Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-5c569c448b-bmzkg Total loading time: 0.497 Render date: 2022-07-02T06:35:38.465Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "useNewApi": true } hasContentIssue true

20 - Should the teeth be pulled? An analysis of WTO sanctions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2009

Daniel L. M. Kennedy
Affiliation:
University of Minnesota
James D. Southwick
Affiliation:
University of Minnesota
Get access

Summary

The most salient feature of the World Trade Organization (WTO) dispute settlement system is the possibility of authorizing a trade sanction against a scofflaw member government. Yet this feature is a mixed blessing. On the one hand, it fortifies WTO rules and promotes respect for them. On the other hand, it undermines the principle of free trade and provokes “sanction-envy” in other international organizations. Undoubtedly, the implanting of “teeth” by the WTO negotiators was one of the key achievements of the Uruguay Round, and a very significant step in the evolution of international economic law. But after six years of experience, WTO observers are beginning to consider whether recourse to damaging trade measures was a good idea. This essay provides an analytical framework for rethinking WTO trade sanctions.

To be sure, the WTO Agreement does not employ the word “sanction.” What the Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU) of 1994 says in Article 22 is that if a government fails to bring a measure found to be inconsistent with a WTO rule into compliance, it shall enter into negotiations with the government invoking dispute settlement, and if no mutually acceptable compensation is agreed, the plaintiff government may seek authorization from the WTO Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) “to suspend the application to the Member concerned of concessions or other obligations under the covered agreements.” This language is based on a similar provision in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) of 1947.

Type
Chapter
Information
The Political Economy of International Trade Law
Essays in Honor of Robert E. Hudec
, pp. 602 - 635
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2002

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)
7
Cited by

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×