Skip to main content

The World Trade Organization and Global Governance

  • Chapter
Neo-Liberalism, State Power and Global Governance

The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) completed its most ambitious round of multilateral trade negotiations (MTN), the Uruguay Round, in December 1993. The Uruguay Round resulted in a stronger dispute settlement system, multilateral trade rules for services and intellectual property, more multilateral discipline for agriculture and textiles, and the creation of the World Trade Organization (WTO).

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

Access this chapter

eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • A. Anderson (2000), ‘Patching Up Morale at the World Trade Organization’, New York Times, 31 October.

    Google Scholar 

  • N. Bayne (2000), Hanging in There: The G7 and G8 Summit in Maturity and Renewal (Aldershot: Ashgate).

    Google Scholar 

  • J. Bello (1997), ‘Some Practical Observations about WTO Settlement of Intellectual Property Disputes’, Virginia Journal of International Law, 37, 357–367.

    Google Scholar 

  • C. Bergsten (1999), ‘America and Europe: Clash of the Titans?’, Foreign Affairs, 78, 2, 20–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • C. Bergsten and C. Henning (1996), Global Economic Leadership and the Group of Seven (Washington DC: Institute for International Economics).

    Google Scholar 

  • R. Blackhurst (1998), ‘The Capacity of the WTO to Fulfil Its Mandate’, in A. Krueger (ed.), The WTO as an International Organization (Chicago: University of Chicago Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • R. Blackhurst (2001), ‘Reforming WTO Decision Making: Lessons from Singapore and Seattle’, in K. Deutsch and B. Speyer (eds.), The World Trade Organization Millennium Round: Freer Trade in the Twenty-First Century (London: Routledge).

    Google Scholar 

  • B. Cohen (2003), ‘Can the Euro Ever Challenge the Dollar?’, Journal of Common Market Studies, 41, 4, 575–595.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • T. Cohn (1993), ‘The Changing Role of the United States in the Global Agricultural Trade Regime’, in W. Avery (ed.), World Agriculture and the GATT (Boulder, Colorado: Lynne Rienner).

    Google Scholar 

  • T. Cohn (2002), Governing Global Trade: International Institutions in Conflict and Convergence (Aldershot: Ashgate).

    Google Scholar 

  • R. Cooper (1968), The Economics of Interdependence: Economic Policy in the Atlantic Community (New York: McGraw-Hill).

    Google Scholar 

  • R. Cooper (1972), ‘Economic Interdependence and Foreign Policy in the Seventies’, World Politics, 24, 159–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • D. Das (2002), ‘The Global Trading System: From Seattle to Doha’, International Journal, 57, 4, 605–623.

    Google Scholar 

  • J. Dunoff (1998), ‘The Misguided Debate over NGO Participation at the WTO’, Journal of International Economic Law, 1, 3, 433–456.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • W. Dymond and M. Hart (2000), ‘Post-Modern Trade Policy: Reflections on the Challenges to Multilateral Trade Negotiations after Seattle’, Journal of World Trade, 34, 3, 21–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • The Economist (2002), ‘Coming Unstuck: The Doha Round of Trade Talks Is in Trouble’, 2 November. 365, 14.

    Google Scholar 

  • D. Esty (1998), ‘Non-Governmental Organizations at the World Trade Organization: Cooperation, Competition, or Exclusion’, Journal of International Economic Law, 1, 1, 123–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • M. Finger, J. Michael and P. Schuler (2001), ‘Developing Countries and the Millennium Round’, in K.-G. Deutsch and B. Speyer (eds.), The World Trade Organization Millennium Round (London: Routledge).

    Google Scholar 

  • J. Goldstein (1998), ‘Ideas Institutions, and American Trade Policy’, International Organization, 42, 1, 179–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • S. Golt (1978), The GATT Negotiations 1973–1979: The Closing Stage (London: British–North American Committee).

    Google Scholar 

  • M. Hart and B. Dymond (2003), ‘Special and Differential Treatment and the Doha “Development” Round’, Journal of World Trade, 37, 2, 395–415.

    Google Scholar 

  • D. Henderson (1998), ‘International Agencies and Cross-Border Liberalization: The WTO in Context’, in A. Krueger (ed.), The WTO as an International Organization (Chicago: University of Chicago Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • B. Hocking (2004), ‘Changing the Terms of Trade Policy Making: From the “Club” to the “Multistakeholder” Model’, World Trade Review, 3, 1, 3–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • B. Hoekman and M. Kostecki (2001), The Political Economy of the World Trading System: The WTO and Beyond (Oxford: Oxford University Press).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • S. Huntington (1988), ‘The US-Decline or Renewal?’, Foreign Affairs, 67, 2, 76–96.

