Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-99c86f546-x5mqb Total loading time: 0.223 Render date: 2021-12-05T00:04:34.223Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

Seeking mutual understanding: a discourse-theoretical analysis of the WTO Dispute Settlement System

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 June 2010

EMANUELA CEVA*
Affiliation:
Dipartimento di Studi Politici e Sociali, Università degli Studi di Pavia, Strada Nuova 65, 27100 Pavia, Italy
ANDREA FRACASSO*
Affiliation:
Dipartimento di Economia, Università degli Studi di Trento, Via Inama 5, 38122 Trento, Italy

Abstract

The WTO Dispute Settlement System (DSS) has been the object of many studies in politics, law, and economics focusing on institutional design problems. This paper contributes to such studies by accounting for the argumentative nature and sophisticated features of the DSS through a philosophical analysis of the procedures through which it is articulated. Jürgen Habermas's discourse theory is used as a hermeneutic device to disentangle the types of ‘orientations’ (compromise, consensus, and mutual understanding) pertaining to DSS procedures. We show that these latter are oriented primarily to put the parties in a position to reach mutual understanding. Such an orientation is no mere idiosyncrasy of the DSS but is the only one consistently conducive to the WTO's general aims, in response to the various types of disputes that may arise between its Members. Before closing, we bring our procedural considerations to bear on the reform proposals of the DSS.

Type
Review Article
Copyright
Copyright © Emanuela Ceva and Andrea Fracasso 2010

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.)

