IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/reggov/v16y2022i4p1362-1381.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Why de‐judicialize? Explaining state preferences on judicialization in World Trade Organization Dispute Settlement Body and Investor‐to‐State Dispute Settlement reforms

Author

Listed:
  • Johann Robert Basedow

Abstract

Judicialization scholarship suggests that states must seek the de‐judicialization of international dispute settlement mechanisms to regain regulatory space. Why then do some states seek a de‐judicialization yet others increased judicialization of dispute settlement mechanisms in their pursuit of regulatory space? This article advances a twofold argument. First, the concept of judicialization has been erroneously conflated with state perceptions of regulatory space under dispute settlement mechanisms. States aspiring to consolidate regulatory space may pursue de‐judicialization and increased judicialization alike. Second, states' preferences for de‐judicialization or increased judicialization to regain regulatory space should largely depend on conceptions of legitimate international law as either intergovernmental contracts or cosmopolitan quasi‐constitutional order. The article illustrates these arguments at the example of US and EU efforts to reform the Dispute Settlement Body of the World Trade Organization and investor‐to‐state dispute settlement. Both seek to increase regulatory space. Yet, the USA pursues de‐judicialization while the EU promotes judicialization.

Suggested Citation

  • Johann Robert Basedow, 2022. "Why de‐judicialize? Explaining state preferences on judicialization in World Trade Organization Dispute Settlement Body and Investor‐to‐State Dispute Settlement reforms," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(4), pages 1362-1381, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:reggov:v:16:y:2022:i:4:p:1362-1381
    DOI: 10.1111/rego.12431
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12431
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/rego.12431?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Elsig, Manfred & Eckhardt, Jappe, 2015. "The Creation of the Multilateral Trade Court: Design and Experiential Learning," World Trade Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 14(S1), pages 13-32, July.
    2. Bown, Chad P. & Keynes, Soumaya, 2020. "Why Trump shot the Sheriffs: The end of WTO dispute settlement 1.0," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 42(4), pages 799-819.
    3. Bonnitcha, Jonathan & Skovgaard Poulsen, Lauge N. & Waibel, Michael, 2017. "The Political Economy of the Investment Treaty Regime," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780198719557.
    4. Claude Barfield, 2001. "Free Trade, Sovereignty, Democracy: The Future of the World Trade Organization," Books, American Enterprise Institute, number 52877, September.
    5. Goldstein, Judith & Martin, Lisa L., 2000. "Legalization, Trade Liberalization, and Domestic Politics: A Cautionary Note," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 54(3), pages 603-632, July.
    6. Dirk De Bièvre & Arlo Poletti & Lars Thomann, 2014. "To enforce or not to enforce? Judicialization, venue shopping, and global regulatory harmonization," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 8(3), pages 269-286, September.
    7. Smith, James McCall, 2000. "The Politics of Dispute Settlement Design: Explaining Legalism in Regional Trade Pacts," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 54(1), pages 137-180, January.
    8. Thomas Dietz & Marius Dotzauer & Edward S. Cohen, 2019. "The legitimacy crisis of investor-state arbitration and the new EU investment court system," Review of International Political Economy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 26(4), pages 749-772, July.
    9. Keohane, Robert O. & Moravcsik, Andrew & Slaughter, Anne-Marie, 2000. "Legalized Dispute Resolution: Interstate and Transnational," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 54(3), pages 457-488, July.
    10. Stone Sweet, Alec, 2004. "The Judicial Construction of Europe," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199275533.
    11. Joost Pauwelyn, 2019. "WTO Dispute Settlement Post 2019: What to Expect?," Journal of International Economic Law, Oxford University Press, vol. 22(3), pages 297-321.
    12. 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.
    13. Todd Allee & Manfred Elsig, 2016. "Why do some international institutions contain strong dispute settlement provisions? New evidence from preferential trade agreements," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 11(1), pages 89-120, March.
    14. Jonas Tallberg & Michael Zürn, 2019. "The legitimacy and legitimation of international organizations: introduction and framework," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 14(4), pages 581-606, December.
    15. Petersmann, Ernst-Ulrich, 2019. "How Should WTO Members React to Their WTO Crises?," World Trade Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 18(3), pages 503-525, July.
