, Daniel Naurin, Julian Dederke, Lynn Dobson, Rachel Brewster, Ronny Patz, Per-Olof Busch, Michal Parízek, and anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments. This article was written under the auspices of Research Council of Norway through its Centres of Excellence Funding Scheme, project number 223274 PluriCourts: The Legitimacy of the International Judiciary.

References

Alter, K. J. (2008), ‘Agents or Trustees? International Courts in Their Political Context’, European Journal of International Relations, 14(1): 33–63.Google Scholar
Busch, M. L. and Pelc, K. J. (2010), ‘The Politics of Judicial Economy at the World Trade Organization’, International Organization, 64(2): 257–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Busch, M. L. and Reinhardt, E. (2006), ‘Three's a Crowd: Third Parties and WTO Dispute Settlement’, World Politics, 58(3): 446–477.Google Scholar
Carrubba, C. J., Matthew, G., and Hankla, C. (2008), ‘Judicial Behavior under Political Constraints: Evidence from the European Court of Justice’, American Political Science Review, 102(4): 435–452.Google Scholar
Charnovitz, S. (2000), ‘Opening the WTO to Nongovernmental Interests’, Fordham International Law Journal, 24: 173–216.Google Scholar
Dunoff, J. L. (1998), ‘The Misguided Debate over NGO Participation at the WTO’, Journal of International Economic Law, 1(3): 433–456.Google Scholar
Dunoff, J. L. (2006), ‘Constitutional Conceits: The WTO's “Constitution” and the Discipline of International Law’, European Journal of International Law, 17(3): 647–675.Google Scholar
Dworkin, R. (1986), Law's Empire, Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.Google Scholar
Elsig, M. and Pollack, M. (2014), ‘Agents, Trustees, and International Courts: The Politics of Judicial Appointment at the World Trade Organization’, European Journal of International Relations, 20(2): 391–415.Google Scholar
Esty, D. C. (1998), ‘Non-Governmental Organizations at the World Trade Organization: Cooperation, Competition, or Exclusion’, Journal of International Economic Law, 1(1): 123–148.Google Scholar
Franck, T. M. (1990), The Power of Legitimacy among Nations, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Franck, T. M. (1995). Fairness in International Law and Institutions, Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Garrett, G., Kelemen, R. D., and Schulz, H. (1998), ‘The European Court of Justice, National Governments, and Legal Integration in the European Union’, International Organization, 52(1): 149–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ginsburg, T. (2013), ‘Political Constraints on International Courts’, in Romano, C., Alter, K., and Shany, Y. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of International Adjudication, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 483–502.Google Scholar
Hanegraaff, M., Beyers, J., and Braun, C. (2011), ‘Open the Door to More of the Same? The Development of Interest Group Representation at the WTO’, World Trade Review, 10(4): 447–472.Google Scholar
Hanegraaff, M., Braun, C., De Bièvre, D., and Beyers, J. (2015), ‘The Domestic and Global Origins of Transnational Advocacy: Explaining Lobbying Presence During WTO Ministerial Conferences’, Comparative Political Studies, 48(12): 1591–1621.Google Scholar
Kelemen, D. (2001), ‘The Limits of Judicial Power: Trade–Environment Disputes in the GATT/WTO and the EU’, Comparative Political Studies, 34(6): 622–650.Google Scholar
Larsson, O. and Naurin, D. (2016), ‘Judicial Independence and Political Uncertainty: How the Risk of Override Affects the Court of Justice of the EU’, International Organization, 70(2): 377–408.Google Scholar
Marceau, G. and Hurley, M. (2012), ‘Transparency and Public Participation: A Report Card on WTO Transparency Mechanisms’, Trade, Law and Development, 4(1): 19–44.Google Scholar
Mavroidis, P. C. (2002), ‘Amicus Curiae Briefs before the WTO: Much Ado about Nothing’, Jean Monnet Working Paper 2/01.Google Scholar
McCall Smith, J. (2003), ‘WTO Dispute Settlement: The Politics of Procedure in Appellate Body Rulings’, World Trade Review, 2(1): 65–100.Google Scholar
O'Brien, R., Goetz, A. Marie, Scholte, J. Aart, and Williams, M. (2000), Contesting Global Governance: Multinational Economic Institutions and Global Social Movements, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scholte, J., O'Brien, R., and Williams, M. (1999), ‘The WTO and Civil Society’, Journal World Trade, 33(1): 107–123.Google Scholar
Shaffer, G. C. (2001), ‘The World Trade Organization under Challenge: Democracy and the Law and Politics of the WTO's Treatment of Trade and Environment Matters’, Harvard Environmental Law Review, 25(1): 1–93.Google Scholar
Slotboom, M. M. (2006), ‘Participation of NGOs before the WTO and EC Tribunals: Which Court is the Better Friend?’, World Trade Review, 5(1): 69–101.Google Scholar
Squatrito, T. (2012), ‘Opening the Doors to the WTO Dispute Settlement: State Preferences on NGO Access as Amici’, Swiss Political Science Review, 18(2): 175–198.Google Scholar
Steffek, J., Kissling, C., and Nanz, P. (2008), Civil Society Participation in European and Global Governance: A Cure for the Democratic Governance, New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Steinberg, R. H. (2004), ‘Judicial Lawmaking at the WTO: Discursive, Constitutional, and Political Constraints’, American Journal of International Law, 98(2): 247–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stern, B. (2005), ‘The Intervention of Private Entities and States “as Friends of the Court” in the WTO Dispute Settlement Proceedings’, in Macrory, P., Appleton, A., and Plummer, M. (eds.), The World Trade Organization: Legal, Economic, and Political Analysis, Boston, MA: Springer, pp. 1427–1458.Google Scholar
Stone Sweet, A. and Brunell, T. L. (2013), ‘Trustee Courts and the Judicialization of International Regimes: The Politics of Majoritarian Activism in the European Convention on Human Rights, the European Union, and the World Trade Organization’, Journal of Law and Courts, 1(1): 61–88.Google Scholar
Tallberg, J., Sommerer, T., Squatrito, T., and Jönsson, C. (2013), The Opening Up of International Organization: Transnational Access in Global Governance, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Google Scholar
Trachtman, J. P. and Moremen, P. M. (2003), ‘Costs and Benefits of Private Participation in WTO Dispute Settlement: Whose Right Is It Anyway?’, Harvard International Law Journal, 44(1): 221–250.Google Scholar
Umbricht, G. C. (2001), ‘An “Amicus Curiae Brief” on Amicus Curiae Briefs at the WTO’, Journal of International Economic Law, 4(4): 773–794.Google Scholar
Van den Bossche, P. (2008), ‘NGO Involvement in the WTO: A Comparative Perspective’, Journal of International Economic Law, 11(4): 717–749.Google Scholar