 Why de‐judicialize? Explaining state preferences on judicialization in World Trade Organization Dispute Settlement Body and Investor‐to‐State Dispute Settlement reformsJohann Robert Basedow Regulation & Governance, 2022, vol. 16, issue 4, 1362-1381 Abstract: Judicialization scholarship suggests that states must seek the de‐judicialization of international dispute settlement mechanisms to regain regulatory space. Why then do some states seek a de‐judicialization yet others increased judicialization of dispute settlement mechanisms in their pursuit of regulatory space? This article advances a twofold argument. First, the concept of judicialization has been erroneously conflated with state perceptions of regulatory space under dispute settlement mechanisms. States aspiring to consolidate regulatory space may pursue de‐judicialization and increased judicialization alike. Second, states' preferences for de‐judicialization or increased judicialization to regain regulatory space should largely depend on conceptions of legitimate international law as either intergovernmental contracts or cosmopolitan quasi‐constitutional order. The article illustrates these arguments at the example of US and EU efforts to reform the Dispute Settlement Body of the World Trade Organization and investor‐to‐state dispute settlement. Both seek to increase regulatory space. Yet, the USA pursues de‐judicialization while the EU promotes judicialization. Date: 2022 Downloads: (external link) Related works: Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:wly:reggov:v:16:y:2022:i:4:p:1362-1381 Access Statistics for this article More articles in Regulation & Governance from John Wiley & Sons |
Is your work missing from RePEc? Here is how to contribute.
Questions or problems? Check the EconPapers FAQ or send mail to .
EconPapers is hosted by the
School of Business at Örebro University.