Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-rkzlw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-31T10:57:50.423Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Judicial Politics in International Trade Relations: Introduction to the Special Issue

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 July 2015

DIRK DE BIÈVRE  and
ARLO POLETTI
DIRK DE BIÈVRE*
Affiliation:
Antwerp Centre for Institutions and Multilevel Politics (ACIM), Department of Political Science, University of Antwerp
ARLO POLETTI*
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science and School of Government, LUISS Guido Carli
*
*Email: dirk.debievre@uantwerpen.be
**Email: apoletti@luiss.it
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

International institutions have acquired an almost obvious presence in international politics and the question of their design has received prominent attention in recent years. Apart from key organizational characteristics like size of their membership, policy scope, depth of cooperation, decision-making rules, and their degree of openness towards non-state actors, one of their most striking features is their differing degree of legalization or judicialization (Goldstein and Martin, 2000; Zangl, 2008). Some institutions possess strong enforcement mechanisms or rules, while others rely on voluntary cooperation by their members.

Information

Type
Review Article
Information
World Trade Review , Volume 14 , Special Issue S1: Judicial Politics in International Trade Relations , July 2015 , pp. S1 - S11
Copyright
Copyright © Dirk De Bièvre and Arlo Poletti 2015 

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Abbott, K. W., Keohane, R. O., Moravcsik, A., Slaughter, A.-M., and Snidal, D. (2000), ‘The Concept of Legalization’, International Organization, 54: 401–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allee, T. (2005), ‘The “Hidden” Impact of the World Trade Organization on the Reduction of Trade Conflict’, 2005 Midwest Political Science Association Conference, Chicago, Illinois.Google Scholar
Allee, T. and Elsig, M. (2014), ‘Dispute Settlement Provisions in PTAs: New Data and New Concepts’, in Dur, A. and Elsig, M. (eds.), Trade Cooperation: The Purpose, Design and Effects of Preferential Trade Agreements, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Baldwin, R. E. (1997), ‘The Causes of Regionalism’, World Economy, 20: 865–888.Google Scholar
Bernauer, T., Elsig, M., and Pauwelyn, J. (2014), ‘Dispute Settlement Mechanism: Analysis and Problems’, Daunton, M., Narlikar, A., and Stern, R. M. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook on The World Trade Organization, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bernauer, T. and Sattler, T. (2011), ‘Gravitation or discrimination? Determinants of litigation in the World Trade Organization’, European Journal of Political Research, 50: 143–167.Google Scholar
Bown, C. (2004), ‘On the Economic Success of GATT/WTO Dispute Settlement’, The Review of Economics and Statistics, 86: 811–823.Google Scholar
Busch, M. L. (2000), ‘Democracy, Consultation, and the Paneling of Disputes Under GATT’, Journal of Conflict Resolution, 44: 425–446.Google Scholar
Busch, M. L. (2007), ‘Overlapping Institutions, Forum Shopping, and Dispute Settlement in International Trade’, International Organization, 61: 735–761.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Busch, M. L. and Pelc, K. J. (2010), ‘The Politics of Judicial Economy at the World Trade Organization’, International Organization, 64: 257–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Busch, M. L. and Reinhardt, E. (2000), ‘Bargaining in the Shadow of the Law: Early Settlement in GATT/WTO Disputes’, Fordham International Law Journal, 24: 158–172.Google Scholar
