IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/intorg/v64y2010i02p257-279_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Politics of Judicial Economy at the World Trade Organization

Author

Listed:
  • Busch, Marc L.
  • Pelc, Krzysztof J.

Abstract

International institutions often moderate the legal decisions they render. World Trade Organization (WTO) panels do this by exercising judicial economy. This practice, which is evident in 41 percent of all rulings, involves the decision not to rule on some of the litigants' arguments. The constraint is that it can be appealed. We argue that panels exercise judicial economy when the wider membership is ambivalent about the future consequences of a broader ruling. This is proxied by the “mixed” (that is, nonpartisan) third-party submissions, which are informative because they are costly, jeopardizing a more decisive legal victory that would benefit these governments too. We empirically test this hypothesis, and find that mixed third-party submissions increase the odds of judicial economy by upwards of 68 percent. This suggests that panels invoke judicial economy to politically appease the wider WTO membership, and not just to gain the litigants' compliance in the case at hand.

Suggested Citation

  • Busch, Marc L. & Pelc, Krzysztof J., 2010. "The Politics of Judicial Economy at the World Trade Organization," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 64(2), pages 257-279, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:intorg:v:64:y:2010:i:02:p:257-279_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0020818310000020/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Leslie Johns & Calvin Thrall & Rachel L. Wellhausen, 2020. "Judicial economy and moving bars in international investment arbitration," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 15(4), pages 923-945, October.
    2. Horn, Henrik, 2013. "The Time WTO Panels Require to Issue Reports," Working Paper Series 979, Research Institute of Industrial Economics.
    3. Tana Johnson, 2015. "Information revelation and structural supremacy: The World Trade Organization’s incorporation of environmental policy," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 10(2), pages 207-229, June.
    4. Bart Kerremans, 2022. "Divergence Across the Atlantic? US Skepticism Meets the EU and the WTO’s Appellate Body," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 10(2), pages 208-218.
    5. 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.
    6. Kazutaka Takechi, 2023. "How are the precedents of trade policy rules made under the World Trade Organization?," Economics and Politics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 35(3), pages 806-821, November.
    7. Ryan Brutger & Julia Morse, 2015. "Balancing law and politics: Judicial incentives in WTO dispute settlement," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 10(2), pages 179-205, June.
    8. Christina Davis, 2015. "The political logic of dispute settlement: Introduction to the special issue," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 10(2), pages 107-117, June.
    9. Julia Gray & Jonathan Slapin, 2012. "How effective are preferential trade agreements? Ask the experts," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 7(3), pages 309-333, September.

    More about this item

    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:cup:intorg:v:64:y:2010:i:02:p:257-279_00. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/ino .

    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.