A Great Transformation in World Trade Law

Can the WTO stay afloat?
  • David G. Victor
  • Rebecca U. Weiner

Abstract

Many international relations theorists argue that the rising flow of goods, services, and money is eroding state power. Businesses, nongovernmental organizations, and disaggregated states are now the key actors in the international arena. Transnational links between nonstate actors are supplanting the state and state-controlled international institutions.1 We offer the alternative perspective that globalization requires more of states and intergovernmental fora, not less. States remain at the center of an evolving international arena; they continue to be the agents and enforcers of policy, and the most capable enforcement mechanisms are state-dominated intergovernmental fora. Yet governments must now exert their power in a far more complex and constraining environment. This new environment asks them to exercise unprecedented maturity and sophistication. It asks that they be accommodating and flexible, that they make subtler and more sophisticated policy decisions even as their leverage over their own national policy declines. Most important, it requires that governments pick their battles wisely.

Keywords

World Trade Organization Problem Case Uruguay Round Great Transformation World Trade Organization Rule 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Busch, M. L., 2000, Democracy, consultation, and the paneling of disputes under GATT, J Conflict Resolut 44 (4): 425–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Fearon, 1., 1997, Signaling foreign policy interests: Tying hands versus sinking costs, J Conflict Resolut 41 (1): 68–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Hudec, R. E., 1993, Enforcing International Trade Law: The Evolution of the Modern GATT Legal System, Butterworth Legal Publishers, Salem, NH.Google Scholar
  4. Mathews, J., 1997, Power shift, Foreign Aff 76 (1): 50–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Movsesian, M. L., 1999, Sovereignty, compliance, and the World Trade Organization: Lessons from the history of the Supreme Court, Mich J Int Law 20 (4): 775–818.Google Scholar
  6. Slaughter, A.-M., 1995, International law in a world of liberal states, Eur J Int Law 6(4):503–538.Google Scholar
  7. Slaughter, A.-M., 1997, The real new order, Foreign Aff 76 (5): 183–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Victor, D. G., 2000, Risk management and the world trading system: Regulating international trade distortions caused by national sanitary and phytosanitary policies, in: Incorporating Science, Economics, and Sociology in Developing Sanitary and Phytosanitary Standards in International Trade: Proceedings of a Conference, Board on Agricultural and Natural Resources, ed., pp. 118–169, National Academy Press, Washington, DC.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • David G. Victor
  • Rebecca U. Weiner

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations