The Evolution of Dispute Resolution Regimes in International Trade Organizations
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Michigan Journal of International Law Volume 20 Issue 4 1999 Getting Along: The Evolution of Dispute Resolution Regimes in International Trade Organizations Andrea Kupfer Schneider Marquette University Law School Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mjil Part of the Courts Commons, Dispute Resolution and Arbitration Commons, International Trade Law Commons, and the Organizations Law Commons Recommended Citation Andrea K. Schneider, Getting Along: The Evolution of Dispute Resolution Regimes in International Trade Organizations, 20 MICH. J. INT'L L. 697 (1999). Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mjil/vol20/iss4/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Michigan Journal of International Law at University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Michigan Journal of International Law by an authorized editor of University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. GETTING ALONG: THE EVOLUTION OF DISPUTE RESOLUTION REGIMES IN INTERNATIONAL TRADE ORGANIZATIONS Andrea Kupfer Schneider* I. IMPORTANCE OF STUDYING INTERNATIONAL DISPUTE RESOLUTION REGIMES ................................................... 700 II. DIFFERENTIATING BETWEEN DISPUTE RESOLUTION REGIMES .... 705 A. Legal FactorsDifferentiating Between Dispute Resolution Regimes ................................................ 706 1. D irect Effect of Rights .................................................. 706 2. Standing before the Dispute Resolution Body ............. 707 3. Supremacy over Domestic Law .................................... 708 4. Transparency .................................................................709 5. Enforcement & Punishment .......................................... 710 B . N egotiation Regim e ............................................................. 713 1. Individual Rights & Standing ....................................... 713 2. Suprem acy .................................................................... 7 13 3. Transparency ................................................................. 713 4. E nforcem ent .................................................................. 714 C. Investor ArbitrationRegime ................................................ 714 1. Individual R ights .......................................................... 715 2. Individual Standing ....................................................... 716 3. Supremacy & Transparency ......................................... 717 4. E nforcem ent .................................................................. 718 D. InternationalAdjudication Regime ..................................... 719 1. Individual Rights & Standing ....................................... 719 2. Supremacy & Transparency ......................................... 721 3. E nforcem ent .................................................................. 721 E. SupranationalCourt Regime ............................................... 723 1. Individual Rights & Standing ....................................... 723 2. Suprem acy .................................................................... 725 3. T ransparency .................................................................726 4. E nforcem ent .................................................................. 726 * Assistant Professor of Law, Marquette University Law School. J.D. Harvard Law School 1992, A.B. Princeton University. I am grateful to Jeffrey Atik, Frank Garcia, and Cherie O'Neal Taylor for their very helpful comments. Michigan Journal of InternationalLaw [Vol. 20:697 III. POLITICAL & ECONOMIC VARIABLES FOR DECIDING WHICH REGIME IS APPROPRIATE ............................................................... 727 A. Concerns Over Sovereignty-Exit, Voice & Loyalty .......... 730 1. The Need for Exit ......................................................... 732 2. The Need for Voice ....................................................... 733 3. The Existence of Loyalty .............................................. 734 B. Function of the Organization-MesoinstitutionTheory ..... 735 1. Facilitating Organizations ............................................. 735 2. Producing Organizations .............................................. 736 C. Level of Economic Integration............................................ 738 1. General Tariff Reduction .............................................. 738 2. Free Trade Agreement .................................................. 739 3. C ustom s U nion ............................................................. 739 4. Common Market ........................................................... 740 5. Economic Union ........................................................... 740 6. Economic Integration .................................................... 741 D. Number of Member States ................................................... 742 1. B ilateral T reaty ............................................................. 742 2. Several States ................................................................ 743 3. Regional Agreements .................................................... 743 4. G lobal Treaties .............................................................. 743 E. Similarity in Economic and Social Levels ........................... 744 1. Approximately the Same .............................................. 745 2. Clear Imbalance of Economic & Social Development. 746 3. Assorted Levels of Development .................................. 747 F. Government Type and Legal Culture of Member States ..... 747 1. Democracies, Open Economies and Strong L egal C ultures ............................................................... 748 2. Emerging Democracies with Controlled Economies .... 750 3. Totalitarian Governments ............................................. 751 IV. WHICH REGIME WHEN? ........................ .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .752 A. Negotiation Regime ............................................................. 752 1. Concerns with Sovereignty ........................................... 752 2. Type of Organization .................................................... 753 3. Goals of Economic Integration ..................................... 753 4. Number of Member States ............................................ 753 5. Similarity in Economic and Social Levels ................... 754 6. Government Type and Legal Culture ........................... 754 Summer 19991 Getting Along B . Investor A rbitration............................................................. 755 1. Concerns with Sovereignty ........................................... 756 2. Type of International Organization .............................. 757 3. Goals of Economic Integration ..................................... 757 4. Number of Member States ............................................ 757 5. Similarity in Economic and Social Levels ................... 757 6. Government Type and Legal Culture ........................... 758 C. InternationalAdjudication .................................................. 759 1. Concerns with Sovereignty ........................................... 759 2. Type of International Organization .............................. 760 3. Goals of the Economic Organization ............................ 761 4. N um ber of States .......................................................... 761 5. Similarity in Economic and Social Levels ................... 762 6. Government Type and Legal Culture ........................... 762 D. SupranationalCourt Regime ............................................... 763 1. Concerns Over Sovereignty .......................................... 764 2. Type of International Organization .............................. 764 3. Goals of the Economic Organization ............................ 765 4. N um ber of States .......................................................... 765 5. Similarity of Economic and Social Levels ................... 766 6. Government Type and Legal Culture ........................... 766 V. DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE WORK .................................................. 767 A. Only InternationalTrade Agreements Used ....................... 767 B. InternationalTrade Organizationsare N ew O rganizations.............................................................. 769 C. All FactorsHave Equal Weight .......................................... 769 D. Assume FactorsEvaluated During OriginalNegotiations. 770 C O N CLU SIO N ......................................................................................... 77 1 In the face of the remarkable growth of international organizations in the last fifty years, scholars in multiple disciplines have sought to explain why and how states cooperate. Dispute resolution is one of the most crucial components of international cooperation. Examining the dispute resolution regimes of international organizations in light of these theories can inform and help reform these evolving regimes.I 1. With this article, I hope to answer the continuing call to integrate law with other disciplines, including political science, international relations theory, and economics. See, e.g., Kenneth W. Abbott, Modern InternationalRelations Theory: A Prospectusfor Interna- tional Lawyers, 14 YALE J. INT'L L. 335 (1989); Anne-Marie Slaughter Burley, International Law and International Relations Theory: A Dual Agenda, 87 AM. J. INT'L L. 205 (1993)