Cover of book: Substance and Style
Buy in shop
, to see if you have full access to this publication.
Book Titles No access

Substance and Style

WTO judicial decision-making in 'trade and ...' cases
Authors:
Publisher:
 09.06.2021

Summary

This book analyses two dimensions of judicial decision-making at the World Trade Organisation (WTO): the substantive outcome produced and the judicial style embraced, in cases concerning national measures taken for non-trade objectives. Drawing on legal theory, empirical studies of judicial decision-making and an analysis of all the major non-trade cases of the WTO, the book concludes that the dispute settlement decisions can be understood in light of the fact that the WTO dispute settlement bodies, like other courts, need to legitimise their decisions. Both the substance and style of WTO judicial decision-making contribute in this regard. On the substantive side, there is a relatively mixed outcome of cases, in terms of the interpretations chosen. The WTO Appellate Body’s interpretations neither consistently favour trade interests nor do they systematically enhance the regulatory space of WTO Members. The dispute settlement bodies also have a distinct judicial style that relies on discursive (rather than institutional) sources of authority and is predominantly formalist.

Bibliographic data

Publication year
2021
Publication date
09.06.2021
ISBN-Print
978-3-8487-5768-8
ISBN-Online
978-3-8452-9942-6
Publisher
Nomos, Baden-Baden
Series
Schriftenreihe des Zentrums für Europäische Rechtspolitik der Universität Bremen (ZERP)
Volume
78
Language
English
Pages
634
Product type
Book Titles

Table of contents

ChapterPages
  1. Titelei/Inhaltsverzeichnis No access 1 - 34
    1. 1. Judicial decision-making in the face of the indeterminacy of the law: a debate revisited No access
      1. 2.1. Courts as strategic actors No access
      2. 2.2. Fostering judges’ legal or non-legal preferences and attitudes No access
      3. 2.3. Mandate and procedural rules No access
      1. 3.1. Judicial styles in the face of the indeterminacy of the law – general insights No access
      2. 3.2. Lasser’s work on judicial styles as part of a judicial system No access
      3. 3.3. Additional factors influencing judicial styles No access
        1. 4.1.1. The dispute settlement system: a judicial mechanism? No access
        2. 4.1.2. The degree of indeterminacy of WTO law No access
      2. 4.2. The Appellate Body as described by its (former) Members No access
        1. 4.3.1. The dispute settlement system: a (relatively) new and contested mechanism No access
        2. 4.3.2. Mandate and procedural rules No access
        1. 4.4.1. Maintaining and expanding judicial power No access
        2. 4.4.2. Judges’ legal or non-legal preferences No access
      5. 4.5. Additional factors relevant for the style of the Appellate Body No access
      6. 4.6. Conclusion: hypotheses No access
      1. 5.1. Methods for analysing court decisions – and their limits No access
      2. 5.2. Substance: cases and norms to be considered No access
        1. 5.3.1. Issues from the analysis by Summers/Taruffo No access
        2. 5.3.2. Lessons from discussions on judicial activism No access
        3. 5.3.3. Conclusions on judicial style No access
      4. 5.4. Overview: research approach to chapters 2 and 3 No access
        1. 1.1.1. Protection of extraterritorial resources No access
        2. 1.1.2. Applicability of Art. XX GATT under other WTO agreements No access
          1. Protection of public morals No access
          2. Necessary No access
          1. Protection of human, animal or plant life or health No access
          2. Necessary No access
          1. Compliance with law and regulations No access
          2. Necessary No access
          1. Relating to the protection of exhaustible natural resources No access
          2. Made effective in conjunction with restrictions on domestic production or consumption No access
      3. 1.3. Art. XIV (a) GATS No access
      4. 1.4. Chapeau of Art. XX GATT and XIV GATS No access
        1. 1.5.1. Unclear structure and content of the necessity test No access
        2. 1.5.2. Logical inconsistencies in the case law No access
        3. 1.5.3. Incorrect use of earlier case law No access
        4. 1.5.4. Lack of justification and clarification No access
        5. 1.5.5. A role for precaution? No access
        1. 1.6.1. Applicability of Art. XX GATT No access
        2. 1.6.2. Clause on regulatory objectives No access
        3. 1.6.3. Clauses on the link between measures and regulatory objectives No access
        4. 1.6.4. Chapeau No access
        5. 1.6.5. Summary No access
          1. Risk assessment No access
          2. Based on No access
        2. 2.1.2. Art. 2.2 SPS No access
          1. Character of the norm and relationship with other articles No access
          2. Requirements in Art. 5.7 SPS No access
        1. 2.2.1. Identification of the appropriate level of protection No access
        2. 2.2.2. Not more trade-restrictive than required No access
          1. Different levels of protection in different situations No access
          2. Arbitrary or unjustifiable difference in levels of protection No access
          3. Discrimination or disguised restriction on international trade No access
        2. 2.3.2. Art. 2.3 SPS No access
        1. 2.4.1. Relationship between Art. 3.1, 3.2, 3.3 SPS No access
          1. Based on – conform to No access
          2. Existence of international standards No access
        1. 2.5.1. The concepts of science, risk, and risk assessment No access
        2. 2.5.2. Problems with the “appropriate level of protection” No access
        3. 2.5.3. The role of precaution No access
      6. 2.6. Assessment No access
      1. 3.1. Art. 2.2 TBT No access
      2. 3.2. Art. 2.4 TBT No access
      3. 3.3. Discussion and assessment No access
      1. 4.1. Summary of the findings No access
      2. 4.2. Relating the results to existing research No access
      3. 4.3 Relating the results to the conceptual framework No access
      1. 1.1. Textual interpretation No access
      2. 1.2. The context in contextual interpretation No access
      3. 1.3. The objectives in teleological interpretation No access
      4. 1.4. Supplementary means of interpretation No access
      5. 1.5. The role of WTO Members’ intention in interpretation No access
        1. 1.6.1. The basics No access
        2. 1.6.2. Sources of international law used and legal basis for using them No access
        3. 1.6.3. Ways of using international law in WTO dispute settlement – the (relatively) clear part No access
        4. 1.6.4. The role of non-WTO international law – how far do the adjudicators go? No access
        5. 1.6.5. Summary on the use of international law in WTO dispute settlement No access
        1. 1.7.1. Transparency about methods of interpretation No access
        2. 1.7.2. The methods of interpretation used No access
        3. 1.7.3. Struggling with the role of non-WTO international law No access
      8. 1.8. Assessment No access
      1. 2.1. Standard of review concerning non-trade measures by WTO Members No access
      2. 2.2. Dealing with gaps in the text No access
      3. 2.3. The use of the decisions of WTO political bodies No access
        1. 2.4.1. Standard of review No access
        2. 2.4.2. Dealing with gaps and political decisions by WTO political bodies No access
      5. 2.5. Assessment No access
      1. 3.1. Precedents No access
      2. 3.2. Avoidance techniques (and their opposites) No access
      3. 3.3. Discussion No access
      4. 3.4. Assessment No access
      1. 4.1. The use of unwritten (substantive) principles No access
      2. 4.2. Balancing No access
      3. 4.3. Assessment No access
      1. 5.1. Length and tone of reports No access
      2. 5.2. Appeasement techniques No access
      3. 5.3. Making different interpretive options invisible No access
      4. 5.4. Assessment No access
        1. 6.1.1. Using the (adapted) Summers/Taruffo table No access
        2. 6.1.2. Other aspects of judicial style No access
        3. 6.1.3. Assessments of the WTO judicial style in the literature No access
      2. 6.2. Making sense of the judicial style of the WTO dispute settlement bodies No access
      1. 1.1. (Re)-appointment of Members of the Appellate Body No access
      2. 1.2. Legislative overturn of judicial decisions No access
      3. 1.3. Attempts at changing the functioning of the dispute settlement bodies No access
      4. 1.4. (Non)compliance with dispute settlement decisions No access
      5. 1.5. Non-use of the dispute settlement system No access
      6. 1.6. An alternative explanation: do WTO Members not care (enough)? No access
      7. 1.7. Conclusions No access
    2. 2. The literature: How has the WTO dispute settlement system successfully generated legitimacy? No access
    3. 3. My own version: (How) have the adjudicators managed to create legitimacy? No access
    4. 4. Outlook No access
  6. References No access 599 - 634

Bibliography (533)

  1. Abbott, Kenneth O. W., Robert Keohane, Andrew Moravcsik, Anne-Marie Slaughter, and Duncan Snidal. 2000. The Concept of Legalization. International Organization 54 (3): 401–419. Open Google Scholar
  2. Abi-Saab, Georges. 2006. The Appellate Body and treaty interpretation. In The WTO at ten: the contribution of the dispute settlement system, edited by Alan Yanovich, Jan Bohanes, and Sacerdoti, Giorgio, 453–464. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press. Open Google Scholar
  3. Abi-Saab, Georges. 2008. WTO case law in an international law context – panel discussion. In The WTO: governance, dispute settlement & developing countries, edited by Merit E. Janow, Victoria Donaldson, and Alan Yanovich, 709–730. Huntington: Juris Publishing. Open Google Scholar
  4. Afilalo, Ari, and Sheila Foster. 2003. The World Trade Organization’s anti-discrimination jurisprudence: free trade, national sovereignty, and environmental health in balance. Georgetown International Environmental Law Review: 634–676. Open Google Scholar
  5. Aleinikoff, Alexander. 1987. Constitutional law in the age of balancing. Yale Law Journal 96: 943–1005. Open Google Scholar
  6. Alemanno, Alberto. 2013. Public perception of food safety risks under WTO law: a normative perspective. In Research Handbook on Environment, Health and the WTO, edited by Geert van Calster and Marie Denise Prévost, 270–303. Cheltenham/Northhampton: Edward Elgar. Open Google Scholar
  7. Alexy, Robert. 1995. Recht, Vernunft, Diskurs. Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp. Open Google Scholar
  8. Allee, Todd, Manfred Elsig, and Andrew Lugg. 2017. The Ties between the World Trade Organization and Preferential Trade Agreements: A Textual Analysis. Journal of International Economic Law 20 (2): 333–363. Open Google Scholar
  9. Alter, Karen, Laurence Helfer, and Mikael Madsen. 2016. How Context Shapes the Authority of International Courts. Law and Contemporary Problems 79 (1): 1–36. Open Google Scholar
  10. Alter, Karen J. 1998. Who are the “masters of the treaty”? European governments and the European Court of Justice. International Organization 52 (1): 121–176. Open Google Scholar
  11. Alter, Karen J. 2003. Resolving or exacerbating disputes? The WTO’s new dispute resolution system. International Affairs 79 (4): 783–800. Open Google Scholar
  12. Alvarez, José. 2008. The Factors Driving and Constraining the Incorporation of International Law in WTO Adjudication. In The WTO: governance, dispute settlement & developing countries, edited by Merit E. Janow, Victoria Donaldson, and Alan Yanovich, 611–633. Huntington: Juris Publishing. Open Google Scholar
  13. Alvarez-Jiménez, Alberto. 2008. New approaches to the state of necessity in customary international law: insights from WTO law and foreign investment law. American Review of International Arbitration 19 (3–4): 463–488. Open Google Scholar
  14. Alvarez-Jiménez, Alberto. 2009a. The WTO Appellate Body’s decision-making process: a perfect model for international adjudication? Journal of International Economic Law 12 (2): 289–331. Open Google Scholar
  15. Alvarez-Jiménez, Alberto. 2009b. The WTO Appellate Body’s Exercise of Judicial Economy. Journal of International Economic Law 12 (2): 393–415. Open Google Scholar
  16. Andenas, Mads, and Stefan Zleptnig. 2007. Proportionality and balancing in WTO law: a comparative perspective. Texas International Law Journal 42 (3): 371–423. Open Google Scholar
  17. Appleton, Arthur E. 1999. Shrimp/turtle: untangling the nets. Journal of International Economic Law 2 (3): 447–496. Open Google Scholar
  18. Arcuri, Alessandra. 2013. Law and economics of the SPS Agreement: a critical perspective. In Research Handbook on Environment, Health and the WTO, edited by Geert van Calster and Marie Denise Prévost, 164–206. Cheltenham/Northhampton: Edward Elgar. Open Google Scholar
  19. Arup, Christopher J. 2003. The State of Play of Dispute Settlement “Law” at the WTO. Journal of World Trade 37 (5): 897–920. Open Google Scholar
  20. Atik, Jeffery. 2013. On the efficiency of health measures and the “appropriate level of protection”. In Research Handbook on Environment, Health and the WTO, edited by Geert van Calster and Marie Denise Prévost, 116–138. Cheltenham/Northhampton: Edward Elgar. Open Google Scholar
  21. Babu, R. Rajesh. 2020. WTO Appellate Body Overreach and the Crisis in the Making: A View from the South. In The Appellate Body of the WTO and Its Reform, edited by Chang-fa Lo, Junji Nakagawa, and Tsai-fang Chen, 91–107. Singapore: Springer. Open Google Scholar
