The DOI matches its Crossref record.
The WTO Dispute Settlement System: The First Ten Years
Abstract
This paper reviews the operation of the WTO’s dispute settlement system during its first ten years – from 1995 to 2004. After a brief overview of the system, the experience of several major users of the system – the United States, the European Communities, Canada, Japan, Brazil and India – is examined and an evaluation is made in terms of how they have fared in advancing their major trade policy concerns on a subject matter and a country-by-country basis. Particular attention is paid to certain bilateral relationships, such as that of the United States and the EC. The paper then evaluates the system’s success in settling disputes, in terms of whether disputes have been settled promptly, either through mutually agreed solutions or through implementation of panel/Appellate Body reports. The paper concludes that since its inception in 1995, the system has worked reasonably well in providing a reasonably effective mechanism through which WTO Members are able to resolve disputes, both at the consultation stage and following completion of formal dispute settlement proceedings. The system has not, however, achieved its goal of promptness in many cases.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“It effectively dealt with most of the controversial cases or issues in the GATT system that had led to blocked panel reports (i.e., not adopted for lack of consensus). 5”
From WTO Dispute Settlement: Crown Jewel or Costume Jewelry? (2022) · cites this paper as Davey, W.J. (2005) ' The WTO Dispute Settlement System: The First Decade '
Citations
Cites
Still being checked.
Cited by
The Political Economy of the World Trading System: The WTO and Beyond
Hoekman, B. M., & Kostecki, M. M. (2009) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780199553761.001.0001 · Cited by 639
Dreher, A., & Voigt, S. (2011) · Journal of Comparative Economics · doi:10.1016/j.jce.2011.04.003 · Cited by 93
Access to Medicines, BRICS Alliances, and Collective Action
Yu, P. K. (2008) · American Journal of Law & Medicine · doi:10.1177/009885880803400210 · Cited by 73
A History of Law and Lawyers in the GATT/WTO
Azevêdo, R. (2015) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.30875/cf679d9a-en · Cited by 66
Méndez, M. (2013) · Oxford University Research Archive (ORA) (University of Oxford) · Cited by 62
Metadata
- Authors
- Davey, W. J.
- Affiliations
- University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign (US)
- Corresponding author
- Davey, William J.
- Venue
- Journal of International Economic Law
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2005-01-01
- Volume
- 8
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 17-50
- ISSN
- 1369-3034 (ISSN-L)
- 1464-3758
- OpenAlex
- W2045746954
- Cited by
- 112
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 5 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 6
- FWCI
- 21.66
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of International Economic Law (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › World Trade Organization Law
- Social Sciences › Law › International Arbitration and Investment Law
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › General Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Global trade and economics
- Keywords
- WTO dispute settlement, WTO Appellate Body, panel reports, international trade law
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The WTO Dispute Settlement System: The First Ten Years. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/jielaw/jgi003
- The paper
- Davey, W. J. (2005). The WTO Dispute Settlement System: The First Ten Years. Journal of International Economic Law. https://doi.org/10.1093/jielaw/jgi003
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.