As a final area in a far from exhaustive list of lacunae in the literature, we would like to mention the question of the role of the judge. For instance, the European Community has recently submitted a proposal to replace the existing regime of ad hoc panels with one of
17 Yet another aspect of the evidentiary standards concerns the appropriate role of scientific
permanent panelists. This proposal has been suggested to have a dramatic effect if implemented. However, we are not aware of any research from a law and economics perspective of how the composition of the adjudicating bodies may affect systematically affect rulings.
REFERENCES
Bagwell, Kyle, Petros C. Mavroidis and Robert W. Staiger [2003]. The case for auctioning countermeasures in the WTO, NBER Working Paper Series, No 9920.
Bloningen, Bruce A. and Chad P. Bown. [2003]. Antidumping and retaliation threats,
Journal of International Economics, 60: 249 – 273.
Bown, Chad P. [2002]. The economics of trade disputes, the GATT’s Article XXIII and the WTO’s dispute settlement understanding, Economics and Politics, 14: 283 – 323.
Bown, Chad P. [2004a]. On the economic success of GATT/WTO dispute settlement, The Review of Economics and Statistics, 37: 678 – 720.
Bown, Chad P. [2004b]. Developing countries as plaintiffs and defendants in GATT/WTO trade disputes, The World Economy, 27: 59 – 80.
Bown, Chad P. [2005]. Participation in WTO dispute settlement: complainants, interested parties and free riders. World Bank Economic Review 287-310.
Busch, Marc L. [2000]. Democracy, consultations, and the paneling of disputes under GATT, Journal of Conflict Resolution, 44: 425 – 446.
Busch, Marc L. and Eric Reinhardt [2001]. Bargaining in the shadow of law: early settlements in GATT/WTO disputes, Fordham International Law Journal, 24: 158 – 172.
Busch, Marc L. and Eric Reinhardt [2002]. Testing international trade law: empirical studies of GATT/WTO dispute settlement, pp. 457 – 481 in Daniel Kennedy and James
Southwick (eds.), The political economy of international trade law, essays in honour of Robert E. Hudec, Cambridge Un. Press, Cambridge, Mass,
Busch, Marc L. and Eric Reinhardt [2006]. Three’s a Crowd: Third Parties and WTO Dispute Settlement, World Politics (forthcoming).
Bütler, Monika and Heinz Hauser [2000]. The WTO dispute settlement system: A first assessment from an economic perspective. Journal of Law, Economics & Organization, 503,504.
Ethier, Wilfred J. [2001a]. Punishments and dispute settlement in trade agreements, Copenhagen: EPRU.
Ethier, Wilfred J. [2001b]. Theoretical problems in negotiating trade liberalization,
European Journal of Political Economy, 17, 209-232
Furusawa, Taiji [2003]. The role of the WTO Dispute Settlement Procedure on international cooperation. Mimeo.
Grinols, Earl L. and Roberto Perrelli [2003]. The WTO impact on international trade disputes: an event history analysis.The Review of Economics and Statistics (forthcoming).
Grossman, Gene M. and Alan O. Sykes [2006]. European Communities – Anti-Dumping Duties on Imports of Cotton-Type Bed Linen from India Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by India. Forthcoming in Horn and Mavroidis [2006b].
Guzman, Andrew T. [2002]. The cost of credibility: explaining resistance to interstate dispute resolution mechanisms, Journal of Legal Studies, 31: 303-326.
Guzman, Andrew T. [2003]. The political economy of litigation and settlement at the WTO. Mimeo.
Guzman, Andrew T. and Beth Simmons [2002]. To settle or empanel? An empirical analysis of litigation and settlement at the WTO, Journal of Legal Studies 31, S205 – S235.
Guzman, Andrew T. and Beth Simmons [2005]. Power plays and capacity constraints: the selection of defendants in WTO disputes, Journal of Legal Studies 34, 557 - 598.
Hoekman, Bernard and Petros C. Mavroidis [1994]. Competition, competition policy and the GATT, World Economy 13:
Horn, Henrik and Petros C. Mavroidis. [2004a]. Still hazy after all these years: the interpretation of National Treatment in the GATT/WTO case law on tax discrimination, European Journal of International Law, 15: 39-69.
Horn, Henrik and Petros C. Mavroidis. [2004b]. The allocation of burden of proof in non discrimination cases before the WTO. Mimeo.
Horn, Henrik and Petros C. Mavroidis (eds) [2004c]. The WTO case law of 2001; The
American Law Institute Reporters’ studies, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK.
Horn, Henrik and Petros C. Mavroidis (eds) [2005]. The WTO case law of 2002; The
American Law Institute Reporters’ studies, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK.
Horn, H. and P. Mavroidis [2006a] “The WTO Dispute Settlement Data Set: User’s Guide”. Available under www.worldbank.org/trade.
Horn, Henrik and Petros C. Mavroidis (eds) [2006b]. The WTO case law of 2003; The
American Law Institute Reporters’ studies, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK.
Horn, Henrik, Mavroidis, Petros C. and Hakan Nordstrom [1999]. Is the use of the WTO dispute settlement system biased? CEPR Discussion Paper Series No 2340. Also in The
Law and Economics of the WTO Dispute Settlement System, Petros C. Mavroidis and
Alan O. Sykes (eds), Edward Elgar Publishing, 2005.
Hudec, Robert [1993]. Enforcing international trade law: The evolution of the modern
GATT legal system, Salem, New Haven: Butterworth Legal.
Hungerford, Thomas L. [1991]. GATT: A cooperative equilibrium in a non-cooperative trading regime, Journal of International Economics, 31.
Kovenock, Dan and Marie Thursby [1992]. GATT: Dispute settlement and cooperation,
Economics and Politics, 4(2), 151-170
Lawrence, Robert Z. [2003]. Crimes and punishment in the WTO, Institute of International Economics: Washington D.C.
Ludema, Rodney D. [2001]. Optimal international trade agreements and dispute settlement procedures, European Journal of Political Economy, 17(2), 355-376
Maggi,Giovanni [1999]. The role of multilateral institutions in international trade cooperation, American Economic Review, 89(1), 190-214
Mattoo, Aaditya and Petros C. Mavroidis [1997]. Trade, environment and the WTO: the dispute settlement practice relating to Art. XX of the GATT, pp. 325-344 in Ernst-Ulrich Petersmann (ed.), International trade law and the GATT/WTO dispute settlement system, Kluwer: Amsterdam.
Palmeter, David and Petros C. Mavroidis [2004]. Dispute settlement in the WTO, practice
Reinhardt, Eric [1996]. Posturing parliaments: Ratification, uncertainty, and
international bargaining, PhD dissertation, Columbia University, Department of Political
Science.
Reinhardt, Eric [2000]. Aggressive multilateralism: the determinants of GATT/WTO dispute initiation 1948 – 1998. Mimeo.
Reinhardt, Eric [2001]. Adjudication without enforcement, Journal of Conflict
Resolution, 45, 174-195.
Riezman, Raymond [1991]. Dynamic tariffs with asymmetric information, Journal of
International Economics, 30(3-4), 267-284
Schwarz, Warren and Alan O. Sykes [2002]. The economic structure of renegotiation and dispute resolution in WTO/GATT system, Journal of Legal Studies, 31: 179 -
Staiger, Robert [1995]. International rules and institutions for cooperative trade policy, Ch. 29 in Grossman, Gene M. and Kenneth Rogoff (eds), Handbook of international
economics, Volume 3, 1495-1551, Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Sykes, Alan O. [2003a]. The safeguards mess: a critique of the WTO jurisprudence,
World Trade Review, 2: 261 – 304.
Sykes, Alan O. [2003b]. The least restrictive means, University of Chicago Law Review, 70: 403 – 416.