To understand why some international institutions have stronger dispute settlement mechanisms (DSMs) than others, we investigate the dispute settlement provisions of nearly 600 preferential trade agreements (PTAs), which possess several desirable case-selection features and are evoked more than is realized. We broaden the study of dispute settlement design beyond “legalization” and instead reorient theorizing around a multi-faceted conceptualization of the strength of DSMs. We posit that strong DSMs are first and foremost a rational response to features of agreements that require stronger dispute settlement, such as depth and large memberships. Multivariate empirical tests using a new data set on PTA design confirm these expectations and reveal that depth – the amount of policy change specified in an agreement – is the most powerful and consistent predictor of DSM strength, providing empirical support to a long-posited but controversial conjecture. Yet power also plays a sizeable role, since agreements among asymmetric members are more likely to have strong DSMs due to their mutual appeal, as are those involving the United States. Important regional differences also emerge, as PTAs across the Americas are designed with strong dispute settlement, as are Asian PTAs, which contradicts the conventional wisdom about Asian values and legalization. Our findings demonstrate that rationalism explains much of international institutional design, yet it can be enhanced by also incorporating power-based and regional explanations.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
See http://idatd.eclac.cl/controversias/index_en.jsp. Last accessed 22 March 2015.
As James Gaathi notes, in a paper aptly titled The Under-Appreciated Jurisprudence of Africa’s Regional Trade Judiciaries: “…in Africa there has been an exponential use of these judiciaries without much acknowledgment in the academic literature” (Gaathi 2010a, 246).
One current example is the investor-state dispute settlement provisions that were widely inserted in bilateral investment treaties (BITs). They subsequently were used more frequently than anticipated, in a manner that imposed significant costs on states, thus provoking a recent backlash (see Simmons 2014).
From purely a methodological standpoint, one way to deal with this concern is by using factor analysis (Hooghe et al. 2014).
Indeed, our data show that the sizeable majority of PTA signed over the past three decades allow for one or more forms of legal dispute settlement.
We claim that the number of members and overall depth of the agreement should affect DSM design. These first two elements are established during the early stages of talks, while decisions about how to address future disputes over the agreement’s terms are addressed later in the negotiation process.
For instance, a Congressional Research Service (CRS) analysis of the U.S.-South Korea PTAs notes that “(t)he potential scope of KORUS FTA dispute settlement is limited by the scope of the KORUS FTA obligations that would be taken on by the Parties” (Grimmett 2012, 2).
The project identifies just over 700 post-war treaties, but the number of coded treaties is 589 due to treaty text availability.
Laks-Hutnick (2013), for instance, identifies a total 1,207 trade disputes that were taken before the DSMs of four prominent Western Hemisphere PTAs (North American Free Trade Agreement, NAFTA; the Central American Common Market, CACM; the Common Market of the South, MERCOSUR; Andean Community) between 1995 and 2010.
https://www.nafta-sec-alena.org/Home/Dispute-Settlement/Status-Report-of-Panel-Proceedings (last accessed 25 March 2015). For a discussion of the mechanisms and their performance, see De Mestral 2006.
The list of such cases is on the U.S. State Department’s website: http://www.state.gov/s/l/c33165.htm (last accessed 25 March 2015).
For instance, Garcia Bercero (2006) notes that many trade disputes involving the E.U. are addressed through the various consultations mechanisms that are included in E.U. PTAs. See also Luo (2006, 443) on disputes within the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and Dominguez (2007) on disputes among CACM members.
We posit that stronger DSMs, which include these design features, should enhance treaty enforcement. Note that our dependent variable measures DSM strength; it is not a measure of actual treaty enforcement or dispute activity.
We do not count cases where no arbitration or adjudication is specified, but the dispute settlement language allows for trade remedies.
In principle this index can range from 0 to 12, but in reality the largest value maxes out at 9.