References

Alben, Elissa and Reif, Timothy (2006), ‘Homage to a Bull Moose III: striking the correct balance between political governance and judicialization in the WTO’, in Sacerdoti, G., Yanovich, A., and Bohanes, J. (eds.), The WTO at Ten: The Contribution of the Dispute Settlement System, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Alexy, Robert (1993), ‘Justification and Application of Norms’, Ratio Iuris, 6: 157170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1996), ‘Jürgen Habermas's Theory of Legal Discourse’, Cardozo Law Review, 17: 10271034.Google Scholar
Bagwell, Kyle and Staiger, Robert W. (2002), The Economics of the World Trading System, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bello, Judith H. (1996), ‘The WTO Dispute Settlement Understanding: Less is More’, American Journal of International Law, 90: 416417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berger, Johannes (1991), ‘The Linguistification of the Sacred and the Delinguistification of the Economy’, in Honneth, A. and Joas, H. (eds.), Communicative Action, Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Brown, Andrew and Stern, Robert (2007), ‘Concepts of Fairness in the Global Trading System’, Pacific Economic Review, 12(3): 293318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carmody, Chios (2008), ‘A Theory of WTO Law’, Journal of International Economic Law, 11(3): 131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ceva, Emanuela (2007), ‘Plural Values and Heterogeneous Situations: Considerations on the Scope for a Political Theory of Justice’, European Journal of Political Theory, 6(3): 359375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chambers, Simone (1996), Reasonable Democracy: Jürgen Habermas and the Politics of Discourse, Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Cottier, Thomas (2006), ‘DSU Reform: Resolving Underlying Balance-of-Power Issues’, in Sacerdoti, G., Yanovich, A., and Bohanes, J. (eds.), The WTO at Ten: The Contribution of the Dispute Settlement System, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Davis, Gary (2007), ‘Habermas and “Political World Society”: A Sympathetic Critique’, available at http://cohering.net/re/391hpws.html, last accessed 26/09/2008.Google Scholar
Ethier, Wilfred J. (2004), ‘Political Externalities, Nondiscrimination, and a Multilateral World’, Review of International Economics, 12(3): 303320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feteris, Eveline (2003), ‘The Rationality of Legal Discourse in Habermas's Discourse Theory’, Informal Logic, 23(2): 139159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Günther, Klaus (1989), ‘A Normative Conception of Coherence for a Discursive Theory of Legal Justification’, Ratio Juris, 2: 155166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Habermas, Jürgen (1984), The Theory of Communicative Action, vol. 1, Boston: Beacon.Google Scholar
(1988), ‘Law and Morality’, in McMurrin, S. M. (ed.), The Tanner Lectures on Human Values, Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.Google Scholar
(1990), Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
(1995), Justification and Application, Oxford: Polity Press.Google Scholar
(1996), Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
(1998), On the Pragmatics of Communication, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
(2003), Truth and Justification, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
(2005), Zwischen Naturalismus und Religion, Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Hart, H. L. A. (1994), The Concept of Law, Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Horn, Henrik and Mavroidis, Petros C. (2006), ‘A Survey of the Literature on the WTO Dispute Settlement System’, IFN Working Paper, 684.Google Scholar
Howse, Robert and Esserman, Susan (2006), ‘The Appellate Body, the WTO Dispute Settlement System, and the Politics of Multilateralism’, in Sacerdoti, G., Yanovich, A., and Bohanes, J. (eds.), The WTO at Ten: The Contribution of the Dispute Settlement System, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hughes, Valerie (2006), ‘The WTO Dispute Settlement System – from Initiating Proceedings to Ensuring Implementation: What Needs Improvement?’, in Sacerdoti, G., Yanovich, A., and Bohanes, J. (eds.), The WTO at Ten: The Contribution of the Dispute Settlement System, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Keck, Alexander and Schropp, Simon (2008), ‘Indisputably Essential: The Economics of Dispute Settlement Institutions in Trade Agreements’, Journal of World Trade, 42 (5): 785812.Google Scholar
Krajewski, Markus (2001), ‘Democratic Legitimacy and Constitutional Perpsectives of WTO Law’, Journal of World Trade, 35(1): 167186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, John H. (1997a), The World Trading System: Law and Policy of International Economic Relations, 2nd edition, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
(1997b), ‘The WTO Dispute Settlement Understanding – Misunderstandings on the Nature of Legal Obligation’, American Journal of International Law, 91: 6064.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2004), ‘International Law Status of WTO Dispute Settlement Reports’, American Journal of International Law, 98(1): 109125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2008), ‘The Case of the World Trade Organization’, International Affairs, 84(3): 437454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maggi, Giovanni and Staiger, Robert W. (2008), ‘On the Role and Design of Dispute Settlement Procedures in International Trade Agreements’, NBER Working Paper 14067, June.Google Scholar
Matsushita, Mitsuo, Schoenbaum, Thomas J., and Mavroidis, Petros C. (2006), The World Trade Organization: Law, Practice, and Policy, 2nd edition, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ortino, Federico and Ernst-Ulrich, Petersmann (eds.) (2004), The World Trade Organization Dispute Settlement System 1995–2003, The Hague: Kluwer Law International.Google Scholar
Palmeter, David and Mavroidis, Petros C. (2004), Dispute Settlement in the World Trade Origanization, Practice and Procedure, 2nd edition, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Panizzon, Marion (2007), ‘Fairness, Promptness and Effectiveness: Creating a Good Faith Standard for WTO Dispute Settlement Procedures’, NCCR Trade Working Papers, No. 2007/19, March.Google Scholar
Petersmann, Ernst-Ulrich (2004), ‘The Doha Development Round Negotiations on Improvements and Clarifications of the Dispute Settlement Understanding 2001–2003: An Overview’, in Ortino, F. and Petersmann, E. U. (eds.), The World Trade Organization Dispute Settlement System 1995–2003, The Hague: Kluwer Law International.Google Scholar
(2006), ‘From “Member-Driven Governance” to Constitutionally Limited “Multilevel Trade Governance”’, in Sacerdoti, G., Yanovich, A., and Bohanes, J. (eds.), The WTO at Ten: The Contribution of the Dispute Settlement System, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Petersmann, Ernst-Ulrich (ed.) (2005), Reforming the World Trading System: Legitimacy, Efficiency and Democratic Governance, Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rehg, William and Bohman, James (2002), ‘Discourse and Democracy: The Formal and Informal Bases of Legitimacy in Between Facts and Norms’, in Schomberg, R. Von and Baynes, K. (eds.), Discourse and Democracy: Essays on Habermas's Between Facts and Norms, Albany: SUNY.Google Scholar
Sacerdoti, Giorgio (2006), ‘The Dispute Settlement System of the WTO in Action: A Perspective on the First Ten Years’, in Sacerdoti, G., Yanovich, A., and Bohanes, J. (eds.), The WTO at Ten: The Contribution of the Dispute Settlement System, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Srinivasan, T. N. (2007), ‘The Dispute Settlement Mechanism of the WTO: A Brief History and an Evaluation from Economic, Contractarian and Legal Perspectives’, The World Economy, 30(7): 10331067.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwartz, Warren F. and Sykes, Alan O. (2002), ‘The Economic Structure of Renegotiation and Dispute Resolution in the WTO/GATT System’, Journal of Legal Studies, 31(1): 179204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steinberg, Richard H. (2004), ‘Judicial Lawmaking at the WTO: Discursive, Constitutional, and Political Constraints’, The American Journal of International Law, 98(2): 247275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warnke, Georgia (1995), ‘Communicative Rationality and Cultural Values’, in White, S. K. (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Habermas, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
WTO (1999), The Legal Texts: The Results of the Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Zimmermann, Thomas A. (2006), Negotiating the Review of the WTO Dispute Settlement Understanding, London: Cameron May.Google Scholar
4
Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@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 sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent 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.

Seeking mutual understanding: a discourse-theoretical analysis of the WTO Dispute Settlement System
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and 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 <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Seeking mutual understanding: a discourse-theoretical analysis of the WTO Dispute Settlement System
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and 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 <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Seeking mutual understanding: a discourse-theoretical analysis of the WTO Dispute Settlement System
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *