Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-m8qmq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-18T00:15:29.924Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Consensus and majority voting in the WTO

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 July 2009

JAIME TIJMES-LHL
JAIME TIJMES-LHL
Affiliation:
Faculty of Law, Eberhard Karls Universität Tübingen, Germany
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article's subject is the implications that consensus/unanimity and majority voting might have for the World Trade Organization's (WTO) decision-making system. First it looks at some consequences that replacing the consensus rule with majority voting might have for the WTO, including justice concerns, legitimacy, homogeneity of WTO membership, and international enforcement. Second, it summarizes some solutions found in the European Union (EU) for coping with unanimity and majority rule, including constructive abstention, reallocation of contractual responsibilities, and the Luxembourg compromise. Finally, it considers some reform options for the WTO and offers some conclusions, namely expanding majority voting on certain areas only, redefining competences, multi-speed proposals (rethinking the single undertaking, constructive abstention, and the scheduling approach), redefining consensus, combining consensus and majority voting, and issuing interpretations.

Type
Review Article
Information
World Trade Review , Volume 8 , Issue 3 , July 2009 , pp. 417 - 437
Copyright
Copyright © Jaime Tijmes-Lhl 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bacchus, James (2003), ‘The Bicycle Club: Affirming the American Interest in the Future of the WTO’, Journal of World Trade, 37(3): 429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Balassa, Bela and Michalopoulos, Constantine (1986), ‘Liberalizing Trade between Developed and Developing Countries’, Journal of World Trade Law, 20(1): 3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benz, Arthur (2005), ‘Politikwissenschaftliche Diskurse über demokratisches Regieren im europäischen Mehrebenensystem’, in Bauer, Hartmut, Huber, Peter M., and Sommermann, Karl-Peter (eds.), Demokratie in Europa, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, pp. 253–280.Google Scholar
Beviglia, Zampetti Americo (2003), ‘Democratic Legitimacy in the World Trade Organization: The Justice Dimension’, Journal of World Trade, 37(1): 105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blackhurst, Richard (2000), Reforming WTO Decision Making: Lessons from Singapore and Seattle, Working Paper No. 63, Center for Research on Economic Development and Policy Reform.Google Scholar
Callies, Christian (2005), ‘Optionen zur Demokratisierung der Europäischen Union’, in Bauer, Hartmut, Huber, Peter M., and Sommermann, Karl-Peter (eds.), Demokratie in Europa, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, pp. 281–317.Google Scholar
Carreau, Dominique and Juillard, Patrick (2005), Droit International Économique, second edition, Paris: Dalloz.Google Scholar
Cottier, Thomas and Takenoshita, Satoko (2003), ‘The Balance of Power in WTO Decision-Making: Towards Weighted Voting in Legislative Response’, Aussenwirtschaft, 59(2): 171.Google Scholar
Dworkin, Ronald (1977), Taking Rights Seriously, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Ehlermann, Claus-Dieter and Ehring, Lothar (2005), ‘Decision-making in the World Trade Organization’, Journal of International Economic Law, 8(1): 51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Esty, Daniel C. (2002), ‘The World Trade Organization's Legitimacy Crisis’, World Trade Review, 1(1): 7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gusy, Christopher (1998), ‘Demokratiedefizite postnationaler Gemeinschaften unter Berücksichtigung der EU’, Zeitschrift für Politik, 45(3): 267.Google Scholar
Howse, Robert (Undated), ‘How to Begin to Think About the “Democratic Deficit” at the WTO’, http://faculty.law.umich.edu/rhowse/Drafts_and_Publications/howse7.pdf (accessed 28 May 2008).Google Scholar
Hudec, Robert E. (1970), ‘The GATT Legal System’, Journal of World Trade Law, 4(5): 615.Google Scholar
Ibrahim, Tigani E. (1978), ‘Developing Countries and the Tokyo Round’, Journal of World Trade Law, 12(1): 2.Google Scholar
Jackson, John H. (1967), ‘The Puzzle of GATT: Legal Aspects of a Surprising Institution’, Journal of World Trade Law, 1(2): 131.Google Scholar
Jackson, John H. (1998), ‘Designing and Implementing Effective Dispute Settlement Procedures: WTO Dispute Settlement, Appraisal and Prospects’, in Krueger, Anne O. (ed.), The WTO as an International Organization, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, pp. 161–180.Google Scholar
