IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bpj/lawdev/v6y2013i2ps155-179n6.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Revisiting African States Participation in the WTO Dispute Settlement through Intra-Africa RTA Dispute Settlement

Author

Listed:
  • Forere Malebakeng

    (International Economic Law, World Trade Institute, Berne, Switzerland)

Abstract

Whereas developed countries were the main players in the GATT dispute settlement mechanism, the era of the WTO saw a sharp increase in the developing countries’ participation in trade disputes. Thus, developing countries are active complainants and defendants in the WTO dispute settlement processes. Nevertheless, African states are still marginalised, and this situation has attracted attention of many scholars. As a result, scholars in the field have come up with many reasons to explain why African states do not appear as either complainants or respondents. The reasons for Africa’s non-participation have been argued to include cost of WTO litigation relative to the gains, low trade volumes, legal knowledge and non-integration of African countries in the WTO system. This article seeks to contribute to the existing literature on Africa’s non-participation in the WTO dispute settlement. The goal in this article is to confirm or dispel assumptions that African states have interests that they need to safeguard through dispute settlement but are inhibited from doing so because of the reasons mentioned above. Unlike other studies, the determination on Africa’s non-participation in the WTO dispute settlement will be approached from African states’ participation in intra-Africa RTA dispute settlement mechanisms. While there are six intra-Africa RTAs notified to the WTO, this work focuses on only two – East African Community and Southern Africa Development Community.

Suggested Citation

  • Forere Malebakeng, 2013. "Revisiting African States Participation in the WTO Dispute Settlement through Intra-Africa RTA Dispute Settlement," The Law and Development Review, De Gruyter, vol. 6(2), pages 155-179, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:bpj:lawdev:v:6:y:2013:i:2:p:s155-179:n:6
    DOI: 10.1515/ldr-2013-0023
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1515/ldr-2013-0023
    Download Restriction: For access to full text, subscription to the journal or payment for the individual article is required.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1515/ldr-2013-0023?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bernard M. Hoekman & Petros C. Mavroidis, 2000. "WTO Dispute Settlement, Transparency and Surveillance," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 23(4), pages 527-542, April.
    2. Bartels Lorand, 2013. "Making WTO Dispute Settlement Work for African Countries: An Evaluation of Current Proposals for Reforming the DSU," The Law and Development Review, De Gruyter, vol. 6(2), pages 47-66, August.
    3. Jackson, John H, 1998. "Dispute Settlement and the WTO: Emerging Problems," Journal of International Economic Law, Oxford University Press, vol. 1(3), pages 329-351, September.
    4. repec:bla:worlde:v:23:y:2000:i:04:p:527-542 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Dunoff, Jeffrey L, 1998. "The Misguided Debate over NGO Participation at the WTO," Journal of International Economic Law, Oxford University Press, vol. 1(3), pages 433-456, September.
    6. Chad P. Bown & Bernard M. Hoekman, 2005. "WTO Dispute Settlement and the Missing Developing Country Cases: Engaging the Private Sector," Journal of International Economic Law, Oxford University Press, vol. 8(4), pages 861-890, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Bown, Chad, 2007. "Developing Countries and Enforcement of Trade Agreements: Why Dispute Settlement Is Not Enough," CEPR Discussion Papers 6459, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    2. Kokko, Ari & Gustavsson Tingvall, Patrik & Videnord, Josefin, 2017. "Which Antidumping Cases Reach the WTO?," Ratio Working Papers 286, The Ratio Institute.
    3. Antoine Bouët & Jeanne Métivier, 2020. "Is the dispute settlement system, “jewel in the WTO’s crown”, beyond reach of developing countries?," Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), Springer;Institut für Weltwirtschaft (Kiel Institute for the World Economy), vol. 156(1), pages 1-38, February.
    4. Götz, Christian & Heckelei, Thomas & Rudloff, Bettina, 2010. "What makes countries initiate WTO disputes on food-related issues?," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(2), pages 154-162, April.
    5. José Manuel Álvarez Zárate (Editor), 2016. "¿Hacia dónde va América Latina respecto al derecho económico internacional?," Books, Universidad Externado de Colombia, Facultad de Derecho, number 860.
    6. Sebastian Krapohl & Václav Ocelík & Dawid M. Walentek, 2021. "The instability of globalization: applying evolutionary game theory to global trade cooperation," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 188(1), pages 31-51, July.
    7. Antoine Bouet & Jeanne Métivier, 2017. "Is the WTO Dispute Settlement Procedure Fair for Developing Countries?," Working Papers hal-02149414, HAL.
    8. Aydin B. Yildirim & J. Tyson Chatagnier & Arlo Poletti & Dirk De Bièvre, 2018. "The internationalization of production and the politics of compliance in WTO disputes," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 13(1), pages 49-75, March.
    9. Arvind PANAGARIYA, 2000. "The Millennium Round And Developing Countries: Negotiating Strategies And Areas Of Benefits," G-24 Discussion Papers 1, United Nations Conference on Trade and Development.
    10. Kara M. Reynolds & Chad P. Bown, 2014. "Trade Flows and Trade Disputes," Working Papers 2014-05, American University, Department of Economics.
    11. Heinz Hauser & Alexander Roitinger, 2002. "A Renegotiation Perspective on Transatlantic Trade Disputes," University of St. Gallen Department of Economics working paper series 2002 2002-09, Department of Economics, University of St. Gallen.
    12. repec:hal:spmain:info:hdl:2441/8329 is not listed on IDEAS
    13. Bernard Hoekman & Douglas Nelson, 2020. "Subsidies, Spillovers and Multilateral Cooperation," RSCAS Working Papers 2020/12, European University Institute.
    14. Don Moon, 2006. "Equality and Inequality in the WTO Dispute Settlement (DS) System: Analysis of the GATT/WTO Dispute Data," International Interactions, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 32(3), pages 201-228, September.
    15. Bernard Hoekman & Patrick Messerlin, 2002. "Initial conditions and incentives for Arab economic integration : can the European Community's success be emulated?," Working Papers hal-03607662, HAL.
    16. Evenett, Simon J. & Hoekman, Bernard M., 2005. "Government procurement: market access, transparency, and multilateral trade rules," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 21(1), pages 163-183, March.
    17. Bernard Hoekman & David Vines, 2007. "Multilateral trade cooperation: what next?," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 23(3), pages 311-334, Autumn.
    18. repec:hal:wpspec:info:hdl:2441/8329 is not listed on IDEAS
    19. Richard Chisik & Chuyi Fang, 2020. "Cross-retaliation and International Dispute Settlement," Working Papers 066, Ryerson University, Department of Economics.
    20. Goetz, Christian & Heckelei, Thomas, 2010. "Determinants of Bilateral Food Related Disputes," 2010 Annual Meeting, July 25-27, 2010, Denver, Colorado 61773, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    21. M. Taslim, 2017. "Dispute Settlement in the WTO and the Least Developed Countries: The Case of India’s Anti-Dumping Duties on Lead Acid Battery Import from Bangladesh," Working Papers id:12354, eSocialSciences.
    22. Richard Chisik & Harun Onder, 2017. "Does Limited Punishment Limit The Scope For Cross Retaliation?," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 55(3), pages 1213-1230, July.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    dispute settlement; Africa; WTO;
    All these keywords.

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bpj:lawdev:v:6:y:2013:i:2:p:s155-179:n:6. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Peter Golla (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.degruyter.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.