Trade policy used to be a rather simple matter of defining conditions of access to markets at the border. Little more was needed than rules defining non-discriminatory tariff levels, circumscribing the use of quantitative trade restrictions, and protecting the conditions of market access through the principle of national treatment. But the very success of these simple rules in creating the conditions for successive bouts of market-opening negotiations bred the complex and multi-faceted institution that is the World Trade Organization of today. As tariffs tumbled, all manner of other policies became crucial for continuing market integration. The rules had to follow the reality. It is a brave person now who claims more than a passing familiarity with each and every aspect of the WTO Agreements.

In this fascinating labyrinth of what passes for policy relating to trade, it is unconvincing to argue that there is ever enough research and analysis. There will always be more that needs to be explored and better understood. Every effort to illuminate, to clarify, and to explain the trading system must surely be welcome. But if we are to advance our understanding of what makes sense and what does not, and contribute effectively to international economic cooperation, the quality and integrity of analysis is vital. This has become more especially true in recent years as dozens of developing countries facing formidable development challenges seek progress through meaningful participation in the world trading system. One of the great strengths of the WTO is its commitment to universality. If we are to give meaning to this vision and foster confidence in the fairness of the system, we must ensure its proper design on solid conceptual foundations.

I am proud to associate the WTO Secretariat with the birth of the World Trade Review. The journal is committed to promoting high-quality policy analysis and welcomes contributions from a wide range of disciplines and cross-section of contributors. This is not an in-house journal devoted to selling pre-conceived ideas. Its mission is to promote informed and honest debate and to deepen understanding. The journal's editorial independence is central to these objectives. I wish the Editor and the members of the Editorial Board of the World Trade Review well in this important endeavour.

For much of the post-war period, interest in the multilateral trading system – as embodied in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) – was limited to national delegates posted to Geneva, a small number of technocrats in capitals, and a handful of academics, mostly legal scholars plus a few economists and an even smaller number of political scientists. Among politicians and the general public, the GATT was virtually unknown. During those years, a professional journal devoted exclusively to the multilateral trading system would have been hard pressed to fill its pages.

Despite the successful launch of a new round of multilateral trade negotiations at Doha, the World Trade Organization faces a legitimacy crisis. Protests continue to rock major international economic meetings, and the WTO's role in globalization is being questioned by many observers. This paper examines the contours of this crisis and explores the possibility that the WTO's indirect ties to popular sovereignty – through national governments – provide an insufficient foundation for the trade regime's authority and central role in the emerging structure of global governance. Arguing that the WTO needs to re-establish its legitimacy based on wider links to the public around the world in whose name freer trade is pursued, the paper suggests that the WTO must also re-build its reputation for efficacy in a context where success is no longer measured exclusively in narrow economic terms. To be seen as serving the interests of the world community broadly, the trade regime needs to pursue its economic goals in a fashion that shows sensitivity to other important goals and values, such as poverty alleviation, environmental protection, and the promotion of public health. Long-term success further depends on the trade regime becoming embedded within a broader structure of global governance that provides ‘checks and balances’ and reinforces the legitimacy of international trade policy making.

Despite recurring rounds of trade liberalization under GATT/WTO auspices, complemented by unilateral reforms, many developing countries have not been able to integrate into the world economy. This paper argues that, from the perspective of the poorest countries, a multi-pronged strategy is required to strengthen the global trading system and that much of the agenda must be addressed outside the WTO. The most important contribution the WTO can make from a development perspective is to improve market access conditions – for goods and services – and ensure that trade rules are useful to developing countries. Enhancing trade capacity requires concerted action outside the WTO (‘aid for trade’) as well as unilateral actions by both industrialized and developing countries to reduce anti-trade biases.

In recent years, more countries have increasingly turned to explicit, codified trade policy instruments of the international trading system such as antidumping measures. Countries have also increasingly participated in the institutions established to facilitate trade in the international system, such as the WTO's Dispute Settlement Understanding. Given these phenomena, a natural question to consider is why haven't countries resorted to the WTO's safeguards provisions at a similar pace? This paper focuses on the economic incentives generated by reforms in the Uruguay Round, and argues that in order to address the relative unpopularity of the application of safeguards measures, further reforms must be made to WTO's Antidumping Agreement and the rules of the Dispute Settlement Understanding.

WTO panels are often called upon to decide overlapping claims based on different WTO agreements. One such dispute was the EC–Asbestos case where claims were made under both GATT 1994 and the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT). This paper examines whether the Appellate Body's refusal in that case to examine Canada's TBT claims was justified. The conclusion reached is no, based on the principle jura novit curia, the general prohibition on non liquet and the WTO case law on judicial economy. In addition, the paper examines when two WTO norms must be seen as ‘in conflict’. It argues in favour of broadening the current definition of conflict and clarifies the consequences of a norm being lex specialis.

This paper examines the statistical relationship between world trade and world income (GDP) over three different epochs: the pre-World War I era (1870–1913), the interwar era (1920–1938), and the post-World War II era (1950–2000). The results indicate that trade grew slightly more rapidly than income in the late nineteenth century, with little structural change in the trade–income relationship. In the interwar and post-war periods, the trade–income relationship can be divided into different periods due to structural breaks, but since the mid 1980s trade has been more responsive to income than in any other period under consideration. The trade policy regime differed in each period, from the bilateral treaty network in the late nineteenth century to interwar protectionism to post-war GATT/WTO liberalization. The commodity composition of trade has also shifted from primary commodities to manufactured goods over the past century, but the results cannot directly determine the reasons for the increased sensitivity of trade to income.

This article, based on a lecture given at the inauguration ceremony for the new Advisory Centre on WTO Law, describes the broader world trading landscape into which this new Centre emerges. Taking into account the possible implications of the events on September 11, this article provides a brief analysis of the current trade policy climate, asserting the necessity of institutions for the successful functioning of markets. After a short institutional history of the GATT/WTO, the author describes the importance of institutional rules, treaty text, and practice for the success of the WTO and presents the current debate over what the scope of this institution has been, is now, and could be in the future – the debate over which important issues should be taken under the WTO umbrella, and, further, which issues are appropriate to send to the Dispute Settlement System. Finally, this article illustrates the challenges facing this dispute settlement system, proposals for reform, and the vital role that the new Advisory Centre may be able to play in resolving some of these challenges.