Jackson, John H. (2001), ‘The WTO “Constitution” and Proposed Reforms: Seven “Mantras” Revisited’, Journal of International Economic Law, 4(1): 67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kielmansegg, Peter Graf (1995), ‘Läßt sich die Europäische Union verfassen?’, in Weidenfeld, Werner (ed.), Reform der Europäischen Union, Gütersloh: Verlag Bertelsmann Stiftung, pp. 229–242.Google Scholar
Krajewski, Markus (2001), ‘Democratic Legitimacy and Constitutional Perspectives of WTO Law’, Journal of World Trade, 35(1): 167.Google Scholar
Lafer, Celso (1998), ‘Outgoing Chairman Highlights WTO's Unique Decision-Making Process’, WTO Focus, 27: 3.Google Scholar
Lenaerts, Koen, van Nuffel, Piet, and Bray, Robert (2005), Constitutional Law of the European Union, second edition, London: Sweet & Maxwell.Google Scholar
Lijphart, Arend (1999), Patterns of Democracy, New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
McIntyre, Elizabeth (1954), ‘Weighted Voting in International Organizations’, International Organization, 8(4): 484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michalopoulos, Constantine (1999), ‘Developing Country Strategies for the Millennium Round’, Journal of World Trade, 33(5): 1.Google Scholar
Nettesheim, Martin (2003), ‘Legitimizing the WTO: The Dispute Settlement Process as Formalized Arbitration’, Rivista Trimestrale di Diritto Pubblico, 53(3): 711.Google Scholar
Nettesheim, Martin (2004), ‘Decision-Making in the EU: Identity, Efficiency and Democratic Legitimacy’, European Review of Public Law, 16(1): 197.Google Scholar
Nettesheim, Martin (2005), ‘Demokratisierung der Europäischen Union und Europäisierung der Demokratietheorie – Wechselwirkungen bei der Herausbildung eines europäischen Demokratieprinzips’, in Bauer, Hartmut, Huber, Peter M., and Sommermann, Karl-Peter (eds.), Demokratie in Europa, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, pp. 143–189.Google Scholar
Pauwelyn, Joost (2005a), ‘The Transformation of World Trade’, Michigan Law Review, 104(1): 1.Google Scholar
Pauwelyn, Joost (2005b), ‘The Sutherland Report: A Missed Opportunity for Genuine Debate on Trade, Globalization and Reforming the WTO’, Journal of International Economic Law, 8(2): 329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pedersen, Peter Nørgaard (2006), ‘The WTO Decision-Making Process and Internal Transparency’, World Trade Review, 5(1): 103.Google Scholar
Radbruch, Gustav (1946), ‘Gesetzliches Unrecht und übergesetzliches Recht’, Süddeutsche Juristenzeitung, No. 1. Republished in Gustav Radbruch, Rechtsphilosophie, Heidelberg: C.F. Müller, 2003, pp. 211–219.Google Scholar
Rousseau, Jean-Jacques (1762), Du Contrat Social. Republished in Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Du Contrat Social et autres oeuvres politiques, Paris: Garnier Frères, 1975, pp. 235–336.Google Scholar
Scharpf, Fritz W. (1997), ‘Demokratische Politik in Europa’, in Grimm, DieterHesse, Joachim JensJochimsen, Reimut and Scharpf, Fritz W. (eds.), Zur Neuordnung der Europäischen Union: Die Regierungskonferenz 1996/97, Baden-Baden: Nomos, pp. 65–91.Google Scholar
Schmidt, Manfred G. (2006), Demokratietheorien, third edition, Wiesbaden: Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.Google Scholar
Steinberg, Richard H. (2002), ‘In the Shadow of Law or Power? Consensus-Based Bargaining and Outcomes in the GATT/WTO’, International Organization, 56(2): 339.Google Scholar
Sutherland, Peter et al. (2004), The Future of the WTO: Addressing Institutional Challenges in the New Millennium (The Sutherland Report), Geneva: WTO.Google Scholar
Weiler, J. H. H. (1999), The Constitution of Europe, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Weiler, J. H. H. (2001), ‘The Rule of Lawyers and the Ethos of Diplomats: Reflections on the Internal and External Legitimacy of WTO Dispute Settlement’, Journal of World Trade, 35(2): 191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
WTO (2000), Minutes Of Meeting – Held in the Centre William Rappard on 17 and 19 July 2000, WT/GC/M/57 (14 September 2000).Google Scholar
WTO (2001), Minutes Of Meeting – Held in the Centre William Rappard on 22 November 2000, WT/GC/M/60 (23 January 2001).Google Scholar
WTO (2002a), Preparatory Process in Geneva and Negotiating Process at Ministerial Conferences – Communication from Cuba, Dominican Republic, Egypt, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Jamaica, Kenya, Malaysia, Mauritius, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Tanzania, Uganda, and Zimbabwe, WT/GC/W/471 (24 April 2002).Google Scholar
WTO (2002b), Preparatory Process in Geneva and Negotiating Process at Ministerial Conferences – Communication from Australia, Canada, Hong Kong, China, Korea, Mexico, New Zealand, Singapore, Switzerland, WT/GC/W/477 (28 June 2002), WT/GC/W/477/Add.1 (16 July 2002).Google Scholar