Dispute settlement in world politics: States,supranational prosecutors,and compliance

Abstract

This article addresses one prominent expression of the interplay between politics and law in international cooperation: the dynamics of bargaining in the settling of compliance disputes. Our central argument is that the formal structure of dispute settlement systematically shapes the likelihood and terms of negotiated compliance settlements. We introduce an ideal type distinction between interstate dispute settlement, where the authority to sue states for non-compliance resides exclusively with states, and supranational dispute settlement, where this authority is partly or entirely delegated to a commission or secretariat with a prosecutorial function. We hypothesize that systems relying on supranational prosecution are more effective in addressing non-compliance, and more likely to mediate the impact of power asymmetries on dispute settlement outcomes, compared to systems relying on state-initiated complaints only. We find support for this proposition in an in-depth comparison of dispute settlement and compliance bargaining in the World Trade Organization and the European Union, and in a brief survey of experiences from other international organizations.

Keywords

compliance dispute settlement European Union institutional theory legalization World Trade Organization

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Allee

Huth

(2006) Legitimizing dispute settlement: International adjudication as domestic political cover. American Political Science Review 100(2): 219–234.

Alter

(2000) The European Union’s legal system and domestic policy: Spillover or backlash? International Organization 54(3): 489–518.

Alter

(2011) International enforcement courts. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Seattle, 1–4 September 2011.

Alter

Helfer

(2010) Nature or nurture: Law-making in the European Court of Justice and the Andean Tribunal of Justice. International Organization 64(4): 563–592.

Andean Community (2011) Procedimientos y Solucion de Controversias de la CAN. Internet, Available at: http://www.co.munidadandina.org/canprocedimientosinternet/procedimientos.aspx (accessed 9 September 2011).

Audretsch

HAH

(1986) Supervision in European Community Law, 2nd edn. Amsterdam: North-Holland.

Börzel

(2003) Guarding the treaty: The compliance strategies of the European Commission. In: Börzel

Cichowski

(eds) The State of the European Union Volume 6: Law, Politics, and Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 197–220.

Börzel

Hofmann

Panke

. (2010) Obstinate and inefficient: Why member states do not comply with European law. Comparative Political Studies 43(11): 1363–1390.

Bown

(2004a) Developing countries as plaintiffs and defendants in GATT/WTO trade disputes. World Economy 27(January): 59–80.

10.

Bown

(2004b) On the economic success of GATT/WTO dispute settlement. Review of Economics and Statistics 86(August): 811–823.

11.

Bown

(2005a) Participation in WTO dispute settlement: Complainants, interested parties, and free riders. Manuscript. Brookings Institution and Brandeis University (January).

12.

Bown

(2005b) Trade remedies and World Trade Organization dispute settlement: Why are so few challenged? Journal of Legal Studies 34(June): 515–552.

13.

Bown

(2009) Self-Enforcing Trade: Developing Countries and WTO Dispute Settlement. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

14.

Burley

A-M

Mattli

(1993) Europe before the court: A political theory of legal integration. International Organization 47(1): 41–76.

15.

Busch

Reinhardt

(2002) Testing international trade law: Empirical studies of GATT/WTO dispute settlement. In: Kennedy

DLM

Southwick

(eds) The Political Economy of International Trade Law: Essays in Honor of Robert E. Hudec. New York: Cambridge University Press, 457–481.

16.

Busch

Reinhardt

(2003a) Developing countries and GATT/WTO dispute settlement. Journal of World Trade 37(4): 719–735.

17.

Busch

Reinhardt

(2003b) The evolution of GATT/WTO dispute settlement. In: Curtis

Ciuriak

(eds) Trade Policy Research 2003. Ottawa: Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, 143–183.

18.

Busch

Reinhardt

Shaffer

(2009) Does legal capacity matter? A survey of WTO members. World Trade Review 8(4): 559–577.

19.

Calmfors

(2005) What Remains of the Stability Pact and What Next? SIEPS Report 2005: 8. Stockholm: Swedish Institute for European Policy Studies.