    Google Scholar 

  • S. Huntington (1999), ‘The Lonely Superpower’, Foreign Affairs, 78, 2, 35–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • J. Jackson (1997), The World Trading System: Law and Policy of International Economic Relations (Cambridge: MIT Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • M. Kahler (1993), ‘Multilateralism with Small and Large Numbers’, in J. Ruggie (ed.), Multilateralism Matters: The Theory and Praxis of an Institutional Form (New York: Columbia University Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • A. La Vina and V. Yu (2002), ‘From Doha to Cancún: The WTO Trade Negotiations and Its Implications to Communities’, Working paper supported by the Initiative on Globalization, Environment, and Communities of the Ford Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • C. Layne (1993), ‘Uni-polar Illusion: Why Great Powers will Rise’, International Security, 17, 4, 5–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • C. Layne and B. Schwarz (1993), ‘American Hegemony–Without an Enemy’, Foreign Policy, 92, 5–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O. Long (1985), Law and Its Limitations in the GATT Multilateral Trade System (Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff).

    Google Scholar 

  • G. Marceau and P. Pedersen (1999), ‘Is the WTO Open and Transparent?’, Journal of World Trade, 33, 1, 5–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • M. Mastanduno (1998), ‘Economics and Security in Statecraft and Scholarship’, International Organization, 52, 4, 825–854.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • D. McRae and J. Thomas (1983), ‘The GATT and Multilateral Treaty Making: The Tokyo Round’, American Journal of International Law, 77, 51–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • A. Narlikar (2002), ‘The Politics of Participation’, The Round Table, 91, 364, 171–185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • J. Nye (1990), Bound to Lead: The Changing Nature of American Power (New York: Basic Books).

    Google Scholar 

  • R. O’Brien, A. Goetz, J. Scholte, and M. Williams (2000), Contesting Global Governance: Multilateral Economic Institutions and Global Social Movements (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • S. Ostry (2001), ‘The WTO and International Governance’, in K.-G. Deutsch and B. Speyer (eds.), The World Trade Organization Millennium Round (London: Routledge).

    Google Scholar 

  • S. Ostry (2003), ‘What Are the Necessary Ingredients for the World Trading Order?’, in H. Siebert (ed.), Global Governance: An Architecture for the World Economy (Berlin: Springer).

    Google Scholar 

  • H. Paemen and A. Bensch (1995), From the GATT to the WTO: The European Community in the Uruguay Round (Leuven: Leuven University Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • A. Panagariya (2002), ‘Developing Countries at Doha: A Political Economy Analysis’, World Economy, 25, 9, 1205–1233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • E. Preeg (1970), Traders and Diplomats: An Analysis of the Kennedy Round of Negotiations under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Washington DC: The Brookings Institution).

    Google Scholar 

  • E. Preeg (1995), Traders in a Brave New World: The Uruguay Round and the Future of the International Trading System (Chicago: University of Chicago Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • R. Putnam and N. Bayne (1987), Hanging Together: Cooperation and Conflict in the Seven-Power Summits (London: SAGE).

    Google Scholar 

  • B. Russett (1985), ‘The Mysterious Case of Vanishing Hegemony; or, Is Mark Twain Really Dead?’, International Organization, 39, 2, 207–231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • J. Schott and J. Watal (2000), ‘Decision Making in the WTO’, in J. Schott (ed.), The WTO after Seattle (Washington, DC: Institute for International Economics).

    Google Scholar 

  • G. Shell (1996), ‘The Trade Stakeholder Model and Participation by Non-state Parties in the World Trade Organization’, University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Economic Law, 17, 359–381.

    Google Scholar 

  • S. Strange (1987), ‘The Persistent Myth of Lost Hegemony’, International Organization, 41, 4, 551–574.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • TWN (1999), Statement from Members of International Civil Society Opposing a Millennium Round or a New Round of Comprehensive Trade Negotiations (Singapore: Third World Network).

    Google Scholar 

  • TWN et al. (2003), Memorandum on the Need to Improve Internal Transparency and Participation in the WTO, 13 July (Singapore: Third World Network).

    Google Scholar 

  • F. Williams (2002), ‘WTO Staff to Step Up Action over Pay’, Financial Times.

    Google Scholar 

  • R. Winham (1986), International Trade and the Tokyo Round Negotiation (Princeton: Princeton University Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • R. Winham (1989), ‘The Pre-negotiation Phase of the Uruguay Round’, International Journal, 44, 2, 280–303.

    Google Scholar 

  • N. Woods and A. Narlikar (2001), ‘Governance and the Limits of Accountability: The WTO, the IMF, and the World Bank’, International Social Science Journal, 170, 569–583.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • WTO (1995), Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization (Geneva: World Trade Organization).

    Google Scholar 

  • WTO (2001), ‘Statement on the Multilateral Trading System by Three Former GATT/WTO Directors-General’, WTO News, 1 February.

    Google Scholar 

  • WTO (2004), Doha Work Programme: Decision Adopted by the General Council on 1 August 2004 (Geneva: World Trade Organization).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2007 Springer

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Cohn, T.H. (2007). The World Trade Organization and Global Governance. In: Lee, S., Mcbride, S. (eds) Neo-Liberalism, State Power and Global Governance. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6220-9_13

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics