This Website uses cookies. By using this website you are agreeing to our use of cookies and to the terms and conditions listed in our data protection policy. Read more

WTO Dispute Settlement: Time to Take Stock

Five Scenarios in Search for a Director. WTO Judges, Their Terms of References, Scope of Competence, Remedies they Proscribe, and the Consequences for the Addressees

Book Chapter
Reference
Johannesson, Louise and Petros C. Mavroidis (2017). “Five Scenarios in Search for a Director. WTO Judges, Their Terms of References, Scope of Competence, Remedies they Proscribe, and the Consequences for the Addressees”. In Jacques H. J. Bourgeois, Marco Bronckers and Reinhard Quick (Eds.), WTO Dispute Settlement: Time to Take Stock (121–143). Brussels: P.I.E. Peter Lang. doi.org/10.3726/b11187

Authors
Louise Johannesson, Petros C. Mavroidis

Editors
Jacques H. J. Bourgeois, Marco Bronckers, Reinhard Quick

The WTO has been lauded for its unique dispute settlement system. Its uniqueness lies primarily in that it is the most comprehensive “compulsory third party” adjudication regime in international relations. No other regime of this breadth exists in state to state relations. Without assigning a cause to effect relationship, we point to factors that might be further researched in order to show to what extent they constitute prerequisites for emulating compulsory third party adjudication. Pragmatic judgments constitute a factor to be reckoned with. WTO judges are typically “Geneva crowd”, and they feel comfortable with judgments that do not prejudge too much national sovereignty. The institution is further happy to talk compliance up, using proxies rather than accurate information to this effect.