Two of the six components (time limits, comprehensiveness) are already binary (0–1). For three of the others (forum choice, chairman selection, sanctions) we divide by the maximum value to array on a 0–1 scale. For the fourth (delegation), we (re-)code both ad hoc arbitration and creation of a standing body as 1.
One clear factor emerges, with an Eigenvalue of 3.37. The loadings for the six variables that comprise the factor are as follows: delegation (0.81), forum choice (0.70), chairman selection (0.78), time limits (0.81), sanctions (0.82), and lack of exemptions (0.53).
For purposes of robustness, we also consider various transformations of this variable (log, quadradic) as well as a simple distinction between bilateral (two) and plurilateral (three or more) agreements.
We follow the United Nations classification for matching countries to continents. See http://unstats.un.org/unsd/methods/m49/m49regin.htm, last accessed on 31 August 2014.
This, and the next two, indicators of depth are drawn from Dür et al. (2014). For details on the components for the various depth measures, see Appendix 1 of our online appendix, which is available at the journal’s website (http://www.springer.com/social+sciences/journal/11558).
See Appendix 1 for details.
We categorize the United States, Canada, Japan, Australia, New Zealand and all countries in Western Europe as the “North.”
PTAs only among Northern states should have less demand for strong enforcement, and Southern states should be less likely to surrender sovereignty to a powerful DSM in their agreements with one another in the absence of any benefit from checking the power of a larger state.
Our empirical measure takes the log of the mean value of imports across all members of the PTA (in millions of dollars), but we also consider exports as well as other methods of aggregation. Trade data are drawn from the International Monetary Fund’s Direction of Trade Statistics (DOTS, 2010) as well as Gleditsch (2002).
Our primary dependent variable (see Table 1g) is ordered but not interval or continuous. Thus when using this primary outcome variable we estimate ordered probit models due to worries that OLS would produce biased and misleading estimates (Peel et al. 1998). We also note that our major findings are robust across estimators.
We include dummy variables for 5 years intervals beginning with years ending in “0” or “5” (expect for the period 1948–54). As a sensitivity check, we also substitute narrower (yearly) or broader (decade) time-period dummies, which has no impact on our core conclusions.
To do so, we use in Stata 12 the prvalue post-estimation command from the SPost package (Long and Freese 2014). Unless specified otherwise, we hold all variables at their median values and use 2000 as the year and set depth = 3. For tractability, these calculations draw upon a variant of the primary model in which a year variable is inserted in place of fixed time-period effects.
We substitute a plurilateral (vs. bilateral) variable and find that it is always a positive and statistically significant predictor of DSM strength, with or without the number of members variable. We also find that the log of number of members is positive and significant when substituted in place of the untransformed number of members variable.
According to some, the E.U. long took a more skeptical position toward legally-based dispute settlement because it felt that encouraging diplomatic dispute settlement with its PTA partners would better serve its interests (e.g., Broude 2004). European Commission official Ignacio Garcia Bercero (2006) argues somewhat differently, claiming that the Community’s negative experiences with GATT dispute settlement shaped its preference for diplomatic dispute settlement in its PTAs. Regardless of the reason, close observers now claim that the E.U. has become more receptive to strong, legal dispute settlement in recent years and recent PTAs (e.g., Garcia Bercero 2006; Porges 2011). We find some evidence of such a shift in our design data beginning around the year 2000.
Additionally, we are quite confident in the validity of our findings: there are over 75 Asian PTAs in our data set, and our measure of dispute settlement strength is carefully constructed and multi-faceted.
In the course of our research we have seen references to several disputes in Asian PTAs that were filed before arbitration or adjudication mechanisms, but later were withdrawn, presumably due to an “out of court” settlement. See also Luo (2006: 443).
This is potentially consistent with Jo and Namgung’s (2012) claim that democracies prefer “medium” levels of legalism.
Note that we also explored various selection models, with DSM design as the second (outcome) stage, but in all instances the lack of statistical significance of rho, the correlation between the first and second-stage estimations, led us to reject this approach.
All primary findings and conclusions are unchanged, with the only exception being that the estimate for the U.S. dummy variable remains positive but is not statistically significant.
Abbott, K. W., Keohane, R. O., Moravcsik, A., Slaughter, A., & Snidal, D. (2000). The concept of legalization. International Organization, 54(3), 401–19.
Acharya, A. (1997). Ideas, identity, and institution-building: from the ‘ASEAN’ way’ to the “Asia pacific Way’? The Pacific Review, 10(3), 319–46.
Acharya, A., & Johnston, A. I. (Eds.). (2007). Crafting cooperation: regional international institutions in comparative perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Aggarwal, V. (Ed.). (1998). Institutional designs for a complex world. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Allee, T., & Elsig, M. (2014). Are the contents of international treaties boilerplate? Evidence from preferential trade agreements. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American political science association, Washington, D.C., August 28–31, 2014.
Allee, T., & Elsig, M. (2015). Dispute settlement provisions in PTAs: new data and new concepts. In A. Dür & M. Elsig (Eds.), Trade cooperation: the purpose, design and effects of preferential trade agreements (pp. 319–352). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Allee, T., & Huth, P. K. (2006). International adjudication as domestic political cover. American Political Science Review, 100(2), 219–34.
Allee, T., & Peinhardt, C. (2010). Delegating differences: bilateral investment treaties and patterns of dispute resolution design. International Studies Quarterly, 54(1), 1–26.
Allee, T., & Peinhardt, C. (2014). Evaluating three explanations for the design of bilateral investment treaties. World Politics, 66(1), 47–87.
Alter, K. (2012). The global spread of European style courts. West European Politics, 35(1), 135–54.
Alter, K., & Helfer, L. (2010). Nature or nurture? Judicial lawmaking in the European court of justice and the Andean tribunal of justice. International Organization, 64(4), 563–92.
Alter, K., & Meunier, S. (2009). The politics of international regime complexity. Perspectives on Politics, 7(1), 13–24.
Arnold, C., & Rittberger, B. (2013). The legalization of dispute resolution in mercosur. Journal of Politics in Latin America, 5(3), 97–132.
Ásgeirsdóttir, A., & Steinwand, M. (2014). Dispute resolution mechanisms and maritime boundary settlements. Paper Presented at the annual meeting of the international studies association. Toronto, Canada.
Baccini, L., Dür, A. & Elsig, M. (2015a). The Politics of trade agreement design: revisiting the depth–flexibility Nexus. International Studies Quarterly.
Baccini, L., Dür, A., & Haftel, Y. (2015b). Imitation and innovation in international governance: the diffusion of trade agreement design. In A. Dür & M. Elsig (Eds.), Trade cooperation: the purpose, design and effects of preferential trade agreements (pp. 167–194). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bartels, L., & Ortino, F. (2006). Regional trade agreements and the WTO legal system. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Berger, A., Busse, M., Nunnenkamp, P., & Roy, M. (2010). Do trade and investment agreements lead to more FDI? Accounting for key provisions inside the black box. Kiel working paper, No. 1647.
Bernauer, T., Elsig, M., & Pauwelyn, J. (2012). The WTO dispute settlement mechanism: analysis and problems. In A. Narlikar, M. Daunton, & R. M. Stern (Eds.), Oxford handbook on the world trade organization (pp. 485–506). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bernauer, T., Kalbhenn, T., & Spilker, G. (2013). Is there a ‘depth versus participation’ dilemma in international cooperation? Review of International Organizations, 8(4), 477–97.
Biukovic, L. (2008). Dispute resolution mechanisms and regional trade agreements: South American and Caribbean modalities. U.C. Davis Journal of International Law and Policy, 14(2), 255–96.
Bown, C. (2004). On the economic success of GATT/WTO dispute settlement. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 86(3), 811–23.
