The United States and trade disputes in the World Trade Organization: Hegemony constrained or confirmed?

Management International Review

Volumn 47, Issue 5, 2007, Pages 725-744

  Lindeque, Johan ^a   McGuire, Steven ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BATH   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Trade analysis; US hegemony; World Trade Organization

Indexed keywords

EID: 35548994917     PISSN: 09388249     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11575-007-0042-0     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (24)

1. Bown, C., Developing Countries as Plaintiffs and Defendants in the GATT/ WTO Trade Disputes, World Economy, 27, 1, 2004, pp. 59-79.
2. Busch, M./Reinhardt, E., Bargaining in the Shadow of the Law: Early Settlement in GATT/WTO Disputes, Fordham International Law Journal, 24, 1/2, 2000, pp. 158-172.
3. Busch, M./Reinhardt, E., The Evolution of GATT/WTO Dispute Settlement, in Ciuriak, D./Curtis, J. (eds.), Trade Policy Research, Ottawa: DFAIT 2003, pp. 143-184.
4. Butler, M./Hauser, H., The WTO Dispute Settlement System: A First Assessment from an Economic Perspective, Journal of Law, Economics & Organization, 16, 2, 2000, pp. 503-533.
5. Cross, F., Business and Judicial Politics, Business and Politics, 5, 1, 2003, pp. 3-5.
6. De Jonquieres, G., Fear May Give the Doha Talks the Jolt they Need, Financial Times, 11 February 2004, p. 19.
7. George, S., A Short History of Neo-liberalism: Twenty Years of Elite Economics and Emerging Opportunities for Structural Change, 1999, http:// www.globalexchange.org/campaigns/econ101/neoliberalism.html, [cited 19 February 2004].
8. Gilpin, R., Global Political Economy: Understanding the International Economic Order, Princeton, Oxford: Princeton University Press 2001.
9. Goldstein, J., The United States and World Trade: Hegemony by Proxy?, in Lawton T./Rosenau, J./Verdun, A. (eds.), Strange Power: Shaping the Parameters of International Relations and International Political Economy, Aldershot, Burlington, Vermont: Ashgate 2000, pp. 249-274.
10. Greenwald, J., WTO Dispute Settlement, Journal of International Economic Law, 6, 1, 2003, pp. 113-124.
11. Hart, M., A Trading Nation: Canadian Trade Policy from Colonialisation to Globalisation, Vancouver: UBC Press 2002.
12. Hudec, R. E., Enforcing International Trade Law: The Evolution of the Modern GATT Legal System, Salem, New Hampshire: Butterworth Legal Publishers 1993.
13. Iida, K., Is WTO Dispute Settlement Effective?, Global Governance, 10, 2, 2004, pp. 207-225.
14. Jackson, J. H., The World Trade Organization: Constitution and Jurisprudence, London: Royal Institute of International Affairs 1998.
15. Lee, D., Understanding the WTO Dispute Settlement Process, in Hocking B./ McGuire S. (eds.), Trade Politics, London: Routledge 2004, pp. 120-132.
16. Leitner, K./Lester, S., WTO Dispute Settlement 1995-2002: A Statistical Analysis, Journal of International Economic Law, 6, 1, 2003, pp. 251-261.
17. Litowitz, D., Gramsci, Hegemony, and the Law, Brigham Young University Law Review, 2000, 2, 2000, pp. 515-551.
18. Lohmann, S., Why Do Institutions Matter? An Audience-Cost Theory of Institutional Commitment, Governance, 16, 1, 2003, pp. 95-110.
19. McCall Smith, J., WTO Dispute Settlement: The Politics of Procedure in Appellate Body Rulings, World Trade Review, 2, 1, 2003, pp. 65-100.
20. Oliver, C., Strategic Responses to Institutional Processes, Academy of Management Review, 16, 1, 1991, pp. 145-179.
21. Sen, G., The United States and the GATT/WTO System, in Foot, R./ MacFarlane, S. N./Mastanduno, M. (eds.), US Hegemony and International Organizations, Oxford: Oxford University Press 2003, pp. 115-138.
22. Stoler, A., The WTO Dispute Settlement Process: Did the Negotiators Get What They Wanted?, World Trade Review, 3, 1, 2004, pp. 99-118.
23. Trebilcock, M. J./Howse, R., The Regulation of International Trade London, New York: Routledge 1999.
24. Wilkinson, R., Crisis in Cancún, Global Governance, 10, 2, 2004, pp. 149-155.