Show simple item record

dc.contributor.advisorLawrence E. Susskind.en_US
dc.contributor.authorMartinez, Janet Kathryn Griffin, 1951-en_US
dc.contributor.otherMassachusetts Institute of Technology. Dept. of Urban Studies and Planning.en_US
dc.date.accessioned2007-12-07T19:19:11Z
dc.date.available2007-12-07T19:19:11Z
dc.date.copyright2004en_US
dc.date.issued2004en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/28786en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/28786
dc.descriptionThesis (Ph. D.)--Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Dept. of Urban Studies and Planning, 2004.en_US
dc.descriptionIncludes bibliographical references (p. 237-241).en_US
dc.description.abstractThe dispute settlement process established by the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 1994, (the "DSU"), has drawn widespread attention. While the DSU is the most used international dispute settlement process, it is geared to resolving complaints by one country against another concerning enforcement of the WTO rules and obligations. This research has examined the WTO in two dimensions: first, how does the DSU fit within a larger system of processes for resolving policy making and implementation, as well as enforcement disputes. Secondly, how do those processes measure up to the characteristics of effective dispute resolution. In answer to the first question, I have categorized policy disputes into three orders: first-order disputes in policymaking, second-order disputes in policy implementation, and third-order disputes in policy enforcement. The same issues, e.g., agricultural subsidies or intellectual property, emerge in all three dispute orders. First-order disputes are resolved by all WTO members through consensus-based negotiation. The negotiation experience of the last four multilateral trade negotiations--the Kennedy Round, the Tokyo Round, the Uruguay Round and the pending Doha Round--are assessed. Second-order disputes are considered by all WTO members through operating committees and the Trade Policy Review Mechanism. Third-order disputes are resolved through the DSU; 304 cases were submitted from January 1, 1995 to December 31, 2003. More effective dispute resolution processes tend to exhibit a number of characteristics: they involve lower transactions costs in terms of economics, time, bureaucracy, diplomacy and opportunity; parties are satisfied with the outcome and the process; relationships among the affected partiesen_US
dc.description.abstract(cont.) are not damaged; and recurrence of the problem among the same and other parties is minimized. This research suggests that the three dispute orders be considered as an integrated system of dispute settlement. In doing so, the WTO--and other international institutions--can achieve more effective resolution of policy problems by taking advantage of the relative strengths available through each dispute order settlement process.en_US
dc.description.statementofresponsibilityby Janet Kathryn Griffin Martinez.en_US
dc.format.extent241 p.en_US
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.publisherMassachusetts Institute of Technologyen_US
dc.rightsM.I.T. theses are protected by copyright. They may be viewed from this source for any purpose, but reproduction or distribution in any format is prohibited without written permission. See provided URL for inquiries about permission.en_US
dc.rights.urihttp://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/28786en_US
dc.rights.urihttp://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/7582
dc.subjectUrban Studies and Planning.en_US
dc.titleInternational dispute settlement system design : analysis of the World Trade Organizationen_US
dc.typeThesisen_US
dc.description.degreePh.D.en_US
dc.contributor.departmentMassachusetts Institute of Technology. Dept. of Urban Studies and Planning.en_US
dc.identifier.oclc60248657en_US


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record