Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Dispute Settlement System of the WTO: A Powerful Weapon for Developing Countries

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Book cover The WTO Dispute Settlement Mechanism

Abstract

After more than 20 years, the dispute settlement system (DSS) of the World Trade Organization (WTO) has proved its importance for developing countries. The DSS presents several improvements compared to other tools available in international law, such as the possibility to enforce its rules through retaliation. Rules are very important to regulate a fair play in international trade, but they must be enforced to achieve the expected outcomes. Although that rule-oriented DSS still faces challenges ahead, developing countries can use it to leverage bargaining power in negotiations. Since economic power matters for negotiations, developing countries facing asymmetry in WTO disputes need to seek alternatives to demand fair trade. Under an interdisciplinary perspective, this article aims at presenting how developing countries can use the DSS to overcome threats to their economies. Such analysis considers the impact of the WTO rules and decisions on international negotiations.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Such as DSU articles 8.10, 12.10, 12.11, 21.2, among other provisions.

  2. 2.

    Hudec (1999), p. 21.

  3. 3.

    Jackson (1998), p. 341.

  4. 4.

    Shaffer (2007), pp. 163–164.

  5. 5.

    Shaffer (2006), p. 177.

  6. 6.

    Shaffer (2007), p. 178.

  7. 7.

    Thorstensen (2011), p. 40.

  8. 8.

    Lopes and Árabe Neto (2012), p. 366.

  9. 9.

    Article 3.7 of DSU.

  10. 10.

    Some examples are available at Lopes (2016).

  11. 11.

    Drahos (2007), pp. 11–39.

  12. 12.

    Basso and Beas (2005), p. 20.

  13. 13.

    Bown and Hoekman (2005), pp. 861–890.

  14. 14.

    Pauwelyn (2000), p. 338.

  15. 15.

    Subramanian and Watal (2000), p. 403.

  16. 16.

    Bown (2004), p. 68.

  17. 17.

    Hudec (2000), pp. 365–366.

  18. 18.

    Lopes (2016).

  19. 19.

    Shaffer (2007), p. 183.

  20. 20.

    Lopes (2016).

  21. 21.

    Odell (1993), p. 233.

  22. 22.

    Shaffer (2006), p. 194.

  23. 23.

    Putnam (1988), p. 436.

  24. 24.

    Moravcsik (1993), p. 15.

  25. 25.

    Moravcsik (1993), p. 23.

  26. 26.

    Odell (1993), p. 236.

  27. 27.

    Evans (1993), p. 397.

  28. 28.

    Moravcsik (1993), p. 20.

  29. 29.

    Putnam (1988), p. 436.

  30. 30.

    Putnam (1988), p. 446.

  31. 31.

    Milner (1993), p. 229.

  32. 32.

    Putnam (1988), p. 440.

  33. 33.

    Putnam (1988), p. 445.

  34. 34.

    Putnam (1988), pp. 451–452.

  35. 35.

    Vennesson (1995), pp. 857–864.

  36. 36.

    Subramanian and Watal (2000), p. 403.

  37. 37.

    Ruse-Khan (2008), pp. 2–3.

  38. 38.

    Moravcsik (1993), p. 18.

  39. 39.

    Odell (1993), p. 237.

  40. 40.

    Lopes (2016).

  41. 41.

    Oliveira (2016).

  42. 42.

    Lopes and Árabe Neto (2012), pp. 331–397.

References

  • Basso M, Beas E (2005) Cross-retaliation through TRIPS in the cotton dispute? Bridg Mon Rev 5:19–20

    Google Scholar 

  • Bown C (2004) Developing countries as plaintiffs and defendants in GATT/WTO trade disputes. World Econ 27(1):59–80

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bown C, Hoekman B (2005) WTO dispute settlement and the missing developing country cases: engaging the private sector. J Int Econ Law 8(4):861–890

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Drahos P (2007) Four lessons for developing countries from the trade negotiation over access to medicines. Liverpool Law Rev 28(1):11–39

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evans P (1993) Building an integrative approach to international and domestic politics: reflections and projections. In: Evans P, Jacobson H, Putnam R (eds) Double-edged diplomacy: international bargaining and domestic politics, 2nd edn. University of California Press, Berkeley, pp 397–430

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hudec R (1999) The new WTO dispute settlement procedure: an overview of the first three years. Minn J Glob Trade 8(1):1–54

    Google Scholar 

  • Hudec R (2000) Broadening the scope of remedies in the WTO dispute settlement. In: Weiss F (ed) improving WTO dispute settlement procedures: issues and lessons from the practice of other international courts and tribunals. Cameron, London, pp 345–376

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson J (1998) Dispute settlement and the WTO: emerging problems. J Int Econ Law 1(3):329–351

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lopes J (2016) Negociações Internacionais: Retaliação Cruzada em Propriedade Intelectual na OMC. Aduaneiras, São Paulo

    Google Scholar 

  • Lopes J, Árabe Neto A (2012) Atuação dos BICS no Órgão de Solução de Controvérsias da OMC. In: Thorstensen V, Oliveira I (eds) Os BRICS na OMC: Políticas Comerciais Comparadas de Brasil, Rússia, Índia, China e África do Sul. Ipea, Brasília, pp 331–397

    Google Scholar 

  • Milner H (1993) The interaction of domestic and international politics: the Anglo-American Oil Negotiations and the International Civil Aviation Negotiations, 1943–1947. In: Evans P, Jacobson H, Putnam R (eds) Double-edged diplomacy: international bargaining and domestic politics, 2nd edn. University of California Press, Berkeley, pp 207–232

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Moravcsik A (1993) Introduction: integrating international and domestic theories of international bargaining. In: Evans P, Jacobson H, Putnam R (eds) Double-edged diplomacy: international bargaining and domestic politics, 2nd edn. University of California Press, Berkeley, pp 3–42

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Odell J (1993) International threats and internal politics: Brazil, European Community, and the United States. In: Evans P, Jacobson H, Putnam R (eds) Double-edged diplomacy: international bargaining and domestic politics, 2nd edn. University of California Press, Berkeley, pp 233–264

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Oliveira L (2016) Eficácia do Sistema de Solução de Controvérsias da OMC. Aduaneiras, São Paulo

    Google Scholar 

  • Pauwelyn J (2000) Enforcement and countermeasures in the WTO: rules are rules – toward a more collective approach. Am J Int Law 94:335–447

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Putnam R (1988) Diplomacy and domestic politics: the logic of two-level games. Int Organ 42(3):427–460

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruse-Khan H (2008) Suspending IP obligations under TRIPS: a viable alternative to enforce prevailing WTO rulings? In: Center for international environmental law. CIEL, Washington, DC, pp 1–14

    Google Scholar 

  • Shaffer G (2006) The challenges of WTO law: strategies for developing countries adaptation. World Trade Rev 5(2):177–198

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shaffer G (2007) O Sistema de Solução de Disputas na OMC, seus Pontos Fracos e Propostas para Aperfeiçoamento: uma Visão Econômica e de Mercado. In: Baptista L, Celli Junior U, Yanovich A (eds) 10 anos de OMC – Uma análise do Sistema de Solução de Controvérsias e Perspectivas. Aduaneiras, São Paulo, pp 161–188

    Google Scholar 

  • Subramanian A, Watal F (2000) Can TRIPS serve as an enforcement device for developing countries in the WTO? J Int Econ Law 3(3):403–416

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thorstensen V (2011) Perfil da política e dos instrumentos de comércio internacional dos BICS (Brasil, Índia e China). IPEA, Brasília, n 3

    Google Scholar 

  • Vennesson P (1995) Idées, institutions et relations internationals. Revue française de science politique 45(5):857–866

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The Boston Consulting Group (BCG), São Paulo, Brazil

    Jacqueline Spolador Lopes

Authors
  1. Jacqueline Spolador Lopes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. International and Compared Law, University of São Paulo Law School, São Paulo, Brazil

    Alberto do Amaral Júnior

  2. University of São Paulo Law School, São Paulo, Brazil

    Luciana Maria de Oliveira Sá Pires

  3. International Relations Institute, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil

    Cristiane Lucena Carneiro

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Lopes, J.S. (2019). Dispute Settlement System of the WTO: A Powerful Weapon for Developing Countries. In: do Amaral Júnior, A., de Oliveira Sá Pires, L.M., Lucena Carneiro, C. (eds) The WTO Dispute Settlement Mechanism. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03263-0_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03263-0_4

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-03262-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-03263-0

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation