Internet Gambling and International Political Economy

  • Andrew F. Cooper
Part of the Palgrave Handbooks in IPE book series (PHIPE)


The Antigua versus US dispute over Internet gambling offers many insights into IPE. In structural terms both the similarities and differences between the nature and treatment of gambling and offshore finance are highlighted. In terms of agency it reveals both the space and limits of creative strategies by smaller actors, and in doing so recalibrates our assessment of negotiating capacity and measures of success. Not only does the IG case counter the notion of the offshore being nebulous, it nuances the image of vulnerability of even a tiny Caribbean state. Still, in the end, as the IG case underscores, it is outcomes not processes that matter. Through the lens of power and interests, the case reinforces the image of classic asymmetry.


  1. Ackman, Dan. 2004. 52nd Street Louie Goes Global. Forbes, 25 March.Google Scholar
  2. Ashe, John W. 2006. Antigua Reacts to Indictments of Gaming Operators. Directorate of Offshore Gaming, Press Release, 22 May. Available at:
  3. Beattie, Allan and Frances Williams. 2005. WTO Chips in on Debate over Online Gambling: The Impact of the Ruling Could Prove Substantial. Financial Times, 8 April.Google Scholar
  4. Blustein, Paul. 2006. Against All Odds. Washington Post, 4 August.Google Scholar
  5. Brown, Desmond. 2016. Trump’s Antiguan Gambling Problem. Caribbean News Service, 14 December.Google Scholar
  6. Campbell, Patricia. 2007a. Antigua Reviews Controls for Gaming Sector. Antigua Sun, 28 February.Google Scholar
  7. ———. 2007b. Gaming Fight with US Costs Antigua Millions. Antigua Sun, 1 March.Google Scholar
  8. Cooper, Andrew F. 1998. In Between Countries: Australia, Canada and the Search for Order in Agricultural Trade. Montreal/Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press.Google Scholar
  9. ———. 2008. ‘Remote’ in the Eastern Caribbean: The Antigua-US WTO Internet Gambling Case, CIGI Caribbean Paper 4. Waterloo: The Centre for International Governance Innovation April.Google Scholar
  10. ———. 2009. Confronting Vulnerability through Resilient Diplomacy: Antigua and the WTO Internet Gambling Dispute with the United States. In The Diplomacies of Small States: Between Vulnerability and Resilience, ed. Andrew F. Cooper and Timothy M. Shaw, 207–218. London: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. ———. 2011. Internet Gambling Offshore: Caribbean Struggles over Casino Capitalism. London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cooper, Andrew F., and Richard Higgott. 1993. Australian and Canadian Approaches Towards the Cairns Group and the GATT Uruguay Round: Two-Level Games and the Political Economy of Adjustment. In Volume 7 of the International Political Economy Yearbook, World Agriculture and the GATT, ed. William P. Avery, 121–142. Boulder: Lynne Rienner.Google Scholar
  13. Cooper, Andrew F., and Timothy M. Shaw, eds. 2009. The Diplomacies of Small States: Between Vulnerability and Resilience. Basingstoke: Palgrave.Google Scholar
  14. Drezner, Daniel W. 2001. Sovereignty for Sale. Foreign Affairs 125 (September/October): 76–77.Google Scholar
  15. Government of Antigua. 2003. Antigua and Barbuda and United States Fail to Reach Agreement at WTO: Director-General Asked to Form an Arbitration Panel, Newsletter 80 (August). London: High Commission of Antigua and Barbuda to the United Kingdom.Google Scholar
  16. Guzman, Andrew T., and Beth A. Simmons. 2005. Power Plays and Capacity Constraints: The Selection of Defendants in WTO. Disputes Journal of Legal Studies 34 (June): 557–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Habeeb, William Mark. 1988. Power and Tactics in International Negotiations: How Weak Nations Bargain with Strong Nations. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Higgott, Richard, and Andrew F. Cooper. 1990. Middle Power Leadership and Coalition-Building: Australia, the Cairns Group and the Uruguay Round. International Organization 44 (Autumn): 589–631.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jamaica Gleaner. 2016. Antigua Makes New Moves To Collect On WTO Gambling Ruling, 27 July.Google Scholar
  20. Keohane, Robert O. 1969. Lilliputians' Dilemmas: Small States in International Politics. International Organization 23 (2): 291–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lever, Rob. 2007. US Says Not Bound to WTO Gambling Actions, Will Modify Commitment. Agence France Presse, 4 May.Google Scholar
  22. Narlikar, Amrita. 2003. International Trade and Developing Countries: Bargaining Coalitions in the GATT and WTO. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  23. Palan, Ronen. 2006. The Offshore World: Sovereign Markets, Virtual Places, and Nomad Millionaires. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Reuters. 2013. Brazil Won’t Rule Out Retaliation if U.S. Cotton Payments End, 8 August.Google Scholar
  25. Rovnick, Naomi. 2004. Herbies Help Antigua in WTO Outsourcing Victory. The Lawyer, 5 April.Google Scholar
  26. Sharman, J.C. 2017. Sovereignty at the Extremes: Micro-States in World Politics. Political Studies 65 3 (October) Scholar
  27. Sparshott, Jeffrey. 2006. Antigua Gambles on Trade Case with US. The Washington Times, 5 July.Google Scholar
  28. Spero, Joan E., and Jeffrey A. Hart. 1997. The Politics of International Economic Relations. 5th (eds.) ed. New York: St. Martin’s Press.Google Scholar
  29. Stumberg, Robert K. 2005. Securing American Sovereignty: A Review of the US's Relations with the WTO. Testimony before the Federal Financial Management, Government Information and International Security Subcommittee of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, 15 July.Google Scholar
  30. Vallerius, Bradley. 2004. WTO Rules in Favor of Antigua. Gaming News, 25 March.Google Scholar
  31. Yamato, Jen. 2013. Copyright Nightmare On Horizon As WTO-Approved Legal Piracy Advances. Deadline, 28 January.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andrew F. Cooper
    • 1
  1. 1.Balsillie School of International Affairs and the Department of Political ScienceUniversity of WaterlooWaterlooCanada

Personalised recommendations