No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
International Trade Law and Domestic Policy: Canada, the United States, and the WTO. By Jacqueline D. Krikorian. Vancouver: UBC Press, 2012. 290 pages.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 09 March 2016
Abstract
An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Book Reviews / Recensions de livres
- Information
- Canadian Yearbook of International Law/Annuaire canadien de droit international , Volume 50 , 2013 , pp. 628 - 632
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Canadian Council on International Law / Conseil Canadien de Droit International, representing the Board of Editors, Canadian Yearbook of International Law / Comité de Rédaction, Annuaire Canadien de Droit International 2013
References
1 See, for example, Jackson, John H, “The Evolution of the World Trading System: The Legal and Institutional Context” in Bethlehem, Daniel et al, eds, The Oxford Handbook of International Trade Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009) 30 at 41–44.Google Scholar Marrakech Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, (1994) 33 ILM 1194. General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, 55 UNTS 194.
2 Davey, William J, “The Limits of Judicial Processes” in Bethlehem, , ibid 460 at 461.Google Scholar
3 See Hafner-Burton, Emilie M, Victor, David G, and Lupu, Yonatan, “Political Science Research on International Law: The State of the Field” (2012) 106 AJIL 47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4 Ibid at 74, 77, 85–86, 90. See also Shaffer, Gregory and Ginsburg, Tom, “The Empirical Turn in International Legal Scholarship” (2012) 106 AJIL 1 at 30–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5 Hafner-Burton, Victor, and Lupu, supra note 3 at 48.
6 Krikorian, Jacqueline D, International Trade Law and Domestic Policy: Canada, the United States, and the WTO (Vancouver: UBC Press, 2012) at 6, 11–12.Google Scholar
7 Ibid at 5.
8 Krikorian, supra note 6 at 13.
9 Ibid at 14–15.
10 Ibid at 81 (all respondent states listed in Figure 6).
11 See, for example, Hughes, Valerie, “The Institutional Dimension” in Bethlehem, supra note 1, 269 at 277 Google Scholar (panels and Appellate Body are sometimes called “quasi-judicial”); Steinberg, Richard H, “Judicial Lawmaking at the WTO: Discursive, Constitutional, and Political Constraints” (2004) 98 AJIL 247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar