Encyclopedia of Law and Economics

2019 Edition
| Editors: Alain Marciano, Giovanni Battista Ramello

WTO: Procedural Rules

  • Yong-Shik LeeEmail author
  • Alessandro Romano
Reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-7753-2_666


The Dispute Settlement Mechanism (DSM) of the World Trade Organization plays a crucial role in resolving interstate trade disputes. This entry analyzes from a law and economics perspective some of the most important procedural rules of the DSM: (i) the standing, (ii) the allocation of litigation costs, and (iii) the existing remedies.

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


  1. Bown CP, Hoekman BM (2005) WTO dispute settlement and the missing developing country cases: engaging the private sector. J Int Econ Law 8:861–890CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bronckers M, Baetens F (2013) Reconsidering financial remedies in WTO dispute settlement. J Int Econ Law 16:281–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bronckers M, Van den Broek N (2005) Financial compensation in the WTO improving the remedies of WTO dispute settlement. J Int Econ Law 8:101–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Choi WM (2007) The present and future of the investor-state dispute settlement paradigm. J Int Econ Law 10:725–739CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Colares JF (2009) A theory of WTO adjudication: from empirical analysis to biased rule development. Vand J Trans Law 42:383–439Google Scholar
  6. Coleman JL (1980) Efficiency, exchange, and auction: philosophic aspects of the economic approach to law. Calif Law Rev 68:221–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Davis CL, Bermeo SB (2009) Who files? Developing country participation in GATT/WTO adjudication. J Politics 71:1033–1049CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Davis CL, Shirato Y (2007) Firms, governments, and WTO adjudication: Japans selection of WTO disputes. World Politics 59:274–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Grewal DS (2008) Network power: the social dynamics of globalization. Yale University Press, New HavenGoogle Scholar
  10. Guzman AT (2002) The political economy of litigation and settlement at the WTO. UC Berkeley Public Law Research Paper 98Google Scholar
  11. Hoekman BM, Horn H, Mavroidis PC (2009) Winners and losers in the panel stage of the WTO dispute settlement. In: Thomas C, Trachtman JP (eds) Developing countries in the WTO legal system. Oxford University Press, New York, p 151Google Scholar
  12. Keisuke I (2003) Why does the World Trade Organization appear neoliberal? The puzzle of the high incidence of guilty verdicts in WTO adjudication. J Public Pol 23:1–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lee YS (2014) Safeguard measures in world trade: the legal analysis. Edward Elgar Publishing, CheltenhamCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lee YS (2016) Reclaiming development in the World Trading System. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  15. Luanratana W, Romano A (2014) Stare decisis in the WTO: myth, dream, or a sirens song? J World Trade 48:773–794Google Scholar
  16. Mavroidis PC (2000) Remedies in the WTO legal system: between a rock and a hard place. Eur J Int Law 11:763–813CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Nzelibe J (2005) The credibility imperative: the political dynamics of retaliation in the World Trade Organization’s dispute resolution mechanism. Theor Inq Law 6:215–254Google Scholar
  18. Olson M (1965) The logic of collective action. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  19. Priest GL (1980) Selective characteristics of litigation. J Leg Stud 9:399–421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Romano A, Sotis C, Yifei YB (2015) ICSID vs. WTO: an economic analysis of procedural rules. N C J Int Law Com Reg 41:31–58Google Scholar
  21. Shaffer GC (2003) Defending interests: public-private partnerships in WTO litigation. Brookings Institution Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  22. Shavell S (2009) Economic analysis of accident law. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  23. Sykes AO (2005) Public versus private enforcement of international economic law: standing and remedy. J Leg Stud 34:631–666CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Tullock G, Brady GL, Seldon A (2002) Government failure: a primer in public choice. Cato Institute, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  25. Turk MC (2011) Why does the complainant always win at the WTO? A reputation-based theory of litigation at the World Trade Organization. 31NW J Int Law Bus 31:385Google Scholar
  26. World Trade Organization Trading into the future (2001) Available at: https://www.wto.org/english/res_e/doload_e/tif.pdf

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The Law and Development InstituteDecaturUSA
  2. 2.China-EU School of LawChina University of Political Science and LawBeijingChina