  22. Bacchus, James. 2001. The role of lawyers in the WTO. Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law 34 (4): 953–961. Open Google Scholar
  23. Bacchus, James. 2002. Table talk: around the table of the Appellate Body of the World Trade Organization. Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law 35 (4): 1021–1039. Open Google Scholar
  24. Bacchus, James. 2003. The bicycle club – affirming the American interest in the future of the WTO. Journal of World Trade 37 (3): 429–441. Open Google Scholar
  25. Bacchus, James. 2004a. A few thoughts on legitimacy, democracy, and the WTO. Journal of International Economic Law 7: 667–673. Open Google Scholar
  26. Bacchus, James. 2004b. The strange death of Sir Francis Bacon: the dos and don’ts of appellate advocacy in the WTO. Legal Issues of Economic Integration 31 (1): 13–24. Open Google Scholar
  27. Bacchus, James. 2005. Appellators: The Quest for the Meaning of and/or. World Trade Review 4 (3): 499–523. Open Google Scholar
  28. Bahri, Amrita. 2019. Appellate Body Held Hostage: Is Judicial Activism at Fair Trial? Working Papers. Institute of European Law. Open Google Scholar
  29. Barak, Aharon. 2005. Purposive interpretation in law. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Open Google Scholar
  30. Barfield, Claude E. 2001. Free trade, sovereignty, democracy – The future of the World Trade Organization. Washington, D.C.: American Enterprise Institute Press. Open Google Scholar
  31. Barfield, Claude E. 2002. The constitutional flaws of the WTO and what to do about them. Geneva. Open Google Scholar
  32. Bartels, Lorand. 2001. Applicable law in WTO dispute settlement proceedings. Journal of World Trade 35 (3): 499–519. Open Google Scholar
  33. Bartels, Lorand. 2002. Article XX of GATT and the problem of extraterritorial jurisdiction – the case of trade measures for the protection of human rights. Journal of World Trade 36 (2): 353–403. Open Google Scholar
  34. Bartels, Lorand. 2004. The separation of powers in the WTO: how to avoid judicial activism. International and Comparative Law Quarterly 53: 861–895. Open Google Scholar
  35. Bartels, Lorand. 2015. The Chapeau of the General Exceptions in the WTO GATT and GATS Agreements: A Reconstruction. American Journal of International Law 109 (1): 95–125. Open Google Scholar
  36. Baum, Lawrence. 2006. Judges and their audiences: a perspective on judicial behavior. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Open Google Scholar
  37. Beach, Derek. 2001. Between law and politics: taking the law seriously in rationalist models of judicial autonomy in the EU. Madison. Available at <http://aei.pitt.edu/2049/1/002092_1.PDF>. Open Google Scholar
  38. Bechtler, Thomas W. 1978. American legal realism revaluated I. In Law in a social context – Liber amicorum honouring Prof. Lon. L. Fuller, edited by Thomas W. Bechtler, 5–47. Beventer: Kluwer. Open Google Scholar
  39. Beck, Gunnar. 2012. The legal reasoning of the European Court of Justice. Oxford: Hart. Open Google Scholar
  40. Behboodi, Rambod. 1999. Legal reasoning and the international law of trade: the first steps of the Appellate Body of the WTO. In International trade law on the 50th anniversary of the multilateral trade system, edited by Paolo Mengozzi, 303–367. Milano: A. Guiffrè. Open Google Scholar
  41. Bentley, Philip. 2000. A re-assessment of Article XX, paragraphs (b) and (g) of GATT 1994 in the light of growing consumer and environmental concern about biotechnology. Fordham International Law Journal 24 (1): 107–131. Open Google Scholar
  42. Benvenisti, Eyal, and George W. Downs. 2012. Prospects for the increased independence of international tribunals. In International Judicial Lawmaking: On Public Authority and Democratic Legitimation in Global Governance, edited by Armin von Bogdandy and Ingo Venzke, 99–129. Heidelberg/New York/Dordrecht/London: Springer. Open Google Scholar
  43. Berger, Helge, and Michael Neugart. 2012. How German Labor Courts Decide: An Econometric Case Study. German Economic Review 13 (1): 56–70. Open Google Scholar
  44. Beviglia Zampetti, Americo. 2003. Democratic legitimacy in the World Trade Organization: the justice dimension. Journal of World Trade 37 (1): 105–126. Open Google Scholar
  45. Bhala, Raj. 1999a. The myth about stare decisis and international trade law (part one of a trilogy). American University International Law Review 14 (4): 845–956. Open Google Scholar
  46. Bhala, Raj. 1999b. The precedent setters: de facto stare decisis in WTO adjudication (part two of a trilogy). Journal of Transnational Law and Policy 9 (Fall 1999): 1–151. Open Google Scholar
  47. Blackmore, Dana T. 2004. Eradicating the long standing existence of a no-precedent rule in international trade law – looking toward stare decisis in WTO dispute settlement. North Carolina Journal of International Law and Commercial Regulation 29 (3): 487–518. Open Google Scholar
  48. Bleckmann, Albert. 1981. Gedanken zur Repressalie – Ein Versuch der Anwendung der Interessenjurisprudenz auf das Völkergewohnheitsrecht. In Staatsrecht, Völkerrecht, Europarecht - Festschrift für Hans-Jürgen Schlochauer zum 75. Geburtstag, edited by Ingo von Münch, 193–213. Berlin, New York. Open Google Scholar
  49. Bloche, M. Gregg. 2002. WTO deference to national health policy: Toward an interpretive principle. Journal of International Economic Law 5 (4): 825–848. Open Google Scholar
  50. Böckenförde, Markus. 2003. Zwischen Sein und Wollen – Über den Einfluss umweltvölkerrechtlicher Verträge im Rahmen eines WTO-Streitbeilegungsverfahrens. Zeitschrift für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht 63: 971–1005. Open Google Scholar
  51. Bodansky, Daniel. 1999. The legitimacy of international governance: A coming challenge for international environmental law? American Journal of International Law 93 (3): 596–624. Open Google Scholar
  52. Bogdandy, Armin von. 2001. Law and politics in the WTO: strategies to cope with a deficient relationship. Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law 5: 609–674. Open Google Scholar
  53. Bogdandy, Armin von. 2003. Legitimacy of international economic governance: interpretative approaches to WTO law and the prospects of its proceduralization. In International economic governance and non-economic concerns: New challenges for the international legal order, edited by Stefan Griller, 104–148. Wien/New York: Springer. Open Google Scholar
  54. Bogdandy, Armin von, and Ingo Venzke. 2012. Beyond dispute: international judicial institutions as lawmakers. In International Judicial Lawmaking: On Public Authority and Democratic Legitimation in Global Governance, edited by Armin von Bogdandy and Ingo Venzke, 3–33. Heidelberg/New York/Dordrecht/London: Springer. Open Google Scholar
  55. Bogdandy, Armin von, and Ingo Venzke. 2013. On the Functions of International Courts: An Appraisal in Light of Their Burgeoning Public Authority. Leiden Journal of International Law 26 (1): 49–72. Open Google Scholar
  56. Bohanes, Jan. 2002. Risk regulation in WTO law: A procedure-based approach to the precautionary principle. Columbia Journal of Transnational Law 40 (2): 323–389. Open Google Scholar
  57. Bohanes, Jan, and Andreas Sennekamp. 2006. Reflections on the concept of “judicial economy” in WTO dispute settlement. In The WTO at ten: the contribution of the dispute settlement system, edited by Alan Yanovich, Jan Bohanes, and Sacerdoti, Giorgio, 424–449. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press. Open Google Scholar
  58. Bossis, Gaelle. 2001. La notion de sécurité alimentaire selon l’OMC: entre minoration et tolerance timide. Revue générale de droit international public 105 (2): 313–354. Open Google Scholar
  59. Bourdieu, Pierre. 1987. The Force of Law: Toward a Sociology of the Juridical Field. Hastings Law Journal 38 (5): 805–853. Open Google Scholar
  60. Bowen, Brandon L. 2000. The World Trade Organization and its interpretation of the Article XX: exceptions to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, in the light of recent developments. Georgia Journal of International and Comparative Law 29 (1): 181–202. Open Google Scholar
  61. Bown, Chad P. 2005. Participation in WTO dispute settlement: complainants, interested parties, and free riders. The World Bank Economic Review 19 (2): 287–310. Open Google Scholar
  62. Bown, Chad P., and Joel P. Trachtman. 2009. Brazil – Measures Affecting Imports of Retreaded Tyres: A Balancing Act. World Trade Review 8 (1): 85–135. Open Google Scholar
  63. Brewer, Scott. 1998. Scientific expert testimony and intellectual due process. Yale Law Journal 107 (6): 1535–1681. Open Google Scholar
  64. Briggs, Lewis. 2001. Conserving “Exhaustible Natural Resources”: The role of precedent in the GATT Article XX(g) exception. In Reconciling environment and trade, edited by Edith Brown Weiss and John H Jackson, 261–292. Ardsley: Transnational Publishers. Open Google Scholar
  65. Brink, Tegan. 2010. Which WTO Rules Can a PTA Lawfully Breach? Completing the Analysis in Brazil – Tyres. Journal of World Trade 44 (4): 813–846. Open Google Scholar
  66. Bronckers, Marco, and Keith E. Maskus. 2014. China – Raw Materials: a controversial step towards evenhanded exploitation of natural resources. World Trade Review 13 (2): 393–408. Open Google Scholar
  67. Broude, Tomer. 2004. International governance in the WTO: judicial boundaries and political capitulation. London: Cameron May. Open Google Scholar
  68. Broude, Tomer. 2006. Genetically Modified Rules: The Awkward Rule-Exception-Right Distinction in EC-Biotech. Research Paper. Jerusalem: Faculty of Law and Department of International Relations, Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Available at <http://205.251.117.79/articles/broudebiotech.pdf>. Open Google Scholar
  69. Buchmüller, Christian. 2013. Strom aus erneuerbaren Energien im WTO-Recht: zur Vereinbarkeit von Einspeisevergütungssystemen und Quotenmodellen mit Zertifikatehandel mit dem WTO-Recht. Baden-Baden: Nomos. Open Google Scholar
  70. Búrca, Gráinne de, and Joanne Scott. 2001. The impact of the WTO on EU decision-making. In The EU and the WTO: Legal and constitutional aspects, edited by Gráinne de Búrca and Joanne Scott, 1–30. Oxford: Hart. Open Google Scholar
  71. Burley, Anne-Marie, and Walter Mattli. 1993. Europe before the Court: a Political Theory of Legal Integration. International Organization 47 (1): 41–76. Open Google Scholar
  72. Busch, Marc L. 2007. Overlapping Institutions, Forum Shopping, and Dispute Settlement in International Trade. International Organization 61 (4): 735–761. Open Google Scholar
  73. Busch, Marc L., and Krzysztof J. Pelc. 2010. The Politics of Judicial Economy at the World Trade Organization. International Organization 264 (2): 257–279. Open Google Scholar
  74. Busch, Marc L, and Krzysztof J Pelc. 2019. Words Matter: How WTO Rulings Handle Controversy. International Studies Quarterly 63 (3): 464–476. Open Google Scholar
  75. Busch, Marc L., and Eric Reinhardt. 2002. Testing international trade law: Empirical studies of GATT/WTO dispute settlement. In The political economy of international trade law: Essays in Honor of Robert E. Hudec, edited by Daniel L. M. Kennedy and James D. Southwick, 457–481. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press. Open Google Scholar
  76. Cameron, James, and Kevin G Gray. 2001. Principles of international law in the WTO dispute settlement body. International and Comparative Law Quarterly 50 (2): 248–298. Open Google Scholar
  77. Canal-Forgues, Eric. 2001. Sur l’interprétation dans le droit de l’OMC. Revue générale de droit international public 105 (1): 5–24. Open Google Scholar
  78. Carlone, Jonathan. 2014. An Added Exception to the TBT Agreement After Clove,Tuna II, and Cool. Boston College International and Comparative Law Review 37 (1): 103. Open Google Scholar
  79. Cartland, Michel, Gérard Depayre, and Jan Woznowski. 2012. Is Something Going Wrong in the WTO Dispute Settlement? Journal of World Trade 46 (5): 979–1015. Open Google Scholar
  80. Carvalho, Nuno Pires de. 2002. The TRIPS Regime of Patent rights. New York: Kluwer Law International. Open Google Scholar
  81. Cass, Deborah Z. 2001. The “constitutionalization” of international trade law: judicial norm-generation as engine of constitutional development in international trade. European Journal of International Law 12 (1): 39–76. Open Google Scholar
  82. Cass, Deborah Z. 2005. The Constitutionalization of the World Trade Organization: Legitimacy, Democracy, and Community in the International Trading System. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press. Open Google Scholar
  83. Ceva, Emanuela, and Andrea Fracasso. 2010. Seeking mutual understanding: a discourse-theoretical analysis of the WTO Dispute Settlement System. World Trade Review 9 (3): 457–485. Open Google Scholar
  84. Chan, Alexsia T., and Beverly K. Crawford. 2017. The puzzle of public opposition to TTIP in Germany. Business and Politics 19 (4): 683–708. Open Google Scholar
  85. Charlotin, Damien. 2017. The Place of Investment Awards and WTO Decisions in International Law: A Citation Analysis. Journal of International Economic Law 20 (2): 279–299. Open Google Scholar
  86. Charnovitz, Steve. 1991. Exploring the environmental exceptions in GATT Article XX. Journal of World Trade 25 (5): 37–55. Open Google Scholar
