Adjudication without Enforcement in GATT Disputes

Eric Reinhardt
Additional contact information
Eric Reinhardt: Department of Political Science, Emory University

Journal of Conflict Resolution, 2001, vol. 45, issue 2, 174-195

Abstract: Disputes under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) exhibit a puzzling selection effect. Defendants concede more prior to GATT judgments than afterward, despite GATT's lack of enforcement power. Yet, why would states plea-bargain if they know they can spurn contrary rulings? To find out, the article develops an incomplete information model of trade bargaining with the option of adjudication. The plaintiff has greater resolve prior to a ruling, believing that the defendant might be compelled to concede to an adverse judgment—even if that belief later proves false. Surprisingly, this resolve induces more generous settlements even from defendants who intend not to comply with any ruling. After a ruling, however, this anticipatory effect is irrelevant: adjudication works best when threatened but not realized. The prospect of adjudication thus conditions the behavior of states even when enforcement is not forthcoming but not through mechanisms identified by previous studies.

Date: 2001
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (3)

Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0022002701045002002 (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:sae:jocore:v:45:y:2001:i:2:p:174-195

DOI: 10.1177/0022002701045002002

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in Journal of Conflict Resolution from Peace Science Society (International)
Bibliographic data for series maintained by SAGE Publications ().