Bown, C., & Pauwelyn, J. (2010). The law, economics and politics of retaliation in WTO dispute settlement. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brewster, R. (2006). Rule-based dispute resolution in international trade law. Virginia Law Review, 92, 251–88.
Broude, T. (2004). From Pax Mercatoria to Pax Europea: How trade dispute procedures serve the EC's Regional Hegemony. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=724641.
Busch, M. (2007). Overlapping institutions, forum shopping, and dispute settlement in international trade. International Organization, 61(4), 735–61.
Chase C., Yanovich, A., Crawford, J., & Ugaz, P. (2013). Mapping of dispute settlement mechanisms in regional trade agreements - innovative or variations on a theme? WTO Staff Working Paper (ERSD-2013-07).
Chayes, A., & Chayes, A. H. (1993). On compliance. International Organization, 47(2), 175–205.
Copelovitch, M. S., & Putnam, T. L. (2014). Design in context: existing international agreements and new cooperation. International Organization, 68(2), 471–93.
Davis, C. (2009). Overlapping institutions in trade policy. Perspectives on Politics, 7(1), 25–31.
De Mestral, A. (2006). NAFTA dispute settlement: creative experiment or confusion? In L. Bartels & F. Ortino (Eds.), Regional trade agreements and the WTO legal system (pp. 359–81). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dominguez, J. (2007). International cooperation in Latin America: the design of regional institutions by slow accretion. In A. Acharya & A. I. Johnston (Eds.), Crafting cooperation: regional international institutions in comparative perspective (pp. 83–128). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Donaldson, V., & Lester, S. (2009). Dispute settlement. In S. Lester & B. Mercurio (Eds.), Bilateral and regional trade agreements: commentary and analysis (pp. 367–414). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Downs, G. W., Rocke, D. M., & Barsoom, P. N. (1996). Is the good news about compliance good news about cooperation? International Organization, 50(3), 379–406.
Drezner, D. (2007). All politics is global: explaining international regulatory regimes. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Drezner, D. (2013). The tragedy of the global institutional commons. In M. Finnemore & J. Goldstein (Eds.), Back to basics: state power in a contemporary world (pp. 280–312). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Duffield, J. (2003). The limits of “rational design”. International Organization, 57(2), 411–30.
Dür, A., Baccini, L., & Elsig, M. (2014). The design of international trade agreements: introducing a new database. The Review of International Organizations, 9(3), 353–75.
Elsig, M., & Eckhardt, J. (2015). The Creation of the Multilateral Trade Court: Design and Experiential Learning. World Trade Review.
Gaathi, J. T. (2010a). The under-appreciated jurisprudence of Africa’s regional trade judiciaries. Oregon Review of International Law, 12, 245–82.
Gaathi, J. T. (2010b). African regional trade agreements as flexible legal regimes. North Carolina Journal of International Law and Commercial Regulation, 35, 571–667.
Garcia Bercero, I. (2006). Dispute settlement in European Union free trade agreements: lessons learned? In L. Bartels & F. Ortino (Eds.), Regional trade agreements and the WTO legal system (pp. 383–405). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gleditsch, K. (2002). Expanded trade and GDP data. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 46(5), 712–24.
Goldstein, J., Kahler, M., Keohane, R., & Slaughter, A. (2000). Introduction: legalization and world politics. International Organization, 54(3), 385–99.
Gomez-Mera, L., & Molinari, A. (2014). Overlapping institutions, learning, and dispute initiation in regional trade agreements: evidence from South America. International Studies Quarterly, 58(2), 269–81.
Gray, J., & Slapin, J. (2013). Exit options and the effectiveness of regional economic organizations. Political Science Research and Methods, 1(2), 281–303.
Grimmett, J. J. (2012). Dispute Settlement in the U.S.-South Korea free trade agreements (KORUS FTA). CRS Report for Congress, March 21, 2012.
