Human Rights or Trade Protection? US Politics and the World Trade Organization
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 6234903 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Donald W Jackson (Texas Christian University), Mary L Volcansek (Texas Christian University) |
| Year | 2009 |
| Volume | 44 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Pages | 155-172 |
| Publication date | 2009-03-01 |
| Open Access | No |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Australian Journal of Political Science (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 1036-1146 • E-ISSN: 1363-030X |
| Publisher | Informa UK Limited (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1080/10361140802657102 |
| OpenAlex | W2074939479 |
| Language | EN |
| References cited | 9 |
This paper explores the paradox of why the US serves as a principal supporter of the World Trade Organization (WTO), but withdrew from the obligatory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice and strongly opposed creation of the International Criminal Court. After surveying the 171 cases before the WTO Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU) from 1995–2005, in which the US was a party, the paradox can be explained by the findings that: (1) the overwhelming number of cases to which the US was party reached mutually acceptable settlements; (2) even though the US and the European Union (EU) dominate the WTO, the DSU serves as a mechanism to resolve otherwise possibly intractable trade conflicts between the two; (3) where the US lost before the WTO, domestic policies, not trade, were the driving forces; and (4) membership to the WTO is essential for any nation if it is not to subject both its imports and its exports to significant handicaps. The US also retains a gate-keeping function within the WTO framework that it would not be able to preserve before the International Criminal Court nor the International Court of Justice
Business · European union · Geography · International trade · International trade law · Jurisdiction · Political science · Politics · Principal (computer security · Supporter · Global trade and economics · International Arbitration and Investment Law · Law · World Trade Organization Law
| Highly cited | No |
|---|