Public versus private enforcement of international economic law: Standing and remedy

Journal of Legal Studies

Volumn 34, Issue 2, 2005, Pages 631-666

  Sykes, Alan O ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 26944473230     PISSN: 00472530     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1086/431781     Document Type: Review

References (51)

1. Bagwell, Kyle, and Robert W. Staiger. 2002. The Economics of the World Trading System. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
2. Bagwell, Kyle, Petros C. Mavroidis, and Robert W. Staiger. 2003. The Case for Auctioning Countermeasures in the WTO. Working Paper No. 9920. National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, Mass.
3. _. 2004. The Case for Tradable Remedies in WTO Dispute Settlement. Policy Research Working Paper No. 3314. World Bank, New York.
4. Been, Vicki, and Joel C. Beauvais. 2003. The Global Fifth Amendment? NAFTA's Investment Protections and the Misguided Quest for an International "Regulatory Takings" Doctrine. New York University Law Review 78:30-143.
5. Bermann, George A., Roger Goebel, William J. Davey, and Elanor M. Fox. 2002. European Union Law. 2d ed. St. Paul, Minn.: West Group.
6. Bhala, Raj, and Lucienne Attard. 2003. Austin's Ghost and DSU Reform. The International Lawyer 37:651-76.
7. Blume, Lawrence, and Daniel L. Rubinfeld. 1984. Compensation for Takings: An Economic Analysis. California Law Review 72:569-628.
8. Bronckers, Marco, and Naboth van den Broek. 2005. Financial Compensation in the WTO: Improving the Remedies of WTO Dispute Settlement. Journal of International Economic Law 8:101-26.
9. Brower, Charles H. 2003. NAFTA's Investment Chapter: Initial Thoughts about Second-Generation Rights. Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law 36:1533-66.
10. Busch, Marc L., and Eric Reinhardt. 2003. Developing Countries and General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade/World Trade Organization Dispute Settlement. Journal of World Trade 37:719-35.
11. Charnovitz, Steve. 2001. Rethinking WTO Trade Sanctions. American Journal of International Law 95:792-832.
12. _. 2002. Should the Teeth Be Pulled? An Analysis of WTO Sanctions. Pp. 602-35 in The Political Economy of International Trade Law, edited by Daniel L. M. Kennedy and James D. Southwick. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
13. Chemerinsky, Erwin. 2003. Federal Jurisdiction. 4th ed. New York: Aspen.
14. Currie, David. 2000. The Constitution of the United States. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
15. Davey, William J. 2001. WTO Dispute Settlement. Unpublished manuscript. University of Illinois College of Law, Champaign.
16. Egli, Patricia. 2005. Biret International S.A. v. Council of the European Union. American Journal of International Law 99:230-35.
17. Elkins, Zachary, Andrew Guzman, and Beth Simmons. 2004. Competing for Capital: The Diffusion of Bilateral Investment Treaties, 1960-2000. Public Law Research Paper No. 578961. University of California, Berkeley, School of Law.
18. Epstein, Richard A. 1980. Takings: Private Property and the Power of Eminent Domain. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
19. Goldstein, Judith L., and Lisa L. Martin. 2000. Legalization, Trade Liberalization and Domestic Politics: A Cautionary Note. International Organization 54:603-32.
20. Grossman, Gene M., and Petros C. Mavroidis. 2003. Would've or Should've?: Impaired Benefits due to Copyright Infringement. Pp. 281-99 in The WTO Case Law of 2001, edited by Henrik Horn and Petros C. Mavroidis. Cambridge: Cambridge Press.
21. Guzman, Andrew T. 1998. Why LDCs Sign Treaties That Hurt Them: Explaining the Popularity of Bilateral Investment Treaties. Virginia Journal of International Law 38:639-88.
22. _. 2002. The Cost of Credibility: Explaining Resistance to Interstate Dispute Resolution Mechanisms. Journal of Legal Studies 31:303-26.
23. _. 2004. The Design of International Agreements. Public Law Research Paper No. 487662. University of California, Berkeley, School of Law.
24. Jackson, John H., William J. Davey, and Alan O. Sykes, Jr. 2002. International Economic Relations. 4th ed. St. Paul, Minn.: West Group.
25. Kaplow, Louis. 1986a. Private versus Social Costs in Bringing Suit. Journal of Legal Studies 15:371-85.