Gruber, L. (2000). Ruling the world: power politics and the rise of supranational institutions. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Haftel, Y. (2012). Regional economic institutions and conflict mitigation. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Haftel, Y. (2013). Commerce and institutions: trade, scope and the design of regional economic organizations. Review of International Organizations, 8(3), 389–414.
Haftel, Y., & Thompson, A. (2006). The independence of international organizations: concept and applications. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 50(2), 253–75.
Herbst, J. (2007). Crafting regional cooperation in Africa. In A. Acharya & A. I. Johnston (Eds.), Crafting cooperation: regional international institutions in comparative perspective (pp. 129–144). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hooghe, L., Bezuijen, J., Derderyan, S., & Coman, E. (2014). Designing third party dispute settlement for international organizations. Paper presented at the 7th Annual conference on the political economy of international organizations, Princeton University, January 16–18, 2014.
Jaggers, K., & Gurr, T. R. (1995). Tracking democracy’s third wave with the polity III data. Journal of Peace Research, 32(4), 469–82.
Jetschke, A., & Lenz, T. (2013). Does regionalism diffuse? a New research agenda for the study of regional organizations. Journal of European Public Policy, 20(4), 626–37.
Jo, H., & Namgung, H. (2012). Dispute settlement mechanisms in preferential trade agreements: democracy, boilerplates, and the multilateral trade regime. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 56(6), 1041–68.
Kahler, M. (2000). Legalization as strategy: the Asia-pacific case. International Organization, 54(3), 549–71.
Keohane, R. O., Moravcsik, A., & Slaughter, A. (2000). Legalized dispute resolution: interstate and transnational. International Organization, 54(3), 457–88.
Khong, Y. F., & Nesadurai, H. E. S. (2007). Hanging together, institutional design, and cooperation in southeast Asia: AFTA and the ARF. In A. Acharya & A. I. Johnston (Eds.), Crafting cooperation: regional international institutions in comparative perspective (pp. 32–82). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kono, D. Y. (2007). Making Anarchy Work: International Legal Institutions and Trade Cooperation. Journal of Politics, 69(3), 746–59.
Koremenos, B. (2007). If Only Half of International Agreements have Dispute Resolution Provisions, Which Half Needs Explaining? The Journal of Legal Studies, 36(1), 189–212.
Koremenos, B., & Betz, T. (2013). The Design of Dispute Settlement Procedures in International Agreements. In J. Dunoff & M. Pollack (Eds.), Interdisciplinary Perspectives on International Law and International Relations (pp. 371–93). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Koremenos, B., Lipson, C., & Snidal, D. (2001). The Rational Design of International Institutions. International Organization, 55(4), 761–99.
Laks-Hutnick, J. A. (2013). Learning by doing or learning from others? Diffusion of information in international trade dispute settlement mechanisms. Paper prepared for the 2013 annual meeting of the international studies association, San Francisco, CA, April 4–6.
Long, J. S., & Freese, J. (2014). Regression models for categorical dependent variables using Stata (3rd ed.). College Station, TX: Stata Press.
Luo, Y. (2006). Dispute settlement in the proposed east Asia free trade agreement: lesson learned from the ASEAN, the NAFTA, and the EU. In Bartels & Ortino (Eds.), Regional trade agreements and the WTO legal system (pp. 419–45). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Maggi, G. (1999). The role of multilateral institutions in international trade cooperation. American Economic Review, 89(1), 190–214.
Mansfield, E. D., & Milner, H. V. (2012). Votes, vetoes, and the political economy of international trade agreements. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Marcoux, C. (2009). Institutional flexibility in the design of multilateral environmental agreements. Conflict Management and Peace Science, 26(2), 209–28.
Martin, L. (1992). Interests, power, and multilateralism. International Organization, 46(4), 765–92.
Mitchell, R. (1994). Regime design matters: intentional oil pollution and treaty compliance. International Organization, 48(3), 425–58.
Morgan, D. (2008). Dispute settlement under PTAs: political or legal? Legal studies research paper 341. Melbourne: Melbourne University Law School.
