IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/wotrrv/v3y2004i01p99-118_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The WTO dispute settlement process: did the negotiators get what they wanted?

Author

Listed:
  • STOLER, ANDREW L.

Abstract

The short answer to the question posed in the title is for the most part ‘yes’. The negotiators' objectives grew out of their governments' unsatisfactory experiences with GATT dispute settlement and they set out to fix what was wrong with the system. In the Uruguay Round result, WTO Members have established a system that is truly multilateral and at the same time works effectively and efficiently. Today the system is used by developed and developing countries alike and has shown itself capable of resolving extremely difficult and politically sensitive trade disputes. At the end of the Uruguay Round, the results of these negotiations were warmly praised in key capitals around the world, including in Washington. But there is at least one important US objective that, in practice, turned out not to have been met (at least in the way intended) in the Uruguay Round negotiations. Another important objective of many of the negotiators now appears to have backfired to an extent that several WTO Members are seeking to revisit their earlier achievement.

Suggested Citation

  • Stoler, Andrew L., 2004. "The WTO dispute settlement process: did the negotiators get what they wanted?," World Trade Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 3(1), pages 99-118, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:wotrrv:v:3:y:2004:i:01:p:99-118_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S147474560400165X/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. Johan Lindeque & Steven McGuire, 2007. "The United States and trade disputes in the World Trade Organization: Hegemony constrained or confirmed?," Management International Review, Springer, vol. 47(5), pages 725-744, 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:wotrrv:v:3:y:2004:i:01:p:99-118_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/wtr .

    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.