Busch, M. L., Reinhardt, E., and Shaffer, G. (2009), ‘Does Legal Capacity Matter? A Survey of WTO Members’, World Trade Review, 8: 559–577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, C. J. (2003), Food Fights Over Free Trade: How International Institutions and Issue Linkage Promote Agricultural Trade Liberalization, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Davis, C. J. (2008), ‘The Effectiveness of WTO Dispute Settlement: an Evaluation of Negotiations versus Adjudication Strategies’ Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Boston.Google Scholar
Davis, C. J. (2012), Why Adjudicate? Enforcing Trade Rules in the WTO, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Davis, C. J. and Shirato, Y. (2007), ‘Firms, Governments, and WTO Adjudication: Japan's Selection of WTO Disputes’, World Politics, 59: 274–313.Google Scholar
De Bièvre, D. (2006), ‘The EU Regulatory Trade Agenda and the Quest for WTO Enforcement’, Journal of European Public Policy, 13: 105–129.Google Scholar
Downs, G. W. and Rocke, D. M. (1995), Optimal Imperfection? Domestic Uncertainty and Institutions in International Relations, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Dür, A. (2007), ‘Regionalism in the World Economy: Building Block or Stumbling Stone for Globalization?’, in Schirm, S. A. (ed.), Globalization: State of the Art and Perspectives, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Dür, A., Baccini, L., and Elsig, M. (2014), ‘The Design of International Trade Agreements: Introducing a New Database’, Review of International Organizations, 9(3): 353–375.Google Scholar
Dür, A. and Elsig, M. (eds.) (2014), Trade Cooperation: The Purpose, Design and Effects of Preferential Trade Agreements, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Elsig, M. and Pollack, M. A. (2014), ‘Agents, trustees, and International Courts: The Politics of Judicial Appointment at the World Trade Organization’, European Journal of International Relations, 20: 391–415.Google Scholar
Fearon, J. D. (1998), ‘Bargaining, Enforcement, and International Cooperation’, International Organization, 52: 269–305.Google Scholar
Flett, J. (2014), ‘Referring PTA Disputes to the WTO Dispute Settlement System’, in Dür, A. and Elsig, M. (eds.), Trade Cooperation: The Purpose, Design and Effects of Preferential Trade Agreements, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Garrett, G. and Smith, J. M. (2002), The Politics of WTO Dispute Settlement, UCLA Occasional Papers Series.Google Scholar
GATT, (1990), ‘Improvements to the GATT Dispute Settlement Rules and Procedures, Decision of 12 April 1989 (L/6489)’, in Gatt, T. C. P. T. T. (ed.), Basic Instruments and Selected Documents, Thirty-sixth Supplement. Protocols, Decisions, Reports 1988–1989 and Forty-fifth Session, Geneva: GATT.Google Scholar
Goldstein, J., Kahler, M., Keohane, R., and Slaughter, A.-M. (2000), ‘Introduction: Legalization and World Politics’ ,International Organization, 54: 385–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldstein, J. J. and Steinberg, R. R. (2008), ‘Negotiate or Litigate? Effects of WTO Judicial Delegation on US Trade Politics’, Law and Contemporary Problems, 71: 257–282.Google Scholar
Goldstein, J. L. and Martin, L. L. (2000), ‘Legalization, Trade Liberalization, and Domestic Politics: A Cautionary Note’, International Organization, 54, 603–632.Google Scholar
Gomez-Mera, L. and Molinari, A. (2014), ‘Overlapping Institutions, Learning, and Dispute Initiation in Regional Trade Agreements: Evidence from South America’, International Studies Quarterly, 58: 269–281.Google Scholar
Guzman, A. T. (2005), ‘Power Plays and Capacity Constraints: The Selection of Defendants in WTO Disputes’, Journal of Legal Studies, 34: 557–598.Google Scholar
Guzman, A. T. and Simmons, B. A. (2002), ‘To Settle or Empanel? An Empirical Analysis of Litigation and Settlement at the WTO’, Journal of Legal Studies, 31: 205–227.Google Scholar
Horn, H., Maggi, G., and Staiger, R. W. (2010), ‘Trade Agreements as Endogenously Incomplete Contracts’, American Economic Review, 100: 394–419.Google Scholar