Paulson, C. (2004). Compliance with final judgments of the international court of justice since 1987. American Journal of International Law, 98, 434–61.
Peel, M. J., Goode, M. M. H., & Moutinho, L. A. (1998). Estimating consumer satisfaction: OLS versus ordered probability models. International Journal of Commerce and Management, 8(2), 75–93.
Peinhardt, C., & Allee, T. (2012). Failure to deliver: the investment effects of U.S. preferential trade agreements. The World Economy, 35(6), 757–83.
Pelc, K. (2009). Seeking escape: escape clauses in international trade agreements. International Studies Quarterly, 53(2), 349–68.
Porges, A. (2011). Dispute settlement. In J.-P. Chauffour & J.-C. Maur (Eds.), Preferential trade agreement policies for development: a handbook (pp. 467–501). Washington, D.C.: The World Bank.
Posner, E. A. (2009). The perils of global legalism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Posner, E. A., & Yoo, J. C. (2005). Judicial independence in international tribunals. California Law Review, 93(1), 1–74.
Raustiala, K., & Victor, D. G. (2004). The regime complex for plant genetic resources. International Organization, 58(2), 277–309.
Rosendorff, B. P. (2005). Stability and rigidity: politics and the design of the WTO’s dispute resolution procedure. The American Political Science Review, 99(3), 389–400.
Sattler, T., & Bernauer, T. (2011). Gravitation or discrimination? Determinants of litigation in the world trade organization. European Journal of Political Research, 50(2), 143–67.
Schneider, A. K. (1999). Getting along: the evolution of dispute resolution regimes in international trade organizations. Michigan Journal of International Law, 20(4), 697–773.
Schropp, S. (2009). Trade policy flexibility and enforcement in the world trade organization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Simmons, B. A. (2014). Bargaining over BITs, arbitrating awards: the regime for protection and promotion of international investment. World Politics, 66(1), 12–46.
Smith, J. M. (2000). The politics of dispute settlement design. International Organization, 54(1), 137–80.
Stone, R. W. (2011). Controlling institutions: international organizations and the global economy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Stone Sweet, A., & Brunell, T. (1999). Constructing a supranational constitution: dispute resolution and governance in the European community. The American Political Science Review, 92(1), 63–82.
Victor, D. G., Raustiala, K., & Skolnikoff, E. B. (Eds.). (1998). The implementation and effectiveness of international environmental commitments: theory and practice. Cambridge: MIT Press.
von Stein, J. (2012). The engines of compliance. In J. Dunoff & M. Pollack (Eds.), Interdisciplinary perspectives on international law and international relations (pp. 477–501). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wendt, A. (2001). Driving with the rearview mirror: on the rational science of institutional design. International Organization, 55(4), 1019–49.
Yarbrough, B. V., & Yarbrough, R. M. (1992). Cooperation and governance in international trade. New York: Columbia University Press.
Yarbrough, B. V., & Yarbrough, R. M. (1997). Dispute settlement in international trade: regionalism and procedural coordination. In E. D. Mansfield & H. V. Milner (Eds.), The political economy of regionalism (pp. 134–63). New York: Columbia University Press.
Zangl, B. (2008). Judicialization matters! a comparison of dispute settlement under the GATT and WTO. International Studies Quarterly, 52(4), 825–54.
We are grateful to the Swiss Science Foundation (www.nccr-trade.org) for financial support and to our research assistants for help in collecting the data used in this paper. For helpful comments we thank Chad Bown, Christina Davis, Jeff Kucik, and the three anonymous reviewers.
Compliance with ethical standards
This manuscript complies with all specified ethical standards.
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
(ZIP 74 kb)
About this article
Cite this article
Allee, T., Elsig, M. Why do some international institutions contain strong dispute settlement provisions? New evidence from preferential trade agreements. Rev Int Organ 11, 89–120 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11558-015-9223-y
- Preferential trade agreements
- Institutional design
- Dispute settlement