  87. Charnovitz, Steve. 2007. The WTO’s environmental progress. Journal of International Economic Law 10 (3): 685–706. Open Google Scholar
  88. Charnovitz, Steve. 2018. How American Rejectionism Undermines International Economic Law. Trade, Law and Development 10 (2): 226–269. Open Google Scholar
  89. Charvat, Nicola. 2016. Amicus Curiae Briefs in WTO Disputes: An Opportunity for Participation. Available at <https://www.tradelab.org/single-post/2018/03/02/Amicus-Curiae-Briefs-in-WTO-Disputes-An-Opportunity-for-Participation>. Open Google Scholar
  90. Cheyne, Ilona. 2006. The Precautionary Principle in EC and WTO Law: Searching for a Common Understanding. Environmental Law Review 8 (4): 257–277. Open Google Scholar
  91. Cheyne, Ilona. 2007. Gateways to the precautionary principle in WTO law. Journal of Environmental Law 19 (2): 155–172. Open Google Scholar
  92. Chi, Manjiao. 2014. ‘Exhaustible Natural Resources’ in WTO Law: GATT Article XX (g) Disputes and Their Implications. Journal of World Trade 48 (5): 939–966. Open Google Scholar
  93. Cho, Sungjoon. 1998. Gasoline: United States – Standards for Reformulated and Conventional Gasoline. European Journal of International Law 9 (1). Available at <http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1734488>. Open Google Scholar
  94. Cho, Sungjoon. 2009a. Of the World Trade Court’s Burden. European Journal of International Law 20 (3): 675–727. Open Google Scholar
  95. Cho, Sungjoon. 2009b. United States – Continued Suspension of Obligations in the EC – Hormones Dispute. WT/DS320/AB/R. American Journal of International Law 103: 299–305. Open Google Scholar
  96. Choi, Won-Mog. 2003. “Like products” in international trade law: towards a consistent GATT/WTO jurisprudence. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press. Open Google Scholar
  97. Christoforou, Theofanis. 2000. Settlement of science-based trade disputes in the WTO: a critical review of the developing case law in the face of scientific uncertainty. New York University Environmental Law Journal 8 (3): 622–648. Open Google Scholar
  98. Chua, Adrian T. L. 1998. Precedent and principles of WTO Panel jurisprudence. Berkeley Journal of International Law 16 (1): 171–196. Open Google Scholar
  99. Clifford Chance. 2019. The WTO Appellate Body crisis – a way forward? Available at <https://www.cliffordchance.com/briefings/2019/11/the-wto-appellate-body-crisis---a-way-forward-.html>. Open Google Scholar
  100. Colares, Juscelino F. 2009. A Theory of WTO Adjudication: From Empirical Analysis to Biased Rule Development. Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law 42 (3): 383–439. Open Google Scholar
  101. Colares, Juscelino F. 2011. The limits of WTO Adjudication: Is Compliance the Problem? Journal of International Economic Law 14 (2): 403–436. Open Google Scholar
  102. Conconi, Paola, and Tania Voon. 2016. EC – Seal Products: The Tension between Public Morals and International Trade Agreements. World Trade Review 15 (2): 211–234. Open Google Scholar
  103. Condon, Bradly J. 2004. GATT Article XX and proximity of interest: determining the subject matter of paragraphs b and g. UCLA Journal of International Law and Public Affairs 9 (2): 137–162. Open Google Scholar
  104. Condon, Bradly J. 2010. Lost in Translation: Plurilingual Interpretation of WTO Law. Journal of International Dispute Settlement 1 (1): 191–216. Open Google Scholar
  105. Condon, Bradly J. 2018. Captain America and the Tarnishing of the Crown: The Feud Between the WTO Appellate Body and the USA. Journal of World Trade 52 (4): 535–556. Open Google Scholar
  106. Conrad, Christiane. 2007. The EC – Biotech Dispute and Applicability of the SPS Agreement: Are the Panel’s Findings Built on Shaky Ground? World Trade Review 6 (2): 233–248. Open Google Scholar
  107. Conrad, Christiane. 2011. Processes and production methods (PPMs) in WTO law: interfacing trade and social goals. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press. Open Google Scholar
  108. Conti, Joseph A. 2011. Between law and diplomacy: the social contexts of disputing at the World Trade Organization. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Open Google Scholar
  109. Cooter, Robert D., and Thomas B. Ginsburg. 1996. Comparative Judicial Discretion: An Empirical Test of Economic Models. International Review of Law and Economics 16: 295–313. Open Google Scholar
  110. Coroado, Susana, Nuno Garoupa, and Pedro C. Magalhães. 2017. Judicial Behavior under Austerity: An Empirical Analysis of Behavioral Changes in the Portuguese Constitutional Court, 2002-2016. Legal Studies Research Paper Series. Texas: Texas A. & M. University School of Law. Open Google Scholar
  111. Costa, Jose Augusto Fontoura. 2011. Comparing WTO Panelists and ICSID Arbitrators: The Creation of International Legal Fields. Oñati Socio-Legal Series 1 (4). Open Google Scholar
  112. Cottier, Thomas. 1998. Dispute Settlement in the World Trade Organization: Characteristics and Structural Implications for the European Union. Common Market Law Review 35 (2): 325–378. Open Google Scholar
  113. Cottier, Thomas, Roberto Echandi, Rachel Liechti-McKee, Tetyana Payosova, and Charlotte Sieber. 2017. The Principle of Proportionality in International Law: Foundations and Variations. The Journal of World Investment & Trade 18 (4): 628–672. Open Google Scholar
  114. Cottier, Thomas, and Matthias Oesch. 2003. The paradox of judicial review in international trade regulation: towards a comprehensive framework. In The role of the judge in international trade regulation: experience and lessons for the WTO, edited by Thomas Cottier and Petros C. Mavroidis, 287–306. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Open Google Scholar
  115. Cottier, Thomas, and Krista Nadakavukaren Schefer. 2000. Good faith and the protection of legitimate expectations in the WTO. In New directions in international economic law, 47–68. London/The Hague/Boston: Kluwer Law International. Open Google Scholar
  116. Craig, Paul, and Gráinne de Búrca. 2011. EU Law: Text, Cases, and Materials. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press. Open Google Scholar
  117. Crowley, Meredith A., and Robert Howse. 2014. Tuna – Dolphin II: a legal and economic analysis of the Appellate Body Report. World Trade Review 13 (2): 321–355. Open Google Scholar
  118. Cunningham, Richard O., and Troy H. Cribb. 2003. Dispute Settlement Through the Lens of “Free Flow of Trade”: A Review of WTO Dispute Settlement of US Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Duty Measures. Journal of International Economic Law 6 (1): 155–170. Open Google Scholar
  119. Daku, Mark, and Krzysztof J. Pelc. 2017. Who Holds Influence over WTO Jurisprudence? Journal of International Economic Law 20 (2): 233–255. Open Google Scholar
  120. Danziger, Shai, Jonathan Levav, and Liora Avnaim-Pesso. 2011. Extraneous Factors in Judicial Decisions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 108 (17): 6889–6892. Open Google Scholar
  121. D’Aspremont, Jean, and Makane Moïse Mbengue. 2014. Strategies of Engagement with Scientific Fact-finding in International Adjudication. Journal of International Dispute Settlement 5 (2): 240–272. Open Google Scholar
  122. Davey, William J. 2000. WTO dispute settlement: segregating the useful political aspects and avoiding “over-legalization”. In New directions in international economic law, edited by Marco Bronckers and Reinhard Quick, 290–307. London/The Hague/Boston: Kluwer Law International. Open Google Scholar
  123. Davey, William J. 2003. Has the WTO dispute settlement system exceeded its authority? A consideration of deference shown by the system to member government decisions and its use of issue-avoidance techniques. In The role of the judge in international trade regulation: experience and lessons for the WTO, edited by Thomas Cottier and Petros C. Mavroidis, 79–110. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Open Google Scholar
  124. Davey, William J. 2005. The WTO dispute settlement system: the first ten years. Journal of International Economic Law 8 (1): 17–50. Open Google Scholar
  125. Davey, William J., and André Sapir. 2009. The Soft Drinks Case: The WTO and Regional Agreements. World Trade Review 8 (1): 5–23. Open Google Scholar
  126. Davies, Arwel. 2009. Interpreting the chapeau of GATT Art. XX in light of the “new” approach in Brazil tyres. Journal of World Trade 43 (3): 507–539. Open Google Scholar
  127. Delbrück, Jost. 1997. Proportionality. In Encyclopedia of public international law, Vol. 3, edited by Rudolf Bernhardt, 1140–144. Amsterdam: North Holland. Open Google Scholar
  128. Delimatsis, Panagiotis. 2011. Protecting Public Morals in a Digital Age: Revisiting the WTO Rulings on US – Gambling and China – Publications and Audiovisual Products. Journal of International Economic Law 14 (2): 257–293. Open Google Scholar
  129. Desmedt, Axel. 2001. Proportionality in WTO law. Journal of International Economic Law 4 (3): 441–480. Open Google Scholar
  130. De Waart, Paul de. 1998. Quality of life at the mercy of WTO panels: GATT´s Article XX an empty shell? In International economic law with a human face, edited by Friedl Weiss, Erik Denters, and Paul de Waart, 109–131. London/The Hague/Boston: Kluwer Law International. Open Google Scholar
  131. De Visser, Maartje. 2013. A cautionary tale: some insights regarding judicial activism from the national experience. In Judicial activism at the European Court of Justice, edited by Mark Dawson, Bruno Witte, and Elise Muir, 188–210. Cheltenham/Northhampton: Elgar. Open Google Scholar
  132. Dickson, Brice. 2007. Comparing supreme courts. In Judicial activism in common law supreme courts, 1–17. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press. Open Google Scholar
  133. Diebold, Nicolas F. 2008. The Morals and Order Exceptions in WTO Law: Balancing the Toothless Tiger and the Undermining Mole. Journal of International Economic Law 11 (1): 43–74. Open Google Scholar
  134. Dörr, Oliver, and Kirsten Schmalenbach, eds. 2012. Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties: a commentary. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer. Open Google Scholar
  135. Doyle, Christopher. 2011. Gimme Shelter: The Necessary Element of GATT Article XX in the Context of the China – Audiovisual Products Case. Boston University International Law Journal 29 (1): 143–167. Open Google Scholar
  136. Du, Michael M. 2010a. Autonomy in Setting Appropriate Level of Protection under the WTO Law: Rhetoric or Reality? Journal of International Economic Law 13 (4): 1077–1102. Open Google Scholar
  137. Du, Michael M. 2010b. Standard of review under the SPS Agreement after EC – Hormones II. International and Comparative Law Quarterly 59 (April 2010): 441–459. Open Google Scholar
  138. Du, Michael M. 2011. The Rise of National Regulatory Autonomy in the GATT/WTO Regime. Journal of International Economic Law 14 (3): 639–675. Open Google Scholar
  139. Dunoff, Jeffrey L., and Mark A. Pollack. 2017. The Judicial Trilemma. Research Paper. Temple University Legal Studies. Temple University. Available at Open Google Scholar
  140. <https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2955172>. Accessed 7 March 2021. Open Google Scholar
  141. Dutfield, Graham. 2003. Trading in Knowledge: Development Perspectives on TRIPS, Trade and Sustainability. Edited by Christophe Bellmann and Ricardo Melendez-Ortiz. London: Routledge. Open Google Scholar
  142. Dworkin, Ronald. 1981. Taking Rights Seriously. London: Duckworth. Open Google Scholar
  143. Eckert, Dieter. 1995. Die neue Welthandelsordnung und ihre Bedeutung für den internationalen Verkehr mit Lebensmitteln. Zeitschrift für das gesamte Lebensmittelrecht 22 (4): 363–395. Open Google Scholar
  144. Eeckhout, Piet. 2010. The Scales of Trade – Reflections on the Growth and Functions of the WTO Adjudicative Branch. Journal of International Economic Law 13 (1): 3–26. Open Google Scholar
  145. Eggers, Barbara. 2001. The Precautionary Principle in WTO Law. Available at Open Google Scholar
  146. <http://www.sub.uni-hamburg.de/opus/volltexte/2001/451/>. Open Google Scholar
  147. Ehlermann, Claus-Dieter. 2002. Six years on the bench of the “world trade court”: some personal experiences as member of the Appellate Body of the World Trade Organization. Journal of World Trade 36 (4): 605–639. Open Google Scholar
  148. Ehlermann, Claus-Dieter. 2003a. Reflections on the Appellate Body of the WTO. Journal of International Economic Law 6 (3): 695–708. Open Google Scholar
  149. Ehlermann, Claus-Dieter. 2003b. WTO dispute settlement and competition law: views from the perspective of the Appellate Body’s experience. Fordham International Law Journal 26 (6): 1505–1558. Open Google Scholar
  150. Ehlermann, Claus-Dieter, and Lothar Ehring. 2005. Decision-making in the World Trade Organization. Journal of International Economic Law 8 (1): 51–75. Open Google Scholar
  151. Ehlermann, Claus-Dieter, and Nicolas Lockhart. 2004. Standard of review in WTO law. Journal of International Economic Law 7 (3): 491–521. Open Google Scholar
  152. Eliason, Antonia. 2009. Science versus law in WTO jurisprudence: the (mis)interpretation of the scientific process and the (in) sufficiency of scientific evidence in EC – Biotech. New York University Journal of International Law & Politics 41 (2): 341–406. Open Google Scholar
  153. El-Said, Hamed, and Mohammed El-Said. 2005. TRIPS, Bilateralism, Multilateralism & Implications for Developing Countries: Jordan’s Drug Sector. Manchester Journal of International Economic Law 2 (1): 59–79. Open Google Scholar
