Advertisement

The Review of International Organizations

, Volume 11, Issue 3, pp 283–310 | Cite as

Enduring trade disputes: Disguised protectionism and duration and recurrence of international trade disputes

  • Moonhawk Kim
Article

Abstract

Why do some WTO trade disputes endure and recur while others do not? States have difficulty resolving trade conflicts when they involve certain types of trade-restrictive domestic regulations. While such regulations vary in their extent of legitimacy—fulfilling non-trade domestic regulatory objectives and availability of less trade-restrictive options—complainant states cannot always distinguish legitimate barriers from illegitimate ones. In such scenarios of disguised protectionism, which I argue is most prevalent with policies involving WTO’s Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) Agreement, disputants confront difficulties concluding their disputes. Disputes last longer and are more likely to recur. I test the argument against a data set of WTO disputes structured in an innovative manner—one that links together related and recurring disputes into single conflicts. Both an event history analysis of conflict duration and a count analysis of conflict recurrence using this data strongly support this argument.

Keywords

GATT/WTO Dispute settlement Domestic regulations Protectionism 

JEL Classification

C41 F13 F51 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The research for this article was generously supported by the Colorado European Union Center of Excellence (CEUCE) and the Center to Advance Research and Teaching in the Social Sciences (CARTSS) at the University of Colorado at Boulder. Earlier versions of this article were presented at the 2011 Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, the Institutions Group of the Institute of Behavioral Science (IBS) at the University of Colorado at Boulder, and Governance and Conflicts Workshop sponsored by CU Political Science and One Earth Foundation. I amgrateful for comments I received at these venues. I would like to especially thank David Bearce, Carew Boulding, David Brown, Julia Gray, Bobby Gulotty, Johannes Karreth, Soo Yeon Kim and Sarah Sokhey for helpful comments. Cliff Carrubba and Leslie Johns provided useful guidance on specifying the bargaining model portion of the argument. Jeff Kucik and Krzysztof Pelc provided me the trade data for WTO disputes. Chris Cyr and Megan Roosevelt provided valuable research assistance for the project. Lastly, two anonymous reviewers patiently encouraged me along through major revisions of the manuscript.

Supplementary material

11558_2015_9230_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (201 kb)
ESM 1 (PDF 201 kb)
11558_2015_9230_MOESM2_ESM.zip (353 kb)
ESM 2 (ZIP 352 kb)