26. _. 1986b. An Economic Analysis of Legal Transitions. Harvard Law Review 99:509-617.
27. Landes, William, and Richard A. Posner. 1975. The Private Enforcement of Law. Journal of Legal Studies 4:1-46.
28. Levy, Philip I., and T. N. Srinivasan. 1996. Regionalism and the (Dis)advantage of Dispute Settlement Access. American Economic Review: Papers and Proceedings 86:93-98.
29. Lindert, Peter. 1991. International Economics. 9th ed. Homewood, Ill.: Irwin.
30. Maggi, Giovanni, and Andres Rodriguez-Clare. 1998. The Value of Trade Agreements in the Presence of Political Pressures. Journal of Political Economy 106:574-601.
31. Mavroidis, Petros C. 2000. Remedies in the WTO Legal System: Between a Rock and a Hard Place. European Journal of International Law 11:763-814.
32. Menell, Peter S. 1983. A Note on Private versus Social Incentives to Sue in a Costly Legal System. Journal of Legal Studies 12:41-52.
33. Nzelibe, Jide. 2005. The Credibility Imperative: The Political Dynamics of Retaliation in the World Trade Organization's Dispute Resolution Mechanism. Theoretical Inquiries in Law 6:215-54. http://www.bepress.com/til/default/.
34. Polinsky, A. Mitchell. 1980. Private versus Public Enforcement of Fines. Journal of Legal Studies 9:105-27.
35. Salas, Mauricio, and John H. Jackson. 2000. Procedural Overview of the WTO EC - Banana Dispute. Journal of International Economic Law 3:145-66.
36. Schwartz, Warren F., and Alan O. Sykes. 2002. The Economic Structure of Renegotiation and Dispute Settlement in the World Trade Organization. Journal of Legal Studies 31:S179-S204.
37. Shavell, Steven. 1982. The Social versus the Private Incentive to Bring Suit in a Costly Legal System. Journal of Legal Studies 11:333-39.
38. _. 2004. Foundations of Economic Analysis of Law. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
39. Shaviro, Daniel. 2000. When Rules Change: An Economic and Political Analysis of Transition Relief and Retroactivity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
40. Shell, G. Richard. 1995. Trade Legalism and International Relations Theory: An Analysis of the World Trade Organization. Duke Law Journal 44:829-927.
41. Sornarajah, M. 2004. The International Law on Foreign Investment. 2d ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
42. Staiger, Robert W., and Guido Tabellini. 1999. Do GATT Rules Help Governments Make Domestic Commitments? Economics and Politics 11:109-44.
43. Sykes, Alan O. 1991. Protectionism as a "Safeguard": A Positive Theory of the GATT "Escape Clause" with Normative Speculations. University of Chicago Law Review 58:255-305.
44. _. 1999. Regulatory Protectionism and the Law of International Trade. University of Chicago Law Review 66:1-46.
45. _. 2000. The Remedy for Breach of Obligations under the WTO Dispute Settlement Understanding: Damages or Specific Performance? Pp. 347-57 in New Directions in International Economic Law, edited by Marco Bronckers and Reinhard Quick. The Hague: Kluwer Law International.
46. _. 2003. The Least Restrictive Means. University of Chicago Law Review 70:403-19.
47. Trachtman, Joel P., and Philip M. Moremen. 2003. Costs and Benefits of Private Participation in WTO Dispute Settlement: Whose Right Is It Anyway? Harvard International Law Journal 44:221-50.
48. Trebilcock, Michael, and Julie Soloway. 2002. International Trade Policy and Domestic Food Safety Regulation: The Case for Substantial Deference by the WTO Dispute Settlement Body under the SPS Agreement. Pp. 537-74 in The Political Economy of International Trade Law, edited by Daniel L. M. Kennedy and James D. Southwick. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
49. United States. 1853. Treaty of Friendship, Commerce, and Navigation, between the United States and the Argentine Confederation. Statutes at Large, vol. 10, pp. 1005-12. http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/diplomacy/argentina/ argen02.htm.
50. Vandevelde, Kenneth J. 1993. U.S. Bilateral Investment Treaties: The Second Wave. Michigan Journal of International Law 14:621-704.
51. WTO (World Trade Organization). 1994. Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (DSU). Annex 2 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. Geneva: World Trade Organization.