  154. Elsig, Manfred, and Mark A. Pollack. 2012. Agents, trustees, and international courts: The politics of judicial appointment at the World Trade Organization. European Journal of International Relations Online first version: 1–15. Open Google Scholar
  155. Emmerich-Fritsche, Angelika. 2000. Der Grundsatz der Verhältnismäßigkeit als Direktive und Schranke der EG-Rechtssetzung. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot. Open Google Scholar
  156. Enderlein, Wolfgang. 1992. Abwägung in Recht und Moral. Freiburg/München: Alber. Open Google Scholar
  157. Epiney, Astrid. 2000. Welthandel und Umwelt: Ein Beitrag zur Dogmatik der Art. III, XI, XX GATT. Deutsches Verwaltungsblatt 115 (2): 77–86. Open Google Scholar
  158. Epps, Tracey. 2008. International trade and health protection: a critical assessment of the WTO’s SPS Agreement. Cheltenham/Northhampton: Edward Elgar. Open Google Scholar
  159. Espa, Ilaria. 2012. The Appellate Body approach to the applicability of Article XX GATT in the light of China – Raw materials: a missed opportunity? Journal of World Trade 46 (6): 1399–1423. Open Google Scholar
  160. Esty, Daniel C. 2002. The World Trade Organization’s legitimacy crisis. World Trade Review 1 (1): 7–22. Open Google Scholar
  161. Fastenrath, Ulrich. 1991. Lücken im Völkerrecht – Zu Rechtscharakter, Quellen, Systemzusammenhang, Methodenlehre und Funktionen des Völkerrechts. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot. Open Google Scholar
  162. Feddersen, Christoph T. 2002. Der ordre public in der WTO: Auslegung und Bedeutung des Art. XX lit. a) GATT im Rahmen der WTO Streitbeilegung. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot. Open Google Scholar
  163. Feteris, Eveline T. 1999. Fundamentals of legal argumentation: a survey of theories on the justification of judicial decisions. Dordrecht: Springer. Open Google Scholar
  164. Fitzgerald, Peter L. 2011. “Morality” May Not Be Enough to Justify the EU Seal Products Ban: Animal Welfare Meets International Trade Law. Journal of International Wildlife Law & Policy 14 (3): 85–136. Open Google Scholar
  165. Flett, James. 2010. Collective Intelligence and the Possibility of Dissent: Anonymous Individual Opinions in WTO Jurisprudence. Journal of International Economic Law 13 (2): 287–320. Open Google Scholar
  166. Flett, James. 2011. From the Green Room to the Court Room (and Back): Judicial Clarification of Ambiguity in WTO Law and the Effects on Subsequent Negotiations. Oñati Socio Legal Series. Oñati: Oñati International Institute for the Sociology of Law. Open Google Scholar
  167. Foltea, Marina. 2012. International organizations in WTO dispute settlement: how much institutional sensitivity? Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press. Open Google Scholar
  168. Fontanelli, Filippo. 2012. Necessity killed the GATT – Art. XX GATT and the misleading rhetoric about “weighing and balancing”. European Journal of Legal Studies 5 (2): 35–56. Open Google Scholar
  169. Footer, Mary E. and Saman Zia-Zarifi. 2002. Case Note: European Communities – Measures Affecting Asbestos and Asbestos-Containing Products. Melbourne Journal of International Law 3 (1): 121–142. Open Google Scholar
  170. Foster, Caroline E. 2008. Public Opinion and the Interpretation of the World Trade Organisation’s Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures. Journal of International Economic Law 11 (2): 427–458. Open Google Scholar
  171. Foster, Caroline E. 2009. Precaution, Scientific Development and Scientific Uncertainty under the WTO Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures. Review of European Community & International Environmental Law 18 (1): 50–58. Open Google Scholar
  172. Francioni, Francesco. 2006. WTO law in context: the integration of international human rights and environmental law in the dispute settlement process. In The WTO at ten: the contribution of the dispute settlement system, edited by Alan Yanovich, Jan Bohanes, and Sacerdoti, Giorgio, 143–154. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Open Google Scholar
  173. Franken, Lorenz, and Jan-Erik Burchardi. 2007. Beyond Biosafety – An Analysis of the EC – Biotech Panel Report. Aussenwirtschaft 62 (1): 77–106. Open Google Scholar
  174. Fukunaga, Yuka. 2012. Standard of Review and “Scientific Truths” in the WTO Dispute Settlement System and Investment Arbitration. Journal of International Dispute Settlement 3 (3): 559–576. Open Google Scholar
  175. Gaines, Stanford. 2001. The WTO’s reading of the GATT Article XX chapeau: a disguised restriction on environmental measures. University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Economic Law 22 (4): 739–861. Open Google Scholar
  176. Gallagher, Kevin P. 2009. Handbook on Trade and the Environment. Cheltenham/Northhampton: Edward Elgar. Open Google Scholar
  177. Garrett, Geoffrey, R. Daniel Kelemen, and Heiner Schulz. 1998. The European Court of Justice, national governments and legal integration in the European Union. International Organization 52 (1): 149–176. Open Google Scholar
  178. Garrett, Geoffrey, and James McCall Smith. 2002. The politics of WTO dispute settlement. Los Angeles: UCLA International Institute. Available at <http://escholarship.org/uc/item/4t4952d7#page-1>. Open Google Scholar
  179. Gathii, James Thuo. 2002. The legal status of the Doha Declaration on TRIPS and public health under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Harvard Journal of Law and Technology 15 (2): 291–317. Open Google Scholar
  180. Gazal-Ayal, Oren, and Raanan Sulitzeanu-Kenan. 2010. Let My People Go: Ethnic In-Group Bias in Judicial Decisions – Evidence from a Randomized Natural Experiment. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 7 (3): 403–428. Open Google Scholar
  181. Gehring, Markus W., and Marie-Claire Cordonier Segger. 2003. Precaution in World Trade Law: The Precautionary Principle and its Implications for the World Trade Organisation. Journal of Environmental Law 15 (3): 289–321. Open Google Scholar
  182. Gelbert, Julia. 2001. Die Risikobewältigung im Lebensmittelrecht auf internationaler, europäischer und nationaler Ebene: unter besonderer Berücksichtigung des Hormonfalls, der BSE-Krise und gentechnischer Verfahren bei der Lebensmittelherstellung und unter Beachtung des Vorsorgeprinzips. Bayreuth: PCO. Open Google Scholar
  183. Gerstetter, Christiane, and Matthias Leonhard Maier. 2005. Risk regulation, trade and international law: Debating the precautionary principle in and around the WTO. TranState Working Paper. Bremen: University of Bremen. Available at <http://www.sfb597.uni-bremen.de/pages/pubApBeschreibung.php?ID=20&SPRACHE=en>. Open Google Scholar
  184. Gerstetter, Christiane, Nils Meyer-Ohlendorf, Christian Tietje, Tobias Zuber, and Martin Kohoutek. 2014. Welthandelsrechtliche Grenzen des Ausbaus erneuerbarer Energien – Projekt im Auftrag des Bundesministeriums für Wirtschaft und Energie (BMWi). Ecologic Institute/Institut für Wirtschaftsrecht, Martin-Luther-Universität Halle-Wittenberg. Available at <http://www.erneuerbare-energien.de/EE/Redaktion/DE/Downloads/Berichte/welthandelsrechtliche_grenzen_des_ausbaus_ee.html>. Open Google Scholar
  185. Ginsburg, Tom. 2006. International Judicial Lawmaking. Illinois Law and Economics Working Papers Series Working Paper. Illinois: University of Illinois, College of Law. Open Google Scholar
  186. Glennon, Colin, and Logan Strother. 2019. The Maintenance of Institutional Legitimacy in Supreme Court Justices’ Public Rhetoric. Journal of Law and Courts 7 (2). The University of Chicago Press: 241–261. Open Google Scholar
  187. Godt, Christine. 1998. Der Bericht des Appellate Body der WTO zum EG-Einfuhrverbot von Hormonfleisch. Risikoregulierung im Weltmarkt. Europäisches Wirtschafts- und Steuerrecht 9 (6): 202–209. Open Google Scholar
  188. Goh, Gavin, and David L. H. Morgan. 2007. Political Considerations and Pragmatic Outcomes in WTO Dispute Ruling. University of New South Wales Law Journal 30 (2): 477–503. Open Google Scholar
  189. Goldstein, Judith, and Richard H. Steinberg. 2007. Regulatory Shift: The Rise of Judicial Liberalization at the WTO. 07-15. Law & Economics Research Paper Series. Los Angeles: UCLA. Open Google Scholar
  190. Gourgourinis, Anastasios. 2011. The Distinction between Interpretation and Application of Norms in International Adjudication. Journal of International Dispute Settlement 2 (1): 31–57. Open Google Scholar
  191. Gourgourinis, Anastasios. 2016. Equity and equitable principles in the World Trade Organization: addressing conflicts and overlaps between the WTO and other regimes. New York: Routledge. Open Google Scholar
  192. Green, Andrew, and Tracey Epps. 2007. The WTO, science, and the environment: moving towards consistency. Journal of International Economic Law 10 (2): 285–316. Open Google Scholar
  193. Greenwald, John. 2003. WTO Dispute Settlement: an Exercise in Trade Law Legislation? Journal of International Economic Law 6 (1): 113–124. Open Google Scholar
  194. Gross, Oren, and Fionnuala Ní Aoláin. 2001. From discretion to scrutiny: revisiting the application of the margin of appreciation doctrine in the context of Article of the European Convention on Human Rights. Human Rights Quarterly 23 (3): 625–649. Open Google Scholar
  195. Gruni, Giovanni. 2020. The unsustainable lightness of enforcement procedures: environmental standards in the EU-Mercosur FTA. Available at <https://blogdroiteuropeen.com/2020/05/13/the-unsustainable-lightness-of-enforcement-procedures-environmental-standards-in-the-eu-mercosur-fta-by-giovanni-gruni/>. Open Google Scholar
  196. Gruszczynski, Lukasz. 2006. The Role of Science in Risk Regulation under the SPS Agreement. EUI Law Working Paper. Florence: European University Institute. Available at <http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=891114>. Open Google Scholar
  197. Gruszczynski, Lukasz. 2008. SPS measures adopted in case of insufficiency of scientific evidence – where do we stand after the EC – Biotech Products case? In WTO judicial system: contributions and challenges, edited by Julien Chaisse and Tiziano Balmelli, 91–140. Geneva: Ed. Interuniversitaires Suisses, Edis. Open Google Scholar
  198. Gruszczynski, Lukasz. 2013. Standard of review of health and environmental regulations by WTO panels. In Research Handbook on Environment, Health and the WTO, edited by Geert van Calster and Marie Denise Prévost, 731–758. Cheltenham/Northhampton: Edward Elgar. Open Google Scholar
  199. Gu, Bin. 2012. Applicability of GATT Article XX in China – Raw Materials: A Clash within the WTO Agreement. Journal of International Economic Law 15 (4): 1007–1031. Open Google Scholar
  200. Guan, Wenwei. 2014. How general should the GATT general exceptions be?: a critique of the “common intention” approach of treaty interpretation. Journal of World Trade 48 (2): 219–258. Open Google Scholar
  201. Guillaume, Gilbert. 2006. Methods and practice of treaty interpretation by the International Court of Justice. In The WTO at ten: the contribution of the dispute settlement system, edited by Alan Yanovich, Jan Bohanes, and Sacerdoti, Giorgio, 465–473. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press. Open Google Scholar
  202. Guthrie, Chris, Jeffrey J. Rachlinski, and Andrew J. Wistrich. 2007. Blinking on the bench: how judges decide cases. Cornell Law Review 93 (1): 1–43. Open Google Scholar
  203. Guzman, Andrew, and Beth A. Simmons. 2002. To settle or empanel? An empirical analysis of litigation and settlement at the World Trade Organization. Journal of Legal Studies 31 (1): 205–236. Open Google Scholar
  204. Guzman, Andrew T. 2008. Determining the Appropriate Standard of Review in WTO Disputes. Cornell International Law Journal 42 (1): 42–76. Open Google Scholar
  205. Guzman, Andrew T., and Beth A. Simmons. 2005. Power Plays and Capacity Constraints: The Selection of Defendants in World Trade Organization Disputes. Journal of Legal Studies 34: 557–598. Open Google Scholar
  206. Habermas, Jürgen. 1992. Faktizität und Geltung: Beiträge zur Diskurstheorie des Rechts. Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp. Open Google Scholar
  207. Harris, Allison P., and Maya Sen. 2019. Bias and Judging. Annual Review of Political Science 22: 241–259. Open Google Scholar
  208. Hart, Herbert L. A. 1994. The Concept of Law. 2nd ed. Oxford: Clarendon. Open Google Scholar
  209. Hathaway, Oona A., Sabria McElroy, and Sara Aronchick Solow. 2011. International law at home: enforcing treaties in U.S. courts. Yale Journal of International Law 37 (1): 51–106. Open Google Scholar
  210. Haugen, Hans Morten. 2007. The right to food and the TRIPS agreement. The Raoul Wallenberg Institute human rights library: RAWA. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff. Open Google Scholar
  211. Hector, Pascal. 1992. Das völkerrechtliche Abwägungsgebot –- Abgrenzung der Souveränitätssphären durch Verfahren. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot. Open Google Scholar
  212. Henckels, Caroline. 2006. GMOs in the WTO: A Critique of the Panel’s Legal Reasoning. Melbourne Journal of International Law 7 (2): 278–305. Open Google Scholar
  213. Herwig, Alexia. 2008. Whither Science in WTO Dispute Settlement? Leiden Journal of International Law 21 (4): 823–846. Open Google Scholar
  214. Herwig, Alexia, and Christian Joerges. 2013. The precautionary principle in conflicts of law perspectives. In Research Handbook on Environment, Health and the WTO, edited by Geert van Calster and Marie Denise Prévost, 3–40. Cheltenham/Northhampton: Edward Elgar. Open Google Scholar