    16. van Harten, Gus, 2007. "Investment Treaty Arbitration and Public Law," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199217892.
    17. Pollack, Mark A., 2003. "The Engines of European Integration: Delegation, Agency, and Agenda Setting in the EU," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199251179.
    18. J.H.H. Weiler, 1997. "The Reformation of European Constitutionalism," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 35(1), pages 97-131, March.
    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. Robert Basedow, 2021. "The EU's International Investment Policy ten years on: the Policy‐Making Implications of Unintended Competence Transfers," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 59(3), pages 643-660, May.
    2. 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.
    3. Bart-Jaap Verbeek, 2022. "Embedded Neoliberalism and the Legitimacy of the Post-Lisbon European Union Investment Policy," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 10(3), pages 110-120.
    4. Darren Hawkins & Wade Jacoby, 2008. "Agent permeability, principal delegation and the European Court of Human Rights," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 3(1), pages 1-28, March.
    5. Tadashi Ito, 2007. "NAFTA and productivity convergence between Mexico and the US," IHEID Working Papers 26-2007, Economics Section, The Graduate Institute of International Studies, revised 27 Nov 2007.
    6. Nathan Jensen, 2007. "International institutions and market expectations: Stock price responses to the WTO ruling on the 2002 U.S. steel tariffs," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 2(3), pages 261-280, September.
    7. Rana, Arslan Tariq & Kebewar, Mazen, 2014. "The Political Economy of FDI flows into Developing Countries: Does the depth of International Trade Agreements Matter?," EconStor Preprints 91501, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics.
    8. Arthur Dyevre & Nicolas Lampach, 2021. "Issue attention on international courts: Evidence from the European Court of Justice," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 16(4), pages 793-815, October.
    9. repec:got:cegedp:94 is not listed on IDEAS
    10. Besir Ceka and Brian Burgo, 2014. "Discovering Cooperation: A Contractual Approach to Institutional Change in Regional International Organizations," EUI-RSCAS Working Papers p0388, European University Institute (EUI), Robert Schuman Centre of Advanced Studies (RSCAS).
    11. José Luis Castro-Montero & Edwin Alblas & Arthur Dyevre & Nicolas Lampach, 2018. "The Court of Justice and treaty revision: A case of strategic leniency?," European Union Politics, , vol. 19(4), pages 570-596, December.
    12. Áslaug Ásgeirsdóttir & Martin Steinwand, 2015. "Dispute settlement mechanisms and maritime boundary settlements," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 10(2), pages 119-143, June.
    13. repec:spo:wpmain:info:hdl:2441/6881 is not listed on IDEAS
    14. Francesco Duina, 2016. "Making sense of the legal and judicial architectures of regional trade agreements worldwide," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 10(4), pages 368-383, December.
    15. Giuseppe Zaccaria, 2022. "You’re Fired! International Courts, Re‐contracting, and the WTO Appellate Body during the Trump Presidency," Global Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 13(3), pages 322-333, June.
    16. Yoram Z. Haftel & Alexander Thompson, 2006. "The Independence of International Organizations," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 50(2), pages 253-275, April.
    17. Fattore, Christina, 2013. "Exploring Aviation Rivalries within the Legal Context of the WTO," Estey Centre Journal of International Law and Trade Policy, Estey Centre for Law and Economics in International Trade, vol. 14(2), pages 1-17.
    18. Axel Berger & Wan‐Hsin Liu, 2021. "Can the G20 serve as a launchpad for a multilateral investment agreement?," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 44(8), pages 2284-2302, August.
    19. 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.
    20. Daniel Matisoff, 2010. "Are international environmental agreements enforceable? implications for institutional design," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 10(3), pages 165-186, September.
    21. Tobias Lenz & Besir Ceka & Liesbet Hooghe & Gary Marks & Alexandr Burilkov, 2023. "Discovering cooperation: Endogenous change in international organizations," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 18(4), pages 631-666, October.
    22. Nicolas Lampach & Arthur Dyevre, 2020. "Choosing for Europe: judicial incentives and legal integration in the European Union," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 50(1), pages 65-86, August.

    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:wly:reggov:v:16:y:2022:i:4:p:1362-1381. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1748-5991 .

    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.