20.

Checkel

(ed.) (2005) International institutions and socialization in Europe. Special issue of International Organization 59(4).

21.

Dam

(1970) The GATT: Law and International Economic Organization. Chicago, Il: University of Chicago Press.

22.

Davis

(2008) The effectiveness of WTO dispute settlement: An evaluation of negotiation versus adjudication strategies. Unpublished manuscript, Princeton University.

23.

Davis

Bermeo

(2009) Who files? Developing country participation in GATT/WTO adjudication. Journal of Politics 71(3): 1033–1049.

24.

Davis

Shirato

(2007) Firms, governments, and WTO adjudication: Japan’s selection of WTO disputes. World Politics 59(2): 274–313.

25.

EFTA (European Free Trade Association) Court (2009) Report of the EFTA Court 2008. Luxembourg: EFTA Court.

26.

EFTA Surveillance Authority (2009) Annual Report 2008. Brussels: EFTA Surveillance Authority.

27.

European Commission (1996) Thirteenth Annual Report on Monitoring the Application of Community law (1995). COM (96) 600 Final. 28 February.

28.

European Commission (2006) Twenty-third Annual Report on Monitoring the Application of Community Law (2005). COM (2006) 416 Final.

29.

European Commission (2010) Twenty-seventh Annual Report 2009. On Monitoring the Application of EU Law (2009). COM 2010) 538 Final.

30.

European Court of Justice (2010) Annual Report 2009 Luxembourg: European Court of Justice.

31.

Financial Times (2010) Reforms to EU’s stability pact fall short of what’s required. 8 June.

32.

Franck

(1990) The Power of Legitimacy among Nations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

33.

Gantz

(2009) The United States and dispute settlement under the North American Free Trade Agreement: Ambivalence, frustration, and occasional defiance. In: Romano

(ed.) The Sword and the Scales: The United States and International Courts and Tribunals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ch. 11.

34.

Garrett

Smith

(2003) The political dynamics of legalization in the WTO. Paper prepared for delivery at the 2003 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Philadelphia, PA, 31 August.

35.

Goldstein

Kahler

Keohane

. (2000) Introduction: Legalization and world politics. International Organization 54(3): 385–399.

36.

Guzman

Simmons

(2005) Power plays and capacity constraints: The selection of defendants in WTO disputes. Journal of Legal Studies 34(2): 557–598.

37.

Helfer

Slaughter

A-M

(1997) Toward a theory of effective supranational adjudication. Yale Law Journal 107(2): 273–391.

38.

Horn

Mavroidis

(2008a) The WTO dispute settlement database. World Bank. Available at: http://go.worldbank.org/X5EZPHXJY0

39.

Horn

Mavroidis

(2008b) The WTO dispute settlement system 1995–2004: Some descriptive statistics. World Bank. Available at: http://go.worldbank.org/X5EZPHXJY0

40.

Horn

Mavroidis

Nordström

(2005) Is the use of the WTO dispute settlement system biased? In: Mavroidis

Sykes

(eds) The WTO and International Trade Law / Dispute Settlement. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

41.

IPS (Inter Press Service) (2008) Mercosur limps slowly along. Inter Press Service News Agency, 3 January. Available at: http://ipsnews.net/print.asp?idnews=40672 (accessed 2 October 2009).

42.

Jönsson

Tallberg

(1998) Compliance and post-agreement bargaining. European Journal of International Relations 4(4): 371–408.

43.

Keohane

Moravcsik

Slaughter

A-M

(2000) Legalized dispute resolution: Interstate and transnational. International Organization 54(3): 457–488.

44.

Lester

(2008) The WTO gambling dispute: Antigua mulls retaliation as the US negotiates withdrawal of its GATS commitments. ASIL Insights 12(5).

45.

Mendrinou

(1996) Non-compliance and the European Commission’s role in integration. Journal of European Public Policy 3(1): 1–22.

46.