  215. Hestermeyer, Holger P., and Laura Nielsen. 2014. The Legality of Local Content Measures under WTO Law. Journal of World Trade 48 (3): 553–591. Open Google Scholar
  216. Hey, Ellen. 2000. Considerations regarding the Hormones case, the precautionary principle and international dispute settlement procedures. Leiden Journal of International Law 13 (1): 239–248. Open Google Scholar
  217. Higgins, Rosalyn. 1968. Policy Considerations and the International Judicial Process. International & Comparative Law Quarterly 17 (1): 58–84. Open Google Scholar
  218. Hilf, Meinhard. 2001. Power, rules and principles – which orientation for WTO/GATT law? Journal of International Economic Law 4 (1): 111–130. Open Google Scholar
  219. Hilf, Meinhard, and Goetz J. Goettsche. 2003. The relation of economic and non-economic principles in international law. In International economic governance and non-economic concerns: New challenges for the international legal order, edited by Stefan Griller, 5–46. Wien/New York: Springer. Open Google Scholar
  220. Hilf, Meinhard, and Sebastian Puth. 2002. The principle of proportionality on its way into WTO/GATT law. In European integration and international co-ordination, edited by Armin von Bogdandy, Petros C. Mavroidis, Yves Mény, and Claus-Dieter Ehlermann, 199–238. The Hague/London/New York: Kluwer Law International. Open Google Scholar
  221. Hillenkamp, Thomas. 2006. 32 Probleme aus dem Strafrecht, Allgemeiner Teil. 12th ed. Neuwied: Luchterhand. Open Google Scholar
  222. Hillman, Jennifer. 2009. Conflicts between Dispute Settlement Mechanisms in Regional Trade Agreements and the WTO – What Should WTO Do. Cornell International Law Journal 42 (2): 193–208. Open Google Scholar
  223. Hippler Bello, Judith, and Maury D. Shenk. 1996. WTO Dispute Settlement Body – Article XX environmental exceptions to GATT – National Treatment – Consistency with GATT of U. S. rule regarding imports of reformulated gasoline. American Journal of International Law 90 (4): 669–674. Open Google Scholar
  224. Hoekman, Bernard. 2016. The World Trade Order: Global Governance by Judiciary? European Journal of International Law 27 (4): 1083–1093. Open Google Scholar
  225. Hoekman, Bernard and Trachtman, Joel. 2010. Continued Suspense: EC – Hormones and WTO Disciplines on Discrimination and Domestic Regulation Appellate Body Reports: Canada/United States – Continued Suspension of Obligations in the EC –- Hormones Dispute, WT/DS320/AB/R,WT/DS321/AB/R, Adopted 14 November 2008. World Trade Review 9 (Special Issue 1): 151–180. Open Google Scholar
  226. Hohmann, Harald. 2000. Der Konflikt zwischen freiem Handel und Umweltschutz in WTO und EG. Recht der internationalen Wirtschaft 2000 (2): 88–99. Open Google Scholar
  227. Holmes, Peter. 1999. The WTO and the EU: Some Constitutional Comparisons. In The EU and the WTO: Legal and Constitutional Issues, edited by Gráinne de Búrca and Joanne Scott, 59–80. Oxford: Hart. Open Google Scholar
  228. Howse, Robert. 2001. Adjudicative legitimacy and treaty interpretation in international trade law: the early years of WTO jurisprudence. In The EU, the WTO and the NAFTA: towards a common law of international trade?, edited by Joseph H. H. Weiler, 37–69. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press. Open Google Scholar
  229. Howse, Robert. 2002a. From politics to technocracy: and back again: The fate of the multilateral trading regime. American Journal of International Law 96 (1): 94–117. Open Google Scholar
  230. Howse, Robert. 2002b. The Appellate Body rulings in the shrimp/turtle case: a new legal baseline for the trade and environment debate. Columbia Journal of Environmental Law 27 (2): 489–519. Open Google Scholar
  231. Howse, Robert. 2002c. The Sardines Panel and AB rulings - some preliminary reactions. Legal Issues of Economic Integration 29 (3): 247–254. Open Google Scholar
  232. Howse, Robert. 2003a. How to begin to think about the “democratic deficit” at the WTO. In International economic governance and non-economic concerns: New challenges for the international legal order, edited by Stefan Griller, 79–101. Wien/New York: Springer. Open Google Scholar
  233. Howse, Robert. 2003b. India’s WTO Challenge to Drug Enforcement Conditions in the European Community Generalized System of Preferences – A little known case with major repercussions for “political” conditionality in US trade policy. Chicago Journal of International Law 4 (2): 385–405. Open Google Scholar
  234. Howse, Robert. 2003c. The most dangerous branch? WTO Appellate Body, jurisprudence on the nature and limits of the judicial power. In The role of the judge in international trade regulation: experience and lessons for the WTO, edited by edited by Thomas Cottier and Petros C. Mavroidis, 11–41. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Open Google Scholar
  235. Howse, Robert. 2008. The use and abuse of international law in WTO trade/environment litigation. In The WTO: governance, dispute settlement & developing countries, edited by Merit E. Janow, Victoria Donaldson, and Alan Yanovich, 635–670. Huntington: Juris Publishing. Open Google Scholar
  236. Howse, Robert. 2009. Moving the WTO forward – one case at a step. Cornell International Law Journal 42 (2): 223–231. Open Google Scholar
  237. Howse, Robert. 2016a. The World Trade Organization 20 Years On: Global Governance by Judiciary. European Journal of International Law 27 (1): 9–77. Open Google Scholar
  238. Howse, Robert. 2016b. The WTO 20 Years On: A Reply to the Responses. European Journal of International Law 27 (4): 1127–1129. Open Google Scholar
  239. Howse, Robert, and Susan Essermann. 2006. The Appellate Body, the WTO dispute settlement system, and the politics of multilateralism. In The WTO at ten: the contribution of the dispute settlement system, edited by Alan Yanovich, Jan Bohanes, and Sacerdoti, Giorgo, 61–80. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press. Open Google Scholar
  240. Howse, Robert L., and Henrik Horn. 2009. European Communities – Measures Affecting the Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products. World Trade Review 8 (1): 49–83. Open Google Scholar
  241. Howse, Robert, and Joanna Langille. 2011. Permitting pluralism: the seal products dispute and why the WTO should accept trade restrictions justified by noninstrumental moral values. Yale Journal of International Law 37 (Spring 2011): 367–432. Open Google Scholar
  242. Howse, Robert, and Philip I. Levy. 2013. The TBT Panels: US – Cloves, US – Tuna, US – COOL. World Trade Review 12 (Special Issue 2): 327–375. Open Google Scholar
  243. Howse, Robert, and Elisabeth Tuerk. 2001. The WTO impact on internal regulations – a case study of the Canada – EC asbestos dispute. In The EU and the WTO: Legal and constitutional aspects, edited by Gráinne de Búrca and Joanne Scott, 283–327. Oxford: Hart. Open Google Scholar
  244. Hu, Jiaxiang. 2004. The role of international law in the development of WTO law. Journal of International Economic Law 7 (1): 143–167. Open Google Scholar
  245. Hubmann, Heinrich. 1977. Wertung und Abwägung im Recht. Köln: Heymanns. Open Google Scholar
  246. Hudec, Robert E. 2003. Science and “post-discriminatory” WTO law. Boston College International and Comparative Law Review 26 (2): 185–195. Open Google Scholar
  247. Hughes, Valerie. 2008. Strengths, weaknesses, and future of the WTO appellate review. In The WTO: governance, dispute settlement & developing countries, edited by Merit E. Janow, Victoria Donaldson, and Alan Yanovich, 471–504. Huntington: Juris Publishing. Open Google Scholar
  248. Hughes, Valerie. 2009. The institutional dimension. In The Oxford Handbook Of International Trade Law, edited by Daniel L. Bethlehem, Donald M. McRae, Rodney Neufeld, and Isabelle Van Damme, 269–297. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press. Open Google Scholar
  249. Huls, Nick, Maurice Adams, and Jacco Bomhoff, eds. 2009. The Legitimacy of Highest Courts’ Rulings: Judicial Deliberations and Beyond. The Hague: Asser Press. Open Google Scholar
  250. Iancu, Bogdan. 2009. Law/Politics Distinctions – The Elusive Reference Points. In The law/politics distinction in contemporary public law adjudication, edited by Bogdan Iancu, 1–17. Utrecht: Eleven. Open Google Scholar
  251. Iida, Keisuke. 2003. Why Does the World Trade Organization Appear Neoliberal? The Puzzle of the High Incidence of Guilty Verdicts in WTO Adjudication. Journal of Public Policy 23 (1): 1–21. Open Google Scholar
  252. Iida, Keisuke. 2004. Is WTO Dispute Settlement Effective? Global Governance 10 (2): 207–225. Open Google Scholar
  253. International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD), Canadian Environmental Law Association (CELA), and Ecojustice Canada. 2012. Amicus curiae submission before the Panel Canada – Certain Measures Affecting the Renewable Energy Generation Sector (DS412). Available at <https://www.iisd.org/pdf/2012/ecojustice_amicus_curiae_brief.pdf>. Open Google Scholar
  254. Iynedjian, Marc. 2002. L’accord de l’organsation mondiale du commerce sur l’application des mesures sanitaires et phytosanitaires: une analyse juridique. Paris: Librairie Générale de Droit et de Jurisprudence. Open Google Scholar
  255. Jacob, Marc. 2012. Precedents: lawmaking through international adjudication. In International Judicial Lawmaking: On Public Authority and Democratic Legitimation in Global Governance, edited by Armin von Bogdandy and Ingo Venzke, 35–68. Heidelberg/New York/Dordrecht/London: Springer. Open Google Scholar
  256. Jacobs, Francis G. 1999. Recent developments in the principle of proportionality in European Community law. In The principle of proportionality in the laws of Europe, edited by Evelyn Ellis, 1–21. Oxford/Portland: Hart. Open Google Scholar
  257. Jans, Jan H. 2000. Proportionality revisited. Legal Issues of Economic Integration 27 (3): 239–265. Open Google Scholar
  258. Jetzlsperger, Christian. 2003. Legitimacy through jurisprudence? The impact of the European Court of Justice on the legitimacy of the European Union. Nashville, Tennessee. Available at <http://aei.pitt.edu/2880/1/119.pdf>. Open Google Scholar
  259. Joerges, Christian. 1997. Scientific expertise in social regulation and the European Court of Justice: Legal frameworks for denationalized governance structures. In Integrating scientific expertise into regulatory decision-making: national traditions and European innovations, edited by Christian Joerges, Karl-Heinz Ladeur, and Ellen Vos, 295–324. Baden-Baden: Nomos. Open Google Scholar
  260. Joerges, Christian. 2009. Judicialization and transnational governance: the example of WTO law and the GMO dispute. In The law/politics distinction in contemporary public law adjudication, edited by Bogdan Iancu, 67–84. Utrecht: Eleven. Open Google Scholar
  261. Joerges, Christian, and Christine Godt. 2005. Free Trade: The Erosion of National and Birth of Transnational Governance. European Review 13 (Supplement No 1): 93–117. Open Google Scholar
  262. Johannesson, Louise, and Petros C. Mavroidis. 2015. Black Cat, White Cat: The Identity of the WTO Judges. Working Paper. Stockholm: IFN. Open Google Scholar
  263. Kapterian, Gisele. 2010. A critique of the WTO jurisprudence on “necessity”. International and Comparative Law Quarterly 59 (January 2010): 89–127. Open Google Scholar
  264. Kaufmann, Christine, and Rolf H. Weber. 2011. Carbon-related border tax adjustment: mitigating climate change or restricting international trade? World Trade Review 10 (4): 497–525. Open Google Scholar
  265. Kaupa, Clemens. 2013. Maybe not activist enough? On the Court’s alleged neoliberal bias in its recent labor cases. In Judicial activism at the European Court of Justice, edited by Mark Dawson, Bruno Witte, and Elise Muir, 56–75. Cheltenham/Northhampton: Elgar. Open Google Scholar
  266. Kelemen, R. Daniel. 2001. The Limits of Judicial Power: Trade-Environment Disputes in the GATT/WTO and the EU. Comparative Political Studies 34 (6): 622–650. Open Google Scholar
  267. Kelly, Claire R. 2006. Power, Linkage and Accommodation: The WTO as an international actor and its influence on other actors and regimes. Berkeley Journal of International Law 24 (1): 79–128. Open Google Scholar
  268. Kelly, J. Patrick. 2002. Judicial activism at the World Trade Organization: Developing principles of self-restraint. Northwestern Journal of International Law and Business 22 (3): 353–388. Open Google Scholar
  269. Kennedy, Duncan. 1997. A critique of adjudication {fin de siècle}. Cambridge/London: Harvard University Press. Open Google Scholar
  270. Kepplinger, Hans Mathias, and Thomas Zerback. 2009. Der Einfluss der Medien auf Richter und Staatsanwälte. Publizistik 54 (2): 216–239. Open Google Scholar
  271. Klabbers, Jan. 1992. Jurisprudence in international trade law: Article XX of GATT. Journal of World Trade 26 (2): 63–94. Open Google Scholar
  272. Kleinlein, Thomas. 2012. Judicial law-making by judicial restraint: The potential of balancing in international economic law. In International Judicial Lawmaking: On Public Authority and Democratic Legitimation in Global Governance, edited by Armin von Bogdandy and Ingo Venzke, 251–292. Heidelberg/New York/Dordrecht/London: Springer. Open Google Scholar
  273. Kmiec, Keenan. 2004. The Origin and Current Meanings of Judicial Activism. California Law Review 92 (5): 1441–1477. Open Google Scholar
  274. Kneubuehler, Lorenz. 2001. Integration durch Rechtsprechung in der EG und der WTO. Bern: Stämpfli. Open Google Scholar