Hudec, R. E. (1992), Enforcing International Trade Law: The Evolution of the Modern GATT Legal System, Salem, NH: Butterworth.Google Scholar
Irwin, D. A. and Mavroidis, P. C. (2008), ‘The WTO's Difficulties in Light of the GATT's History’ VoxColumn, VoxEU.org, 29 July 2008.Google Scholar
Jo, H. and Namgung, H. (2012), ‘Dispute Settlement Mechanisms in Preferential Trade Agreements: Democracy, Boilerplates, and the Multilateral Trade Regime’, Journal of Conflict Resolution, 56: 1041–1068.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelemen, R. D. (2001), ‘The Limits of Judicial Power: Trade-Environment Disputes in the GATT/WTO and the EU’, Comparative Political Studies, 34: 622–650.Google Scholar
Kim, M. (2008), ‘Costly Procedures: Divergent Effects of Legalization in the GATT/WTO Dispute Settlement Procedures’, International Studies Quarterly, 52: 657–686.Google Scholar
Koremenos, B., Lipson, C., and Snidal, D. (2001), ‘The Rational Design of International Institutions’, International Organization, 55: 761–799.Google Scholar
Mavroidis, P. C. (2012), ‘On Cmpliance in the WTO: Enforcement among Unequal Disputants’ Briefing Paper, CUTS International, Geneva.Google Scholar
Mccall Smith, J. (2000), ‘The Politics of Dispute Settlement Design: Explaining Legalism in Regional Trade Pacts’, International Organization, 54: 137–180.Google Scholar
Pelc, K. J. (2010), ‘Eluding Efficiency: Why Do We Not See More Efficient Breach at the WTO?’, World Trade Review, 9: 629–642.Google Scholar
Poletti, A. (2011), ‘World Trade Organization Judicialization and Preference Convergence in EU Trade Policy: Making the Agent's Life Easier’, Journal of European Public Policy, 18: 361–382.Google Scholar
Rosendorff, P. B. (2005), ‘Stability and Rigidity: Politics and Design of the WTO's Dispute Settlement Procedure’, American Political Science Review, 99(3): 389–400.Google Scholar
Sattler, T. and Bernauer, T. (2010), ‘Gravitation or Discrimination? Determinants of Litigation in the World Trade Organisation’, European Journal of Political Research, 50(2): 143–167.Google Scholar
Schwartz, W. and Sykes, A. O. (2002), ‘The Economic Structure of Renegotiation and Dispute Resolution in the World Trade Organization’, Journal of Legal Studies, 31: 179–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stone Sweet, A. (1997), ‘The New GATT: Dispute Resolution and the Judicialisation of the Trade Regime’, in Volcansek, M. L. (ed.), Law Above Nations: Supranational Courts and the Legalization of Politics, Gainesville: University Press of Florida.Google Scholar
Stone Sweet, A. (1999), ‘Judicialization and the Construction of Governance’, Comparative Political Studies, 32: 147–184.Google Scholar
Thompson, A. (2010), ‘Rational Design in Motion: Uncertainty and Flexibility in the Global Climate Regime’, European Journal of International Relations, 16: 269–296.Google Scholar
Weiler, J. H. H. (2001), ‘The Rule of Lawyers and the Ethos of Diplomats: Reflections on the Internal and External Legitimacy of WTO Dispute Settlement’, Journal of World Trade, 35: 191–207.Google Scholar
Wilson, B. (2007), ‘Compliance by WTO Members with Adverse WTO Dispute Settlement Rulings: The Record to Date’, Journal of International Economic Law, 10: 397–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
WTO, (1995), The WTO Dispute Settlement Procedures: A Collection of Legal Texts, Geneva: World Trade Organization.Google Scholar
Zangl, B. (2008), ‘Judicialization Matters! A Comparison of Dispute Settlement Under GATT and the WTO’, International Studies Quarterly, 52: 825–854.Google Scholar
Zangl, B., Helmedach, A., Mondré, A., Kocks, A., Neubauer, G., and Blome, K. (2011), ‘Between Law and Politics: Explaining International Dispute Settlement Behavior’, European Journal of International Relations, 18(2): 369–401.Google Scholar