Encyclopedia of Food and Agricultural Ethics

2019 Edition
| Editors: David M. Kaplan

WTO Dispute Settlement and Food and Agricultural Trade

  • E. Wesley F. PetersonEmail author
Reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-024-1179-9_423



International trade agreements are formal accords under international law involving two or more countries. Multilateral trade agreements are negotiated by the members of the World Trade Organization (WTO) and set out rules and regulations for the conduct of international trade among the majority (164) of sovereign nation states (about 164). All WTO members must agree to the negotiated trade provisions and are required to define specific commitments in national legislation to insure consistency with the rules. Similar procedures are followed for regional and bilateral – also known as “preferential” – trade agreements. If a party to an international trade agreement violates any of the commitments it has made, other parties may seek redress through the organization governing the agreement. To handle these situations, trade agreements include procedures for dispute settlement that usually...

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


  1. Bown, C. P., & Hoekman, B. M. (2005). WTO dispute settlement and the missing developing country cases: Engaging the private sector. Journal of International Economic Law, 8(4), 861–890.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Calle, Maria-Alejandra. (n.d.). Environmental concerns and trade disputes: An overview from the GATT and the WTO dispute settlement system,” Cork Online Law Review at: http://www.corkonlinelawreview.com/editions/2012/EnvironmentalConcernsAndTradeDisputesAnOverviewFromTheGATTAndTheWTODisputeSettlementSystem.MariaAlejandraCalle.pdf. Accessed 6 Nov 2012.
  3. Chan, Sewell. (2010). U.S. and Brazil Reach agreement on cotton dispute, New York Times, 6 Apr.Google Scholar
  4. Guernsey, Paul. (2010). The disturbing facts about Dolphin-Safe Tuna, All About Wildlife, at: http://www.allaboutwildlife.com/dolphins-whales/the-disturbing-facts-about-dolphin-safe-tuna/4298. Accessed on 5 Nov 2012.
  5. Hobbs, J. (2014). Canada, US-EU beef hormone dispute. In P. B. Thompson & D. Kaplan (Eds.), Encyclopedia of food and agricultural ethics. Dordrecht: Springer Publishers.Google Scholar
  6. Marceau, G. (2002). WTO dispute settlement and human rights. European Journal of International Law, 13(4), 753–914.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Matteotti, Sofya, & Olga Nartova. (2011). Process and production methods: Implementation and monitoring, NCRR Trade Working Paper Number 2011/19, June, available at: http://ebookbrowse.com/nccr-ppms-pdf-d221613569. Accessed 15 Nov 2012.
  8. Milanovic, B. (2011). The haves and the have-nots: A brief and idiosyncratic history of global inequality. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  9. Mosoti, V. (2006). Africa in the first decade of dispute settlement. Journal of International Economic Law, 9(2), 427–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Perrin, W. F., Wursig, B., & Thewissen, J. G. M. (2002). The tuna-dolphin issue. In W. F. Perrin, B. Wursig, & J. G. M. Thewissen (Eds.), Encyclopedia of marine mammals (pp. 1269–1273). San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  11. Peterson, E. Wesley F. (2009). A billion dollars a day: The economics and politics of agricultural subsidies. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  12. Peterson, E. Wesley F. (2014). Food and agricultural trade and national sovereignty. In P. B. Thompson & D. Kaplan (Eds.), Encyclopedia of food and agricultural ethics. Dordrecht: Springer Publishers.Google Scholar
  13. Sen, A. K. (1970). The impossibility of a paretian liberal. Journal of Political Economy, 78(1), 152–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Singer, P. (2004). One world (2nd ed.). New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Trujillo, Elizabeth. (2012). The Tuna-Dolphin encore– WTO rules on environmental labeling, ASIL Insights, 16(7). http://www.asil.org/insights120307.cfm.
  16. USDA (2014). United States and Brazil Reach agreement to end WTO cotton dispute, United States Department of Agriculture News Release No. 0219.14, 1 Oct 2014, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  17. WTO (2012a). Understanding the WTO: Settling disputes, World Trade Organization, Geneva, available at: http://www.wto.prg/english/thewto_e/whatis_e/tif_e/disp1_e.htm. Accessed 8 Nov 2012.
  18. WTO (2012b). Current status of the disputes,” World Trade Organization, Geneva, at http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/dispu_current_status_e.htm. Accessed 13 Nov 2012.
  19. WTO (2012c). Mexico etc. versus US: Tuna-Dolphin, World Trade Organization, Geneva, available at: http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/envir_e/edis04_3.htm. Accessed 12 Nov 2012.
  20. WTO (2012d). United States – measures concerning the importation, marketing, and sale of Tuna and Tuna Products, World Trade Organization, Geneva, available at: http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds381_e.htm. Asccessed 15 Nov 2012.
  21. WTO (2012e). India etc. versus US: Shrimp-turtle, World Trade Organization, Geneva, available at: http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/envir_e/edis08_e.htm. Accessed 12 Nov 2012.
  22. WTO (2014). United States– subsidies on upland cotton, World Trade Organization, Geneva at http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dspu_e/cases_e/ds267_e.htm. Asccessed 21 Jan 2016.

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Agricultural EconomicsUniversity of Nebraska-LincolnLincolnUSA