  275. Knox, John H. 2004. The judicial resolution of conflicts between trade and the environment. Harvard Environmental Law Review 28 (1): 1–78. Open Google Scholar
  276. Koch, Hans-Joachim. 1996. Die normtheoretische Basis der Abwägung. In Abwägung im Recht - Symposium und Verabschiedung Werner Hoppe am 30. Juni 1995 aus Anlaß seiner Emeritierung, edited by Wilfried Erbguth, Janbernd Oebbecke, Hans-Werner Rengeling, and Martin Schulte, 9–24. Köln/Berlin/Bonn: Heymanns. Open Google Scholar
  277. Kogan, Lawrence A. 2004. The Precautionary Principle and WTO Law: Divergent Views Toward the Role of Science in Assessing and Managing Risk. Seton Hall Journal of Diplomacy and International Relations V (1): 77–123. Open Google Scholar
  278. Kolsky Lewis, Meredith. 2006. The lack of dissent in WTO dispute settlement. Journal of International Economic Law 9 (4): 895–931. Open Google Scholar
  279. Korotana, M. Shabir. 2009. US – Gambling: Test of Limits of the WTO Dispute Settlement Process. Journal of World Investment & Trade 10 (1): 121–129. Open Google Scholar
  280. Krajewski, Markus. 2001. Democratic legitimacy and constitutional perspectives of WTO Law. Journal of World Trade 35 (1): 167–186. Open Google Scholar
  281. Krüger, Tilman. 2013. Strategic Litigation in the World Trade Organization. Doctoral thesis, microfiche version, Bremen: University of Bremen. Open Google Scholar
  282. Krugmann, Michael. 2004. Der Grundsatz der Verhältnismäßigkeit im Völkerrecht. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot. Open Google Scholar
  283. Kulick, Andreas. 2012. Global public interest in international investment law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Open Google Scholar
  284. Kulovesi, Kati. 2011. The WTO Dispute Settlement System. Challenges of the Environment, Legitimacy and Fragmentation. Aalphen an den Rijn: Wolters Kluwer. Open Google Scholar
  285. Lacarte Muró, Julio. 2007. Os primeiros anos do Órgão de Apelação e do sistema de solução de controvérsias na OMC: uma perspectiva histórica. In 10 anos de OMC: uma análise do sistema de soluçã o de controvérsias e perspectivas, edited by Baptista, Luiz O, Celli Junior Umberto, and Alan Yanovich. São Paulo: Aduaneiras. Open Google Scholar
  286. Ladeur, Karl-Heinz. 2004. Kritik der Abwägung in der Grundrechtsdogmatik. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Open Google Scholar
  287. Lagomarsino, Jeffrey. 2011. WTO Dispute Settlement and Sustainable Development: Legitimacy Through Holistic Treaty Interpretation. Pace Environmental Law Review 28 (2): 545–567. Open Google Scholar
  288. Landwehr, Oliver. 2000. Globalisierung, Freihandel und Gesundheitsschutz (Trade and Health): Die Zulässigkeit gesundheitspolizeilicher und pflanzenschutzrechtlicher Maßnahmen im Lichte der Entscheidungen des EuGH und der GATT/WTO - Panels. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Open Google Scholar
  289. Lang, Andrew. 2016. The Judicial Sensibility of the WTO Appellate Body. European Journal of International Law 27 (4): 1095–1105. Open Google Scholar
  290. Lanye, Zhu. 2003. The effects of the WTO dispute settlement panel and Appellate Body reports: is the dispute settlement body resolving specific disputes only or making precedent at the same time? Temple International and Comparative Law Journal 17 (1): 221–236. Open Google Scholar
  291. Laowonsiri, Akawat. 2010. Application of the Precautionary Principle in the SPS Agreement. Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law 14: 565–623. Open Google Scholar
  292. Lasser, Mitchel. 2001. Do Judges Deploy Policy. Cardozo Law Review 22 (3): 863–899. Open Google Scholar
  293. Lasser, Mitchel. 2003. Anticipating three models of judicial control, debate and legitimacy: the European Court of Justice, the Cour de cassation and the United States Supreme Court. Jean Monnet Working Paper. Available at Open Google Scholar
  294. <https://www.jeanmonnetprogram.org/archive/papers/03/030101.pdf>. Open Google Scholar
  295. Lasser, Mitchel. 2004. Judicial Deliberations – A comparative Analysis of Judicial Transparency and Legitimacy. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press. Open Google Scholar
  296. Lavranos, Nikolaos, and Nicolas Viellard. 2008. The Brazilian Tyres Case: Competing Trade and Non-Trade Interests and Competing Jurisdictions between MERCOSUR and WTO. European Energy & Environmental Law Review 17 (5): 306–318. Open Google Scholar
  297. Lee, Po-Ching. 2020. Appointment and Reappointment of the Appellate Body Members: Judiciary or Politics. In The Appellate Body of the WTO and Its Reform, edited by Chang-fa Lo, Junji Nakagawa, and Tsai-fang Chen, 255–271. Singapore: Springer. Open Google Scholar
  298. Leisner, Walter. 1997. Der Abwägungsstaat: Verhältnismäßigkeit als Gerechtigkeit? Berlin: Duncker & Humblot. Open Google Scholar
  299. Leitner, Kara, and Simon Lester. 2017. WTO Dispute Settlement 1995–2016 – A Statistical Analysis. Journal of International Economic Law 20 (1). Oxford Academic: 171–182. Open Google Scholar
  300. Lennard, Michael. 2002. Navigating by the Stars: Interpreting the WTO Agreements. Journal of International Economic Law 5 (1): 17–89. Open Google Scholar
  301. Leyton, Patricio E. 2001. Evolution of the “Necessary Test” of Article XX (b): From Thai cigarettes to the present. In Reconciling environment and trade, edited by Edith Brown Weiss and John H. Jackson, 75–100. Ardsley: Transnational Publishers. Open Google Scholar
  302. Lieberman, Sarah, and Tim Gray. 2008. The World Trade Organization’s Report on the EU’s Moratorium on Biotech Products: The Wisdom of the US Challenge to the EU in the WTO. Global Environmental Politics 8 (1): 33–52. Open Google Scholar
  303. Lim, Chin Leng. 2017. Trade Law and the Vienna Treaty Convention’s Systemic Integration Clause. In International Economic Law and Governance: Essays in Honour of Mitsuo Matsushita, edited by Julien Chaisse and Tsai-yu Lin, 94–112. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Open Google Scholar
  304. Lim, Chin Leng, and J. H. Senduk. 2014. The wages of belonging: rare earths from China, and the return of GATT à la carte. Global Trade and Customs Journal 9 (9): 380–396. Open Google Scholar
  305. Lindquist, Stefanie, and Frank Cross. 2009. Measuring Judicial Activism. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press. Open Google Scholar
  306. Lindroos, Anja, and Michael Mehling. 2006. Dispelling the Chimera of “Self-Contained Regimes” – International Law and the WTO. European Journal of International Law 16 (5): 857–877. Open Google Scholar
  307. Livermore, Michael A. 2006. Authority and Legitimacy in Global Governance: Deliberation, Institutional Differentiation, and the Codex Alimentarius. New York University Law Review 81 (2): 766–801. Open Google Scholar
  308. Lo, Chang-Fa. 2010. Good Faith Use of Dictionary in the Search of Ordinary Meaning under the WTO Dispute Settlement Understanding. Journal of International Dispute Settlement 1 (2): 431–445. Open Google Scholar
  309. Lo, Chang-Fa. 2013. The Proper Interpretation of “Disguised Restriction on International Trade” under the WTO: The Need to Look at the Protective Effect. Journal of International Dispute Settlement 4 (1): 111–137. Open Google Scholar
  310. Lockhart, John. 2006. Assessing the “success” of the Appellate Body over the first ten years. In The WTO at ten: the contribution of the dispute settlement system, edited by Alan Yanovich, Jan Bohanes, and Sacerdoti, Giorgoi, 285–288. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press. Open Google Scholar
  311. Loth, Marc A. 2009. Courts in quest for legitimacy: a comparative approach. In The Legitimacy of Highest Courts’ Rulings, edited by Nick Huls and Jacco Bomhoff, 267–288. The Hague: T.M.C Asser Press. Open Google Scholar
  312. Lovric, Daniel. 2010. Deference to the Legislature in WTO Challenges to Legislation. Alphen aan den Rijn: Kluwer Law International. Open Google Scholar
  313. Lowe, Eric R. 2014. Technical Regulations to Prevent Deceptive Practices: Can WTO Members Protect Consumers from (un)Fair-Trade Coffee and (Less-Than) Free-Range Chicken? Journald of World Trade 48 (3): 593–627. Open Google Scholar
  314. Lucy, William. 1999. Understanding and explaining adjudication. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press. Open Google Scholar
  315. Lydgate, Emily. 2017. Is it Rational and Consistent? The WTO’s Surprising Role in Shaping Domestic Public Policy. Journal of International Economic Law 20 (3): 561–582. Open Google Scholar
  316. Lydgate, Emily Barrett. 2012. Sustainable development in the WTO: from mutual supportiveness to balancing. World Trade Review 11 (4): 621–639. Open Google Scholar
  317. MacCormick, D. Neil, and Robert S. Summers. 1991. Interpretation and justification. In Interpreting statutes – a comparative study, edited by D. Neil MacCormick and Robert S. Summers, 511–544. Aldershot: Darthmouth. Open Google Scholar
  318. Magnuson, William. 2010. WTO Jurisprudence & Its Critiques: The Appellate Body’s Anti-Constitutional Resistance. Harvard International Law Journal Online 51 (30 June 2010): 121–154. Open Google Scholar
  319. Maier, Matthias Leonhard. 2017. Lebensmittelstandards und Handelsrecht im Verbund internationaler Regime: Interaktion und Wandel von Codex-Alimentarius - Kommission und GATT/WTO, 1963 bis 2013. Wiesbaden: Springer. Open Google Scholar
  320. Manzini, Pietro. 1999. Environmental exceptions of Art. XX GATT 1994 revisited in the light of the rules of interpretations of general international law. In International trade law on the 50th anniversary of the multilateral trade system, edited by Paolo Mengozzi, 811–848. Milano: A. Guiffrè. Open Google Scholar
  321. Marceau, Gabrielle. 1999. A call for coherence in international law – praises for the prohibition against “clinical isolation” in WTO dispute settlement. Journal of World Trade 33 (5): 87–152. Open Google Scholar
  322. Marceau, Gabrielle. 2001. Conflicts of norms and conflicts of jurisdictions – the relationship between the WTO agreements and MEAs and other treaties. Journal of World Trade 35 (6): 1081–1131. Open Google Scholar
  323. Marceau, Gabrielle. 2006. Balance and coherence by the WTO Appellate Body: who could do better? In The WTO at ten: the contribution of the dispute settlement system, edited by Alan Yanovich, Jan Bohanes, and Sacerdoti, Giorgio, 326–347. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press. Open Google Scholar
  324. Marceau, Gabrielle. 2018. Evolutive Interpretation by the WTO Adjudicator. Journal of International Economic Law 21 (4). Oxford Academic: 791–813. Open Google Scholar
  325. Marceau, Gabrielle, Arnau Izaguerri, and Vladyslav Lanovoy. 2013. The WTO’s influence on other dispute settlement mechanisms: a lighthouse in the storm of fragmentation. Journal of World Trade 47 (3): 481–574. Open Google Scholar
  326. Marceau, Gabrielle, and Joel P. Trachtman. 2002. The Technical Barriers to Trade Agreement, the Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures Agreement, and the General Agreement on Tariffs and trade: a map of the World Trade Organization law of domestic regulations of goods. Journal of World Trade 36 (5): 811–881. Open Google Scholar
  327. Marceau, Gabrielle, and Joel P. Trachtman. 2014. The Technical Barriers to Trade Agreement, the Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures Agreement, and the General Agreement on Tariffs and trade: a map of the World Trade Organization law of domestic regulations of goods. Journal of World Trade 48 (2): 351–432. Open Google Scholar
  328. Marín Durán, Gracia. 2016. Measures with Multiple Competing Purposes after EC – Seal Products : Avoiding a Conflict between GATT Article XX-Chapeau and Article 2.1 TBT Agreement. Journal of International Economic Law 19 (2): 467–495. Open Google Scholar
  329. Martineau, Anne-Charlotte. 2007. La technique du balancement par l’Organe d’appel de l’OMC (études de la justification dans les discours juridiques). Revue du droit public et de la science politique en France et a l’étranger 2007 (4): 991–1030. Open Google Scholar
  330. Marwell, Jeremy C. 2006. Trade and Morality: The WTO Public Morals Exception after Gambling. New York University Law Review 81 (2): 802–842. Open Google Scholar
  331. Maton, John, and Carolyn Maton. 2007. Independence under fire: Extra-legal pressures and coalition building in WTO dispute settlement. Journal of International Economic Law 10 (2): 317–334. Open Google Scholar
  332. Matsushita, Mitsuo. 2003. Some Issues of the SPS Agreement. In The role of the judge in international trade regulation : experience and lessons for the WTO, edited by Thomas Cottier and Petros C. Mavroidis, 193–212. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Open Google Scholar
  333. Matsushita, Mitsuo. 2004. Governance of international trade under World Trade Organization agreements – relationships between World Trade Organization agreements and other trade agreements. Journal of World Trade 38 (2): 185–210. Open Google Scholar
  334. Matsushita, Mitsuo. 2005a. Some Thoughts on the Appellate Body. In The World Trade Organization: Legal, Economic and Political Analysis, edited by Patrick F. J. Macrory, Arthur E. Appleton, and Michael G. Plummer, 1389–1403. Boston: Springer US. Open Google Scholar
  335. Matsushita, Mitsuo. 2005b. The Sutherland Report and its Discussion of Dispute Settlement Reforms. Journal of International Economic Law 8 (3): 623–629. Open Google Scholar
