Advertisement

Judicialization: The Third Transformation

  • Geoffrey Allen Pigman
Chapter
  • 506 Downloads
Part of the International Political Economy Series book series (IPES)

Abstract

At the core of the third transformation in international trade diplomacy is the rise to prominence since the 1990s of essentially judicial mechanisms and procedures for resolving trade disputes. As more traditional diplomatic approaches to negotiating and enforcing trade agreements have yielded progressively less fruit over the past two decades, judicial mechanisms increasingly are coming to substitute for traditional diplomacy, perhaps if only by default. Judicial processes have become much more important not just for resolving trade disputes, but in advancing trade coöperation. Judicialization initially appears to focus diplomacy on smaller, narrower objectives: bringing a complaint against another government for depriving one of benefits from trade due under an international agreement, negotiating a resolution, winning the adjudication of a particular dispute. But it is genuinely different diplomacy, in that governments can no longer opt out if they dislike a ruling. Unlike in bilateral or multilateral negotiations, there is not the option of a BATNA, no real choice to withdraw from negotiations. Thus judicialized trade diplomacy, like more traditional types, can be either positive-sum or adversarial, but in a different way. Both sides in a dispute are compelled to negotiate, to accept judgements, to implement rulings. There is an arbitration element present in which the judicial process, whilst not substituting for the essentially diplomatic nature of the interaction between states, has become a permanent part of negotiation.

Keywords

World Trade Organization Trade Policy Dispute Resolution Dispute Settlement North American Free Trade Agreement 
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. 2.
    Peter Drahos, ‘Weaving Webs of Influence: The United States, Free Trade Agreements and Dispute Resolution’, Journal of World Trade, Vol. 41, No. 1, 2007, p. 192.Google Scholar
  2. 9.
    Brendan Vickers, ‘The Role of the BRICS in the WTO: System-Supporters or Change Agents in Multilateral Trade?’, pp. 254–274 in Amrita Narlikar, Martin Daunton and Robert M. Stern, eds., The Oxford Handbook on the World Trade Organization, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012, pp. 260–267.Google Scholar
  3. 11.
    Kent Jones, The Doha Blues; Institutional Crisis and Reform in the WTO, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010, p. 126.Google Scholar
  4. 14.
    Amrita Narlikar, The World Trade Organization; A Very Short Introduction, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005, pp. 85–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 16.
    Constantine Michalopoulos, Developing Countries in the WTO, London: Palgrave, 2001, pp. 156–160, cited in Jones, The Doha Blues, pp. 157–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 22.
    Shaffer, Gregory C., Michelle Ratton Sanchez Badin and Barbara Rosenberg, ‘Winning at the WTO: the development of a trade policy community within Brazil’, pp. 21–104 in Gregory C. Shaffer and Ricardo Melendez-Ortiz, eds., Dispute Settlement at the WTO; The Developing Country Experience, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010.Google Scholar
  7. 23.
    Han Liyu and Henry Gao, ‘China’s Experience in Utilizing the WTO Dispute Settlement Mechanism’, pp. 137–171 in Gregory C. Shaffer and Ricardo Melendez-Ortiz, eds., Dispute Settlement at the WTO; The Developing Country Experience, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010, pp. 163–164.Google Scholar
  8. 24.
    Gustav Brink, ‘South Africa’s Experience with International Trade Dispute Settlement’, pp. 251–274 in Gregory C. Shaffer and Ricardo Melendez-Ortiz, eds., Dispute Settlement at the WTO; The Developing Country Experience, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 28.
    Mohammad Ali Taslim, ‘How the DSU worked for Bangladesh: the first least developed country to bring a WTO claim’, pp. 230–247 in Gregory C. Shaffer and Ricardo Melendez-Ortiz, eds., Dispute Settlement at the WTO; The Developing Country Experience, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010, p. 240.Google Scholar
  10. 32.
    Magda Shahin, ‘WTO dispute settlement for a middle-income developing country: the situation of Egypt’, pp. 275–300 in Gregory C. Shaffer and Ricardo Melendez-Ortiz, eds., Dispute Settlement at the WTO; The Developing Country Experience, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010, p. 293.Google Scholar
  11. 34.
    Pornchai Danvivathana, ‘Thailand’s experience in the WTO dispute settlement system: challenging the EC sugar regime’, pp. 210–227 in Gregory C. Shaffer and Ricardo Melendez-Ortiz, eds., Dispute Settlement at the WTO; The Developing Country Experience, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010, pp. 210–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 49.
    Biswajit Dhar and Abhik Majumdar, ‘Learning from the India-EC GSP dispute: the issues and the process’, pp. 174–209 in Gregory C. Shaffer and Ricardo Melendez-Ortiz, eds., Dispute Settlement at the WTO; The Developing Country Experience, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010, pp. 182–183.Google Scholar
  13. 49.
    Brian Hocking, ‘Gatekeepers and boundary spanners; Thinking about European Union member state foreign ministries’, in Brian Hocking and David Spence, eds., Foreign Ministries in the European Union, Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2003.Google Scholar
  14. 62.
    Allan O. Sykes, ‘The Dispute Settlement Mechanism: Ensuring Compliance?’, pp. 560–585 in Amrita Narlikar, Martin Daunton and Robert M. Stern, eds., The Oxford Handbook on the World Trade Organization, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Geoffrey Allen Pigman 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Geoffrey Allen Pigman
    • 1
  1. 1.University of PretoriaSouth Africa

Personalised recommendations