The numbers do tell a story: 2022 was the year with the fewest disputes ever submitted to the WTO. The possibility to appeal into the void must have a played a role, dis-incentivizing potential complainants from formally submitting disputes. Appeal into the void? This requires some explanation.

The US–Mexico–Canada Agreement (USMCA) introduced a new compliance institution for labor rights in trade agreements: the facility-specific Rapid Response Labor Mechanism (RRM). The RRM was developed to tackle one particular thorn in the side of North American integration – labor rights for Mexican workers – as it had had detrimental, long-term political–economic consequences for the US–Mexico trade relationship. This article reviews the unique political–economic moment in the United States and Mexico that prompted the creation of this tool. It describes how the RRM works and the considerable financial and human resources the US and Mexican governments deployed to operationalize it. The article then reports a number of stylized facts on how governments used the RRM during its first three years, largely in the auto sector. It proposes paths of potentially fruitful political–economic research to aid understanding of the full implications of the RRM and concludes with preliminary lessons as well as a discussion on the potential for policymakers to assess facility-specific mechanisms for labor or other issues, such as the environment, in future economic agreements.

For several decades, civil society has sought to impose greater responsibility on companies for cross-border social wrongs. Multiple legal subfields and initiatives have emerged to take on this work: corporate social responsibility (CSR); business and human rights (BHR); responsible business conduct codes; environment, social, and governance (ESG) standards; and corporate due diligence schemes, among them. These many projects have culminated in national legislation across a range of jurisdictions imposing reporting and compliance requirements on companies, as well as in the development of soft law standards. Despite these efforts, international treaty initiatives to create binding obligations on companies and to require them to adopt certain human rights principles have made limited progress.

Unhappy with the rulings of the WTO dispute settlement system, which disproportionately targeted US use of trade remedies, the United States ended the entire system in 2019. There are multiple hurdles to agreeing to new terms of trade remedy use and thus potentially restoring some form of binding dispute settlement. First, a change would affect access to policy flexibility by the now large number of users of trade remedies. Second, although China's exports are the overwhelming target of trade remedies, exporters in other countries increasingly find themselves caught up in trade remedy actions linked to China. Third, critical differences posed by China's economic model may call for new rules for trade remedies, but no consensus on those rules has emerged. Even some of the most promising reforms have practical limitations, create additional challenges, or may be politically unviable.

Our annual gathering in Florence (8 and 9 July 2019), generously sponsored by the European University Institute, amidst the crisis at the WTO, was business as usual. Trading nations continue to entrust the WTO dispute settlement system with the adjudication of their disputes. The conference covered a very healthy number of disputes across different subject matter, ranging from antidumping duties to protection of public health.

The WTO dispute settlement system has come under severe criticism in recent times, which does not seem, for now at least, to affect its relevance. In terms of output, 2017 was yet another bumper year. We review eight cases that constitute the ‘last word’ of the dispute settlement system: we review exhaustively all Appellate Body reports, as well as all un-appealed panel reports.

The WTO adjudicating bodies faced some very tough questions in 2016: the status of non-market economies, the consistency of policies aiming to address tax evasion with the WTO, and the clash between environment and trade policies were all on the menu. Old issues, like the consistency of zeroing, resurfaced as well, albeit with a twist this time, since the Appellate Body (AB) had to address the question whether zeroing is consistent with the WTO when practiced in the realm of a methodology that was so far untested.

This paper provides a legal–economic assessment of the WTO Panel Report in US–Animals, one of a growing list of WTO disputes arising due to problematic conditions under which an importing country closes and reopens its market after an infectious disease outbreak in an exporting country. The United States banned imports of beef from Argentina following a 2000 Argentine outbreak of highly contagious foot-and-mouth disease (FMD), a disease not found in the United States since 1929. The United States refused to relax its import ban, and Argentina filed a WTO dispute in 2012, more than six years after its last FMD outbreak. Our analysis starts with Argentina's claim that the gap between its first requests, in 2002, to restore its trading rights and no action by the United States as of 2012 constituted ‘undue delay’. We rely on simple insights from economic research on asymmetric information problems – moral hazard and adverse selection – to describe the difficulties facing the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) and the WTO's Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) Agreement in dealing with problems like FMD. Such an environment creates disincentives for socially efficient behavior that were clearly realized in this episode. The exporting country has an incentive to hide information on outbreaks and report being disease-free too quickly, and the importing country has no incentive to quickly undertake the costly effort of conducting the necessary inspections to restore the exporter's market access. Finally, we address the Panel Report's treatment of alleged discrimination both across different FMD-impacted countries and across FMD-impacted and non-impacted geographic zones within Argentina, and we touch on the Report's shift in approach regarding the obligation of the United States to take into account the special needs of developing countries such as Argentina.

This paper examines the World Trade Organization's Article 22.6 arbitration report on the dispute over the United States’ country of origin labeling (US–COOL) regulation for meat products. At prior phases of the legal process, a WTO Panel and the Appellate Body had sided with Canada and Mexico by finding that the US regulation had negatively affected their exports of livestock – cattle and hogs – to the US market. The arbitrators authorized Canada and Mexico to retaliate by over $1 billion against US exports – the second largest authorized retaliation on record and only the twelfth WTO dispute to reach the stage of an arbitration report. Our legal–economic analysis focuses on several issues in the arbitration report. First, the complainants requested that, to compute the permissible retaliation limit, the arbitrators consider a new formula that would include the effects of domestic price suppression. We present a simple, economics-based model to explain the arbitrators’ rejection of this proposal. Second, we provide market context for the $1 billion finding. The arbitrators relied on the trade effects’ formula, which sets the retaliation limit as equivalent to the perceived loss of export revenue from the WTO violation. We argue that this amount was implausibly large, given the conditions in the US market for cattle and hogs during this period. We then describe the challenges facing arbitrators as they construct such estimates, including those likely to have arisen in this dispute.

On 1 January 1995, the WTO and its new and sophisticated dispute settlement system entered into force. We have thus already entered the twenty-first year of its life. Although the number of disputes has dropped somewhat over the last decade, there is no sign of weakening. Indeed, during 2015, the year we discuss in this volume, the WTO adjudicating bodies issued 16 reports, including three reports discussing the extent of the reasonable period of time.

This paper provides a legal-economic assessment of issues arising in the Panel Report over the WTO's India–Agricultural Products dispute, one of a growing list of disputes arising at the intersection of the WTO and domestic regulatory policy over human, animal, or plant health. This dispute featured allegations that India's import measures applied against avian influenza- (AI-) infected countries over poultry and related products were too restrictive, in light of the World Organisation for Animal Health's (OIE's) scientifically motivated standards and guidelines. We rely on insights from a set of economic models of commercial poultry markets in the presence of negative externalities such as AI. We use such models to motivate critical tradeoffs arising at the intersection of government regulatory regimes designed to deal with AI and how they fit alongside trade agreements such as the WTO and standard-setting bodies such as the OIE, which combine to impose constraints on regulatory and trade policy. While we find the institutional design of the OIE to be well-motivated and we are in broad agreement with the overall thrust of the Panel Report in the dispute, we also highlight a number of subtle issues which pose long-term challenges for the multilateral trading system's ability to balance trade rules with public health concerns.

The WTO adjudicating bodies were busy in 2014, as they issued 22 reports, a net increase of 15 reports when compared to 2013. In fact, the WTO was forced to hire additional staff to work on disputes, since the caseload overwhelmed the existing limited administrative capacity dedicated to dispute settlement.

The legal-economic implications of how WTO members apply an import-restricting safeguard measure become more complex in light of the increasing web of trade concessions undertaken through their preferential trade agreements (PTAs) in addition to their WTO commitments. This paper examines a number of complex issues that arose in the WTO litigation between five new PTA partners through the Dominican Republic–Safeguard Measures disputes. First, we highlight the difficulties in assessing the extent to which safeguards imposed following a PTA are the result of PTA concessions relative to developments that pre-date or are otherwise unrelated to the PTA. Second, we examine how the WTO Panel resolved a number of previously unanswered questions in the WTO's safeguards jurisprudence that arose in these cases. We suggest that the Panel rightly foreclosed a number of potentially dubious practices that WTO members might otherwise have pursued when using safeguards to circumvent trade concessions. Third, we identify how safeguard-related provisions within a PTA may give rise to constraints that subsequently affect how a country may apply safeguards available under the WTO Agreements, and we describe some implications for PTA design and negotiation. Finally, we analyze the broader implications that arise from the interplay of PTAs, safeguards, and dispute settlement in light of the availability of both relatively substitutable policy instruments and dispute resolution forums.