IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/jieclw/v14y2011i2p369-402.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Framework for Thinking about the 'Discretion' in the Mandatory/Discretionary Distinction

Author

Listed:
  • Simon Lester

Abstract

The mandatory/discretionary distinction that has been applied to 'as such' challenges in WTO disputes is the subject of a good deal of disagreement, both as to its scope and its continued applicability. In this piece, I put forward a framework for thinking about the kinds of discretion that may exist in a measure, focusing on two general categories of discretion and presenting a way to evaluate the 'degrees' of discretion based on these categories. This framework can be applied regardless of which view is taken on the proper role of the distinction. In addition, I offer some thoughts on the basis for the distinction between mandatory and discretionary measures and, taking into account the framework developed, on how the distinction should be applied. Oxford University Press 2011, all rights reserved, Oxford University Press.

Suggested Citation

  • Simon Lester, 2011. "A Framework for Thinking about the 'Discretion' in the Mandatory/Discretionary Distinction," Journal of International Economic Law, Oxford University Press, vol. 14(2), pages 369-402, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:jieclw:v:14:y:2011:i:2:p:369-402
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/jiel/jgr016
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

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

    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:oup:jieclw:v:14:y:2011:i:2:p:369-402. 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/jiel .

    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.