MERCOSUR (Southern Common Market) Permanent Review Tribunal (2009) Solucion de Controversias. Available at: http://www.tprmercosur.org/es/sol_contr_laudos.htm (accessed 6 October 2009).

47.

Mnookin

Kornhauser

(1979) Bargaining in the shadow of the law: The case of divorce. Yale Law Journal 88: 950–997.

48.

Moore

(2000) WTO’s unique system of settling disputes nears 200 cases in 2000. WTO Document PRESS/180.

49.

Moravcsik

(1998) The Choice for Europe: Social Purpose and State Power from Messina to Maastricht. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

50.

NAFTA (North American Free Trade Area) (2009) Dispute settlement: Decisions and reports. Available at: http://www.nafta-sec-alena.org/en/DecisionsAndReports.aspx?x=312 (accessed 7 October 2009).

51.

Odell

(2000) Negotiating the World Economy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

52.

Raustiala

Slaughter

A-M

(2002) International law and compliance. In: Carlsnaes

Risse

Simmons

(eds) Handbook of International Relations. London: Sage, 538–558.

53.

Reinhardt

(2000) Aggressive multilateralism: The determinants of GATT/WTO dispute initiation, 1948–1998. Unpublished manuscript, Emory University.

54.

Reus-Smit

(ed.) (2004) The Politics of International Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

55.

Schelling

(1960) The Strategy of Conflict. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

56.

Shaffer

(2003) Defending Interests: Public–Private Partnerships in WTO Litigation. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.

57.

Smith

(2000) The politics of dispute settlement design: Explaining legalism in regional trade pacts. International Organization 54(1): 137–180.

58.

Smith

(2006) Compliance bargaining in the WTO: Ecuador and the bananas dispute. In: Odell

(ed.) Negotiating Trade: Developing Countries in the WTO and NAFTA. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 257–288.

59.

Snyder

(1993) The effectiveness of European Community law: Institutions, processes, tools and techniques. Modern Law Review 56(1): 19–54.

60.

Steinberg

(2002) In the shadow of law or power? Consensus-based bargaining and outcomes in the GATT/WTO. International Organization 56(2): 339–374.

61.

Sykes

(2005) Public versus private enforcement of international economic law: Standing and remedy. Journal of Legal Studies 34(June): 631–666.

62.

Tallberg

(2002) Paths to compliance: Enforcement, management and the European Union. International Organization 56(3): 609–643.

63.

Tallberg

(2003) European Governance and Supranational Institutions: Making States Comply. London: Routledge.

64.

Tallberg

Jönsson

(2005) Compliance bargaining. In: Elgström

Jönsson

(eds) European Union Negotiations: Processes, Networks, and Institutions. London: Routledge.

65.

Vinuesa

(2005) Enforcement of Mercosur arbitration awards within the domestic legal orders of member states. Texas International Law Journal 40(3): 425–442.

66.

Voeten

(2008) The impartiality of international judges: Evidence from the European Court of Justice. American Political Science Review 102(4): 417–434.

67.

WTO (World Trade Organization) (2001) Turkey — Restrictions on Imports of Textile and Clothing Products – Notification of Mutually Acceptable Solution. Document WT/DS34/14 (19 July).

68.

WTO (2002) Thailand — Anti-Dumping Duties on Angles, Shapes and Sections of Iron or Non-alloy Steel and H-Beams from Poland — Communication from Thailand. Document WT/DS122/11 (23 January).

69.

WTO (2003) United States — Section 110(5) of the U.S. Copyright Act — Notification of a Mutually Satisfactory Temporary Arrangement. Document WT/DS160/23 (26 June).

70.

Zangl

(2008) Judicialization matters! A comparison of dispute settlement under GATT and the WTO. International Studies Quarterly 52: 825–854.

71.

Zangl

Halmedach

Mondré

. (2011) Between law and politics: Explaining international dispute settlement behavior. European Journal of International Relations 17(1): 1–33.

72.

Zürn

Joerges

(eds) (2005) Law and Governance in Postnational Europe: Compliance beyond the Nation-State. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.