• Alberto do Amaral Júnior
  • Luciana Maria de Oliveira Sá Pires
  • Cristiane Lucena Carneiro


This edited volume offers a collection of analyses on the WTO dispute settlement mechanism from the perspective of an epistemic community of (mostly) Brazilian experts. Contributors share the common goal to look at the WTO from a developing country’s viewpoint. The WTO is situated within a highly technical field of international economic law, and the WTO dispute settlement mechanism is no less specific. In fact, dispute settlements at the WTO entail gathering expertise on highly complex issues, including production standards, public health and environmental standards, intellectual property, and scientific uncertainty. Thus, experts on the WTO dispute settlement mechanism inevitably confront complex cases that invite research and dialogue with experts from other areas of law and science. The repeated interaction of these individuals as they work to defend governments and interests of civil society, as they give opinion based on the highest standards of academic research, has contributed to giving birth to an epistemic community. In the case of this edited volume, we argue an epistemic community focused on the WTO dispute settlement mechanism that is informed by a developing country’s sensitivity, which we will elaborate further in the following paragraphs.


  1. ABRAPA. Available at: Accessed 10 Mar 2018
  2. Amaral Júnior A (2013) Curso de Direito Internacional Público, 4th edn. Atlas, São Paulo, p 431Google Scholar
  3. Cambridge (ed) (2008) Advanced learner’s dictionary, 3rd edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p 449Google Scholar
  4. Collins (2000) Paperback English thesaurus. HarperCollins Publishers Limited, Glasgow, p 194Google Scholar
  5. Davis Cross MK (2013) Re-thinking epistemic communities twenty years later. Rev Int Stud 39(1):137–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. D’aspremont J (2015) Epistemic forces in international law. In: Foundational doctrines and techniques of international legal argumentation. Edward Elgar, CheltenhamGoogle Scholar
  7. Drake W, Nicolaïdis K (1992) Ideas, interests, and institutionalization: ‘Trade in Services’ and the Uruguay round. Int Organ 46(1):37–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Haas P (1992) Introduction: epistemic communities and international policy coordination. Int Organ 46(1):1–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hass P (2008) Epistemic communities. In: The Oxford handbook on international environmental law. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  10. Lafer C (1996) The World trade organization dispute settlement system. In: Funag, Gilberto Amado Memorial Lectures (ed) Revised and expanded second edition. Brasilia, 2012, p 251Google Scholar
  11. Longman (1995) Dictionary of contemporary English, 3rd edn. Longman Dictionaries, Essex, p 442Google Scholar
  12. Möller K (2012) The global model of constitutional rights. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Möller K (2015) The global model of constitutional rights. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  14. Oxford (ed) (2010) Advanced learner’s dictionary, 8th edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford, p 486Google Scholar
  15. Shafer G, Sanchez MR, Rosenberg B (2008) The trials of winning at the WTO: what lies behind Brazil’s success. Cornell Int Law J 41:383–501Google Scholar
  16. Sutherland P (1997) Beyond the market: a different kind of equity. International Herald TribuneGoogle Scholar
  17. Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1969Google Scholar
  18. World Trade Organization. Online information available at: Accessed 10 March 2018
  19. World Trade Organization Website. Chronological list of dispute cases. Available at: Accessed 11 March 2018
  20. World Trade Organization. Canada – measures affecting the importation of milk and the exportation of dairy products (DS103), Appellate Body report, para. 42Google Scholar
  21. World Trade Organization. European communities – export subsidies on sugar (DS266)Google Scholar
  22. World Trade Organization. Korea – measures affecting Government procurement (DS163), Panel report, para. 7.11Google Scholar
  23. World Trade Organization. United States – subsidies on upland cotton (DS267)Google Scholar
  24. WebsiteGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alberto do Amaral Júnior
    • 1
  • Luciana Maria de Oliveira Sá Pires
    • 2
  • Cristiane Lucena Carneiro
    • 3
  1. 1.University of São Paulo Law School, International and Compared LawSão PauloBrazil
  2. 2.University of São Paulo Law SchoolSão PauloBrazil
  3. 3.International Relations Institute, University of São PauloSão PauloBrazil

Personalised recommendations