References

  1. Allee, T. (2004). Legal incentives and domestic rewards: The selection of trade disputes for GATT/WTO dispute resolution.Google Scholar
  2. Allee, T. (2005). The political and economic value of GATT/WTO dispute initiation. In In 2005 annual meeting of the american political science association. Washington, DC: American Political Science Association.Google Scholar
  3. Allee, T. L., & Huth, P. K. (2006). Legitimizing dispute settlement: international legal rulings as dometic political cover. American Political Science Review, 100(2), 219–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barton, J., et al. (2006). The evolution of the trade regime: Politics, law and economics of the GATT and WTO. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Beaulieu, E., & Gaisford, J. (2002). Labour and environmental standards: the ‘lemons problem’ in international trade policy. World Economy, 25(1), 59–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bechtel, M. M., & Sattler, T. (2015). What is litigation in the world trade organization worth? International Organization.Google Scholar
  7. Bernauer, T. (2003). Genes, trade, and regulation: The seeds of conflict in food biotechnology. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Bown, C. P. (2004). On the economic success of GATT/WTO dispute settlement. Review of Economics and Statistics, 86(3), 811–823.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bown, C. P., & Reynolds, K. M. (2014). Trade flows and trade disputes. Washington, DC: World Bank Development Research Group. Policy Research Working Paper.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bown, C. P., & Reynolds, K. M. (2015). Trade agreements and enforcement: Evidence from WTO dispute settlement. Washington, DC: World Bank Group—Development Research Group—Trade; International Integration Team. Policy Research Working Paper.Google Scholar
  11. Bureau, J. C., Marette, S., & Schiavina, A. (1998). Non-tariff trade barriers and consumers’ information: the case of the EU-US trade dispute over beef. European Review of Agricultural Economics, 25(4), 437–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Busch, M. L., & Pelc, K. J. (2010). The politics of judicial economy at the world trade organization. International Organization, 64(2), 257–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Busch, M. L., & Reinhardt, E. (2000). Bargaining in the shadow of the law: early settlement in GATT/WTO disputes. Fordham International Law Journal, 24(1–2), 158–172.Google Scholar
  14. Busch, M. L., & Reinhardt, E. (2002). Testing international trade law: Empirical studies of GATT/WTO dispute settlement. In D. L. M. Kennedy & J. D. Southwick (Eds.), The political economy of international trade law: Essays in honor of robert e. hudec (pp. 457–481). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Busch, M. L., & Reinhardt, E. (2003). Developing countries and general agreement on tariffs and trade/World trade organization dispute settlement. Journal of World Trade, 37(4), 719–735.Google Scholar
  16. Busch, M. L., & Reinhardt, E. (2006). Three’s a crowd: third parties and WTO dispute settlement. World Politics, 58(3), 446–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Carrubba, C. J. (2005). Courts and compliance in international regulatory regimes. Journal of Politics, 67(3), 669–689.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Chaudoin, S. (2014). Audiences features and the strategic timing of trade disputes. International Organization, 68(1), 1–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Chaudoin, S., Kucik, J., & Pelc, K. J. (2013). Do WTO disputes actually increase trade?Google Scholar
  20. Cleves, M. et al. (2008). An introduction to survival analysis using stata. Second. Stata Press.Google Scholar
  21. Cramton, P. C. (1984). Bargaining with incomplete information: an infinite-horizon model with two-sided uncertainty. Review of Economic Studies, 51(4), 579–593.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Davis, C. L. (2012). Why adjudicate? Enforcing trade rules in the WTO. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Davis, C. L., & Bermeo, S. B. (2009). Who files? Developing country participation in GATT/WTO adjudication. Journal of Politics, 71(3), 1033–1049.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Davis, C. & Shirato, Y. (2007). Firms, governments, and WTO adjudication. 59(2): 274–313.Google Scholar
  25. Elsig, M., & Stucki, P. (2012). Low-income developing countries and WTO litigation. 19(2), 292–316.Google Scholar
  26. Esty, D. C. (1994). Greening the GATT: Trade, environment, and the future. Washington, DC: Institute for International Economics.Google Scholar
  27. Esty, D. (2002). Rejoinder. World Trade Review, 1(3), 297–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Fattore, C. (2013). The influence of legal capacity on WTO dispute duration. International Trade Journal, 27(5), 450–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Goldstein, J. L., & Steinberg, R. H. (2009). Regulatory shift: The rise of judicial liberalization at the WTO. In W. Mattli & N. Woods (Eds.), The politics of global regulation (pp. 211–241). Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Grinols, E. L., & Perrelli, R. (2006). The WTO impact on international trade disputes: an event history analysis. Review of Economics and Statistics, 88(4), 613–624.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Grossman, S. J., & Perry, M. (1986a). Perfect sequential equilibrium. Journal of Economic Theory, 39(1), 97–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Grossman, S. J., & Perry, M. (1986b). Sequential bargaining under asymmetric information. Journal of Economic Theory, 39(1), 120–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Guzman, A., & Simmons, B. A. (2002). To settle or empanel? An empirical analysis of litigation and settlement at the world trade organization. Journal of Legal Studies, 31(1), S205–S235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Guzman, A. T., & Simmons, B. A. (2005). Power plays and capacity constraints: the selection of defendants in world trade organization disputes. Journal of Legal Studies, 34(2), 557–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hobbs, J. E., Kerr, W. A., & Phillips, P. W. B. (2001). Identity preservation and international trade: signaling quality across national boundaries. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 49(4), 567–579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hofmann, T., & Kim, S. Y. (2010). The domestic politics of compliance: Explaining time-to-compliance in WTO disputes. In In Annual meeting of the american political science association. Washington, DC: American Political Science Association.Google Scholar