  336. Matsushita, Mitsuo. 2020. Reforming the Appellate Body. In The Appellate Body of the WTO and Its Reform, edited by Chang-fa Lo, Junji Nakagawa, and Tsai-fang Chen, 43–52. Singapore: Springer. Open Google Scholar
  337. Mattoo, Aaditya, and Petros C. Mavroidis. 1997. Trade, environment and the WTO: dispute settlement practice relating to Article XX of GATT. In International trade law and the GATT/WTO dispute settlement system, edited by Ernst-Ulrich Petersmann, 327–343. London/The Hague/Boston: Kluwer Law. Open Google Scholar
  338. Mavroidis, Petros C. 2000. Trade and environment after the shrimps-turtles litigation. Journal of World Trade 41 (1): 73–88. Open Google Scholar
  339. Mavroidis, Petros C. 2006. Looking for Mr and Mrs Right. In The WTO at ten: the contribution of the dispute settlement system, edited by Alan Yanovich, Jan Bohanes, and Giorgio Sacerdoti, 348–359. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press. Open Google Scholar
  340. Mavroidis, Petros C. 2008. Legal eagles? The WTO Appellate Body’s first ten years. In The WTO: governance, dispute settlement & developing countries, edited by Merit E. Janow, Victoria Donaldson, and Alan Yanovich, 345–367. Huntington: Juris Publishing. Open Google Scholar
  341. Mavroidis, Petros C. 2013. Driftin’ too far from shore – Why the test for compliance with the TBT Agreement developed by the WTO Appellate Body is wrong, and what should the AB have done instead. World Trade Review 12 (3): 509–531. Open Google Scholar
  342. Mavroidis, Petros C. 2016. The Gang That Couldn’t Shoot Straight: The Not So Magnificent Seven of the WTO Appellate Body. European Journal of International Law 27 (4): 1107–1118. Open Google Scholar
  343. McBride, Scott. 2001. Dispute settlement in the WTO: Backbone of the global trading system or delegation of awesome power? Law and Policy in International Business 32 (3): 643–675. Open Google Scholar
  344. McCall Smith, James. 2003. WTO dispute settlement: the politics of procedure in Appellate Body rulings. World Trade Review 2 (1): 65–100. Open Google Scholar
  345. McGinnis, John O. 2003. The appropriate hierarchy of global multilateralism and customary international law: the example of the WTO. Virginia Journal of International Law 44 (1): 229–284. Open Google Scholar
  346. McGrady, Benn. 2008. Fragmentation of international law or “systemic integration” of treaty regimes: EC – Biotech Products and the proper interpretation of Article 31(3)(c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Journal of World Trade 42 (4): 589–618. Open Google Scholar
  347. McGrady, Benn. 2009. Necessity Exceptions in WTO Law: Retreaded Tyres, Regulatory Purpose and Cumulative Regulatory Measures. Journal of International Economic Law 12 (1): 153–173. Open Google Scholar
  348. McNelis, Natalie. 2001. The role of the judge in the EU and WTO: Lessons from the BSE and hormones cases. Journal of International Economic Law 4 (1): 189–208. Open Google Scholar
  349. McRae, Donald M. 2000. GATT Article XX and the WTO Appellate Body. In New directions in international economic law, edited by Marco Bronckers and Reinhard Quick, 219–236. London/The Hague/Boston: Kluwer Law International. Open Google Scholar
  350. McRae, Donald M. 2006. Treaty interpretation and the development of international trade law by the Appellate Body. In The WTO at ten: the contribution of the dispute settlement system, edited by Alan Yanovich, Jan Bohanes, and Giorgio Sacerdoti, 360–371. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press. Open Google Scholar
  351. McWhinney, Edward. 2006. The International Court of Justice and International Law-Making: The Judicial Activism/Self-Restraint Antinomy. Chinese Journal of International Law 5 (1): 3–13. Open Google Scholar
  352. Meagher, Niall. 2020. The Judicial Style of the Appellate Body. In The Appellate Body of the WTO and Its Reform, edited by Chang-fa Lo, Junji Nakagawa, and Tsai-fang Chen, 141–165. Singapore: Springer. Open Google Scholar
  353. Melillo, Margherita. 2019. Informal Dispute Resolution in Preferential Trade Agreements. Journal of World Trade 53 (1). Kluwer Law International: 95–127. Open Google Scholar
  354. Mestral, Armand C. M. de. 2013. Dispute Settlement under the WTO and RTAs: An Uneasy Relationship. Journal of International Economic Law 16 (4): 777–825. Open Google Scholar
  355. Miller, Nathan. 2002. An international jurisprudence? The operation of “precedent” across international tribunals. Leiden Journal of International Law 15 (3): 483–526. Open Google Scholar
  356. Mitchell, Andrew D. 2007. The Legal Basis for Using Principles in WTO Disputes. Journal of International Economic Law 10 (4): 795–835. Open Google Scholar
  357. Montini, Massimiliano. 2001. The necessity principle as an instrument to balance trade and the protection of the environment. In Environment, human rights and international trade, edited by Franceso Francioni, 135–155. Portland: Hart. Open Google Scholar
  358. Morosini, Fabio. 2010. The MERCOSUR trade and environment linkage debate: the disputes over trade in re-treaded tyres. Journal of World Trade 44 (5): 1127–1144. Open Google Scholar
  359. Morrison, Peter, and Laura Nielsen. 2013. Trade, environment and animal welfare: conditioning trade in goods and services on conduct in another country. In Research Handbook on Environment, Health and the WTO, edited by Geert van Calster and Marie Denise Prévost, 207–230. Cheltenham/Northhampton: Edward Elgar. Open Google Scholar
  360. Morrison Piehl, Anne, and Shawn D. Bushway. 2001. Judging Judicial Discretion: Legal Factors and Racial Discrimination in Sentencing. Law & Society Review 35 (4): 733–764. Open Google Scholar
  361. Muir, Elise, Mark Dawson, and Bruno Witte. 2013. Introduction: the European Court of Justice as a political actor. In Judicial activism at the European Court of Justice, edited by Mark Dawson, Bruno Witte, and Elise Muir, 1–10. Cheltenham/Northhampton: Elgar. Open Google Scholar
  362. Münch, Ingo, and Philip Kunig, eds. 2012. Grundgesetz : Kommentar. 6th ed. München: Beck. Open Google Scholar
  363. Neugebauer, Regine. 2000. Fine-tuning WTO jurisprudence and the SPS Agreement: lessons from the beef hormone case. Law and Policy in International Business 31 (4): 1225–1283. Open Google Scholar
  364. Neumann, Jan. 2002. Die Koordination des WTO-Rechts mit anderen völkerrechtlichen Ordnungen. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot. Open Google Scholar
  365. Neumann, Jan, and Elisabeth Tuerk. 2003. Necessity revisited: Proportionality in World Trade Organization law after Korea – Beef, EC – Asbestos and EC – Sardines. Journal of World Trade 37 (1): 199–233. Open Google Scholar
  366. Neumayer, Eric. 2001. Greening the WTO Agreements: can the treaty establishing the European Community be of guidance? Journal of World Trade 35 (1): 145–166. Open Google Scholar
  367. Neyer, Jürgen. 2010. Justice or Democracy? Power and Justification in the EU and Other International Organizations. In Conflict of Laws and Laws of Conflict in Europe and Beyond Patterns of Supranational and Transnational Juridification, edited by Rainer Nickel, 33–47. Antwerp et al.: Intersentia. Open Google Scholar
  368. Nickel, Rainer. 2010. Conflict of laws and laws of conflict – an introduction to the research agenda. In Conflict of laws and laws of conflict in Europe and beyond: patterns of supranational and transnational juridification, edited by Rainer Nickel, 1–9. Antwerpen: Intersentia. Open Google Scholar
  369. Norpoth, Johannes. 2013. Mysteries of the TBT Agreement resolved? Lessons to learn for climate policies and developing countries exporters from recent TBT disputes. Journal of World Tade 47 (3): 575–600. Open Google Scholar
  370. Notaro, Nicola. 2003. Judicial approaches to trade and environment: the EC and the WTO. London: Cameron May International Law Publishers. Open Google Scholar
  371. Oesch, Matthias. 2003. Standards of review in WTO dispute settlement. Journal of International Economic Law 6 (3): 635–659. Open Google Scholar
  372. Ortino, Federico. 2004. Basic legal instruments for the liberalisation of trade: a comparative analysis of EC and WTO law. Oxford/Portland: Hart. Open Google Scholar
  373. Ortino, Federico. 2006. Treaty Interpretation and the WTO Appellate Body Report in US-Gambling – A Critique. Journal of International Economic Law 9 (1): 117–148. Open Google Scholar
  374. Osiro, Deborah Akoth. 2002. GATT/WTO necessity analysis: evolutionary interpretation and its impact on the autonomy of domestic regulation. Legal Issues of Economic Integration 29 (2): 123–141. Open Google Scholar
  375. Ossenbühl, Fritz, and W. Erbguth, eds. 1996. Abwägung im Verfassungsrecht. In Abwägung im Recht - Symposium und Verabschiedung Werner Hoppe am 30. Juni 1995 aus Anlaß seiner Emeritierung, 25–41. Köln; Berlin; Bonn: Heymanns. Open Google Scholar
  376. P. J. K. 2018. From the Board: The US Attack on the WTO Appellate Body. Legal Issues of Economic Integration 45 (1). Kluwer Law International: 1–11. Open Google Scholar
  377. Pair, Lara M. 2001. Judicial Activism in the ICJ Charter Interpretation. ILSA Journal of International & Comparative Law 8: 181–221. Open Google Scholar
  378. Palmeter, David N, and Petros C Mavroidis. 1998. The WTO legal system: sources of law. American Journal of International Law 92: 398–413. Open Google Scholar
  379. Pardo Quintillán, Sara. 1999. Free trade, public health protection and consumer information in the European and WTO context: Hormone-treated beef and genetically modified organisms. Journal of World Trade 33 (6): 147–197. Open Google Scholar
  380. Parish, Matthew. 2010. On Necessity. Journal of World Investment & Trade 11 (2): 169–195. Open Google Scholar
  381. Pauwelyn, Joost. 1999. The WTO Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) Measures as applied in the first three disputes – EC – Hormones, Australia – Salmon, Japan – Varietals. Journal of International Economic Law 2 (4): 641–664. Open Google Scholar
  382. Pauwelyn, Joost. 2001a. Applying SPS in WTO disputes. In Globalization and the environment: risk assessment and the WTO, edited by David Robertson and Aynsley Kellow, 63–78. Cheltenham/Northhampton: Edward Elgar. Open Google Scholar
  383. Pauwelyn, Joost. 2001b. The role of public international law in the WTO: how far can we go? American Journal of International Law 95 (3): 535–578. Open Google Scholar
  384. Pauwelyn, Joost. 2002. Cross-agreement complaints before the Appellate Body: A case study of the EC-Asbestos dispute. World Trade Review 1 (1): 63–87. Open Google Scholar
  385. Pauwelyn, Joost. 2003a. Conflict of Norms in Public International Law: How WTO Law Relates to Other Rules of International Law. Cambridge /York: Cambridge University Press. Open Google Scholar
  386. Pauwelyn, Joost. 2003b. Does the WTO stand for “deference to” or “interference with” national health authorities when applying the agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS Agreement?). In The role of the judge in international trade regulation: experience and lessons for the WTO, edited by Thomas Cottier and Petros C. Mavroidis, 175–192. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Open Google Scholar
  387. Pauwelyn, Joost. 2003c. How to win a World Trade Organization dispute based on non-world trade organization law? Questions of jurisdiction and merits. Journal of World Trade 37 (6): 997–1030. Open Google Scholar
  388. Pauwelyn, Joost. 2003d. The limits of litigation: “Americanization” and negotiation in the settlement of WTO disputes. Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution 19 (1): 121–140. Open Google Scholar
  389. Pauwelyn, Joost. 2016a. Minority rules: precedent and participation before the WTO Appellate Body. In Establishing Judicial Authority in International Economic Law, 141–172. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Open Google Scholar
  390. Pauwelyn, Joost. 2016b. The WTO 20 Years On: “Global Governance by Judiciary” or, Rather, Member-driven Settlement of (Some) Trade Disputes between (Some) WTO Members? European Journal of International Law 27 (4): 1119–1126. Open Google Scholar
  391. Pauwelyn, Joost. 2019. WTO Dispute Settlement Post 2019: What to Expect? Journal of International Economic Law 22 (3). Oxford Academic: 297–321. Open Google Scholar
  392. Pauwelyn, Joost, and Manfred Elsig. 2012. The Politics of Treaty Interpretation. In Interdisciplinary Perspectives on International Law and International Relations: The State of the Art, edited by Jeffrey L. Dunoff and Mark A. Pollack, 445–474. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Open Google Scholar
  393. Pavot, David. 2013. The Use of Dictionary by the WTO Appellate Body: Beyond the Search of Ordinary Meaning. Journal of International Dispute Settlement 4 (1): 29–46. Open Google Scholar
  394. Peel, Jacqueline. 2004. Risk Regulation Under the WTO SPS Agreement: Science as an International Normative Yardstick? Jean Monnet Working Paper. New York: New York School of Law. Available at <http://www.jeanmonnetprogram.org/archive/papers/04/040201.pdf>. Open Google Scholar
  395. Peel, Jacqueline. 2012. Of apples and oranges (and hormones in beef): science and the standard of review in WTO disputes under the SPS Agreement. International and Comparative Law Quarterly 61 (2): 427–458. Open Google Scholar
  396. Peel, Jacqueline. 2013. Scope of application of the SPS Agreement: a post-Biotech analysis. In Research Handbook on Environment, Health and the WTO, edited by Geert van Calster and Marie Denise Prévost, 332–362. Cheltenham/Northhampton: Edward Elgar. Open Google Scholar