  37. Horn, H. & Mavroidis, P. C. (2013.) The WTO dispute settlement data set 1995–2011: User’s guide. 3.0.Google Scholar
  38. Hudec, R. E. (1993). Enforcing international trade law: The evolution of the modern GATT legal system. Salem: Butterworth Legal Publishers.Google Scholar
  39. Johns, L. & Pelc, K. J. (2014). Fear of crowds in WTO disputes: Why don’t more countries participate?Google Scholar
  40. Kerr, W. A. (1999). International trade in transgenic food products: a new focus for agricultural trade disputes. World Economy, 22(2), 245–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kim, M. (2008). Costly procedures: divergent effects of legalization in the GATT/WTO dispute settlement procedures. International Studies Quarterly, 52(3), 657–686.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Kim, M. (2012). Disguised protectionism and linkages to the GATT/WTO. World Politics, 64(3), 426–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Kono, D. Y. (2006). Optimal obfuscation: democracy and trade policy transparency. American Political Science Review, 100(3), 369–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Kucik, J., & Pelc, K. J. Forthcoming. Measuring the cost of privacy: A look at the distributional effects of private bargaining. British Journal of Political Science.Google Scholar
  45. Lawrence, R. Z. (2007). The united states and the WTO dispute settlement system. Washington, DC: Council on Foreign Relations. Council Special Reports.Google Scholar
  46. Leitner, K., & Lester, S. (2015). WTO dispute settlement 1995–2014: a statistical analysis. Journal of International Economic Law, 18(1), 203–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Licht, A. A. (2011). Change comes with time: substantive interpretation of nonproportional hazards in event history analysis. Political Analysis, 19(2), 227–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Mansfield, E. D., & Reinhardt, E. (2003). Multilateral determinants of regionalism: the effects of GATT/WTO on the formation of preferential trading arrangements. International Organization, 57(4), 829–862.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Márquez Peña, J. (2014). MoreClarify: Stata module to estimate quantities of interest through simulation and resampling methods.Google Scholar
  50. Marshall, M. G., & Gurr, T. R. Polity IV project: Political regime characteristics and transitions, 1800–2012.Google Scholar
  51. Pelc, K. J. (2009). Seeking escape: the use of escape clauses in international trade agreements. International Studies Quarterly, 53(2), 349–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Pelc, K. J. (2010). Constraining coercion? Legitimacy and its role in U.S. trade policy, 1975–2000. International Organization, 64(1), 65–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Pelc, K. J. (2014). The politics of precedent in international law: a social network application. American Political Science Review, 108(3), 547–564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Pervez, F. (2014a). Elections and dropped WTO trade disputes.Google Scholar
  55. Pervez, F. (2015). Waiting for election season: the timing of international trade disputes. Review of International Organizations. Google Scholar
  56. Pollack, M. A., & Shaffer, G. C. (2009). When cooperation fails: The international law and politics of genetically modified foods. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Putnam, R. D. (1988). Diplomacy and domestic politics: the logic of 2-level games. International Organization, 42(3), 427–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Reinhardt, E. (2001). Adjudication without enforcement in GATT disputes. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 45(4), 174–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Reynolds, K. M. (2009). Why are so many WTO disputes abandoned? In J. C. Hartigan (Ed.), Trade disputes and the dispute settlement understanding of the WTO (pp. 191–211). Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing.Google Scholar
  60. Rodrik, D. (1997). Has globalization gone too far? Washington, DC: Institute for International Economics.Google Scholar
  61. Rosendorff, B. P. (2005). Stability and rigidity: politics and design of the WTO’s dispute settlement procedure. American Political Science Review, 99(3), 389–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Rossmiller, G. E. (1994). Discussion. In Agricultural trade conflicts and GATT, eds. Giovanni Anania, Colin A. Carter, and Alex F. McCalla. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, p. 262–265.Google Scholar
  63. Rubinstein, A. (1982). Perfect equilibrium in a bargaining model. Econometrica, 50(1), 97–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Rubinstein, A. (1985). A bargaining model with incomplete information about time preferences. Econometrica, 53(5), 1151–1172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Ruggie, J. G. (1982). International regimes, transactions, and change: embedded liberalism in the postwar economic order. International Organization, 36(2), 379–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Shaffer, G. (2003). How to make the WTO dispute settlement system work for developing countries: Some proactive developing country strategies. Geneva, Switzerland: International Centre for Trade; Sustainable Development (ICTSD). ICTSD Resource Paper.Google Scholar
  67. World Bank. World development indicators.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Colorado BoulderBoulderUSA

Personalised recommendations