  397. Peresie, Jennifer L. 2005. Female Judges Matter: Gender and Collegial Decisionmaking in the Federal Appellate Courts. Yale Law Journal 114 (7): 1759–1790. Open Google Scholar
  398. Perez, Oren. 1998. Reconstructing science: the Hormone conflict between the EU and the United States. European Foreign Affairs Review 3 (4): 563–582. Open Google Scholar
  399. Perez, Oren. 2007. Anomalies at the Precautionary Kingdom: Reflection on the GMO Panel’s Decision. World Trade Review 6 (2): 265–280. Open Google Scholar
  400. Petersmann, Ernst-Ulrich. 2006. From “member-driven governance” to constitutionally limited “multi-level trade governance” in the WTO. In The WTO at ten: the contribution of the dispute settlement system, edited by Alan Yanovich, Jan Bohanes, and Sacerdoti, Giorgio, 86–110. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press. Open Google Scholar
  401. Picciotto, Sol. 2005. The WTO’s Appellate Body: Legal formalism as a legitimation of global governance. Working Paper. London: School of Public Policy, University College London. Available at <https://eprints.lancs.ac.uk/id/eprint/29/>. Open Google Scholar
  402. Picker, Colin B. 2020. The AB Crisis as Symptomatic of the WTO’s Foundational Defects or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the AB. In The Appellate Body of the WTO and Its Reform, edited by Chang-fa Lo, Junji Nakagawa, and Tsai-fang Chen, 53–65. Singapore: Springer. Open Google Scholar
  403. Pitschas, Christian, and Hannes Schloemann. 2012. WTO compatibility of the EU seal regime: why public morality is enough (but may not be necessary). Beiträge zum Transnationalen Wirtschaftsrecht. Halle-Wittenberg: Transnational Economic Law Research Center, Martin-Luther-University. Available at Open Google Scholar
  404. <http://telc.jura.uni-halle.de/sites/default/files/BeitraegeTWR/Heft118.pdf>. Open Google Scholar
  405. Poiares Maduro, Miguel. 1998. We, The Court. Oxford/Portland: Hart. Open Google Scholar
  406. Pollicino, Oreste. 2004. Legal reasoning of the Court of Justice in the context of the principle of equality between judicial activism and self-restraint. German Law Journal 5 (3): 283–327. Open Google Scholar
  407. Porges, Amelia. 2011. Dispute Settlement. In Preferential Trade Agreement Policies for Development, edited by Jean-Pierre Chauffour and Jean-Christophe Maur, 467–501. Washington DC: The World Bank. Open Google Scholar
  408. Posner, Eric A., and Miguel F. P. de Figueiredo. 2005. Is the International Court of Justice Biased. Journal of Legal Studies 34 (2): 599–630. Open Google Scholar
  409. Posner, Richard. 1995. Judges’ Writing Styles (And Do They Matter?). University of Chicago Law Review 62: 1420–1449. Open Google Scholar
  410. Prott, Lyndel V. 1970. The style of judgment in the international court of justice. Australian Year Book of International Law 75: 75–90. Open Google Scholar
  411. Quick, Reinhard. 2013. Do We Need Trade and Environment Negotiations or Has the Appellate Body Done the Job? Journal of World Trade 47 (5): 957–983. Open Google Scholar
  412. Quick, Reinhard, and Andreas Blüthner. 1999. Has the Appellate Body erred? An appraisal and criticism of the ruling in the WTO hormones case. Journal of International Economic Law 2 (4): 603–639. Open Google Scholar
  413. Rafi, Anusheh. 2004. Kriterien für ein gutes Urteil. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot. Open Google Scholar
  414. Rasmussen, Hjalte. 1986. On Law and Policy in the European Court of Justice: A Comparative Study in Judicial Policymaking. Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. Open Google Scholar
  415. Raz, Joseph. 1983. Legal Principles and the limits of the law. In Ronald Dworkin and Contemporary Jurisprudence, edited by Marshall Cohen, 75–87. Totowa: Rowman & Allanheld. Open Google Scholar
  416. Regan, Donald H. 2003. The Dormant Commerce Clause and the Hormones Problem. In The role of the judge in international trade regulation: experience and lessons for the WTO, edited by Thomas Cottier and Petros C. Mavroidis, 91–117. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Open Google Scholar
  417. Regan, Donald H. 2007. The meaning of “necessary” in GATT Article XX and GATS Article XIV: the myth of cost - benefit balancing. World Trade Review 6 (3): 347–369. Open Google Scholar
  418. Reich, Arie. 2017. The effectiveness of the WTO dispute settlement system: A statistical analysis. EUI Working Papers Law. Florence: European University Institute. Available at Open Google Scholar
  419. <https://cadmus.eui.eu/bitstream/handle/1814/47045/LAW_2017_11.pdf?sequence=1>. Open Google Scholar
  420. Reid, Emily. 2010. Regulatory Autonomy in the EU and WTO: Defining and Defending Its Limits. Journal of World Trade 44 (4): 877–901. Open Google Scholar
  421. Reusch, Ralf. 2007. Legitimation des WTO-Streitbeilegungsverfahrens. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot. Open Google Scholar
  422. Richieri Hanania, Lilian. 2009. Le principe de précaution et son application dans l’OMC. In La circulation des concepts juridiques: le droit international de l’environnement entre mondialisation et fragmentation, edited by Hélène Ruiz Fabri and Lorenzo Gradoni, 555–573. Paris: Société de législation comparée. Open Google Scholar
  423. Rigod, Boris. 2015. Optimal regulation and the law of international trade: the interface between the right to regulate and WTO law. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press. Open Google Scholar
  424. Roessler, Frieder. 2000. The institutional balance between the judicial and the political organs of the WTO. In New directions in international economic law, edited by Marco Bronckers and Reinhard Quick, 325–345. London/The Hague/Boston: Kluwer Law International. Open Google Scholar
  425. Ruffert, Matthias. 2001. Der Entscheidungsmaßstab im WTO - Streitbeilegungsverfahren – Prozessuale Relativierung materieller Verpflichtungen? Zeitschrift für vergleichende Rechtswissenschaft 100 (3): 304–321. Open Google Scholar
  426. Ruiz Fabri, Hélène. 2006. Drawing a line of equilibrium in a complex world. In The WTO at ten: the contribution of the dispute settlement system, edited by Alan Yanovich, Jan Bohanes, and Sacerdoti, Giorgio, 125–142. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press. Open Google Scholar
  427. Ruiz Fabri, Hélène. 2016. The WTO Appellate Body or Judicial Power Unleashed: Sketches from the Procedural Side of the Story. European Journal of International Law 27 (4): 1075–1081. Open Google Scholar
  428. Ruozzi, Elisa. 2009. L’application du principe de proportionalité en droit de l’organisation mondiale du commerce. In La circulation des concepts juridiques: le droit international de l’environnement entre mondialisation et fragmentation, edited by Hélène Ruiz Fabri and Lorenzo Gradoni, 475–492. Paris: Société de législation comparée. Open Google Scholar
  429. Sacerdoti, Giorgio. 2006. The dispute settlement system of the WTO in action: a perspective on the first ten years. In The WTO at ten: the contribution of the dispute settlement system, edited by Alan Yanovich, Jan Bohanes, and Sacerdoti, Giorgio, 35–57. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press. Open Google Scholar
  430. Sacerdoti, Giorgio. 2008. WTO law and the “fragmentation“ of international law: specificity, integration, conflicts. In The WTO: governance, dispute settlement & developing countries, edited by Merit E. Janow, Victoria Donaldson, and Alan Yanovich, 595–609. Huntington: Juris Publishing. Open Google Scholar
  431. Sacerdoti, Giorgio, Alan Yanovich, and Jan Bohanes. 2006. The WTO at Ten – The Contribution of the Dispute Settlement System. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press. Open Google Scholar
  432. Schauer, Frederick. 1988. Formalism. Yale Law Journal 97 (4): 509–548. Open Google Scholar
  433. Schauer, Frederick. 2009. Balancing, Subsumption and the Constraining Role of Legal Text. Public Law and Legal Theory Working Paper Series. University of Virginia Law School. Available at Open Google Scholar
  434. <http://law.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1197&context=uvalwps>. Open Google Scholar
  435. Schebesta, Hanna, and Dominique Sinopoli. 2018. The Potency of the SPS Agreement’s Excessivity Test: The Impact of Article 5.6 on Trade Liberalization and the Regulatory Power of WTO Members to take Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures. Journal of International Economic Law 21 (1). Oxford Academic: 123–149. Open Google Scholar
  436. Schmid, Christoph U. 2001. A theoretical reconstruction of WTO constitutionalism and its implications for the relationship with the EU. EUI Working Paper LAW. European University Institute. Available at Open Google Scholar
  437. <http://cadmus.eui.eu/bitstream/handle/1814/169/law01-05.pdf?sequence=1>. Open Google Scholar
  438. Schmid, Christoph U. 2010. From effet utile to effet neoliberal – a critique of the new methodological expansionism of the European Court of Justice. In Conflict of laws and laws of conflict in Europe and beyond: patterns of supranational and transnational juridification, edited by Rainer Nickel, 295–314. Antwerpen: Intersentia. Open Google Scholar
  439. Schropp, Simon A. 2012. Commentary on the Appellate Body Report in Australia – Apples (DS367): judicial review in the face of uncertainty. World Trade Review 11 (Special Issue 2): 171–221. Open Google Scholar
  440. Schwarze, Jürgen, Ulrich Becker, Armin Hatje, and Johann Schoo, eds. 2012. EU-Kommentar. 3rd ed. Baden-Baden: Nomos. Open Google Scholar
  441. Scott, Joanne. 2004a. European Regulation of GMOs: Thinking about “Judicial Review” in the WTO. Jean Monnet Working Paper. New York: NYU School of Law, Jean Monnet Program. Available at Open Google Scholar
  442. <http://www.jeanmonnetprogram.org/archive/papers/04/040401.pdf>. Open Google Scholar
  443. Scott, Joanne. 2004b. International trade and environmental governance: relating rules (and standards) in the EU and the WTO. European Journal of International Law 15 (2): 307–354. Open Google Scholar
  444. Scott, Joanne, and Ellen Vos. 2002. The juridification of uncertainty: observations on the ambivalence of the precautionary principle within the EU and the WTO. In Good governance and administration in Europe’s integrated market, edited by Christian Joerges and Renaud Dehousse, 252–286. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Open Google Scholar
  445. Scully-Hill, Anne, and Hans Mahncke. 2009. The Emergence of the Doctrine of Stare Decisis in the World Trade Organization Dispute Settlement System. Legal Issues of Economic Integration 36 (2): 133–156. Open Google Scholar
  446. Shaffer, Gregory. 2009. A Structural Theory of WTO Dispute Settlement: Why Institutional Choice Lies at the Heart of the GMO dispute. International Law and Politics 41 (1): 1–102. Open Google Scholar
  447. Shaffer, Gregory. 2012. The WTO Tuna-Dolphin II Case: United States — Measures Concerning the Importation, Marketing and Sale of Tuna and Tuna Products. Minnesota Legal Studies Research Paper. Minnesota: University of Minnesota – Twin Cities – School of Law. Available at <http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2176863>. Open Google Scholar
  448. Shaffer, Gregory C. 2001. The World Trade Organization under challenge: democracy and the law and politics of the WTO’s treatment of trade and environment matters. Harvard Environmental Law Review 25 (1): 1–93. Open Google Scholar
  449. Shaffer, Gregory, Manfred Elsig, and Sergio Puig. 2016. The Extensive (But Fragile) Authority of the WTO Appellate Body. Law and Contemporary Problems 79 (1): 237–273. Open Google Scholar
  450. Shahabuddeen, Mohamed. 1996. Precedent in the world court. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press. Open Google Scholar
  451. Shany, Yuval. 2005. Toward a General Margin of Appreciation Doctrine in International Law? European Journal of International Law 16 (5): 907–940. Open Google Scholar
  452. Shany, Yuval, and Sivan Shlomo-Agon. 2014. The WTO Dispute Settlement System. In Assessing the effectiveness of international courts, edited by Yuval Shany, 189–222. International courts and tribunals series. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press. Open Google Scholar
  453. Shapiro, Martin. 1994. Judges As Liars. Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy 17 (1): 155–156. Open Google Scholar
  454. Shaw, Malcolm. 1991. International Law. Cambridge: Grotius. Open Google Scholar
  455. Shell, G. Richard. 1995. Trade legalism and international relations theory: an analysis of the World Trade Organization. Duke Law Journal 44 (5): 829–927. Open Google Scholar
  456. Shlomo-Agon, Sivan. 2015. Clearing the Smoke: The Legitimation of Judicial Power at the WTO. Journal of World Trade 49 (4). Kluwer Law International: 539589. Open Google Scholar
  457. Silbergeld, Ellen K. 1991. Risk assessment and risk management: an uneasy divorce. In Acceptable evidence: science and value in risk management, edited by Deborah G. Mayo and Rachelle D. Hollander, 99–114. New York Oxford: Oxford University Press. Open Google Scholar
  458. Slaughter, Anne-Marie, and Laurence R. Helfer. 1997. Toward a theory of effective supranational adjudication. Yale Law Journal 107 (2): 273–391. Open Google Scholar
  459. Slotboom, Marco M. 1999. The Hormones case: an increased risk of illegality of sanitary and phytosanitary measures. Common Market Law Review 36 (2): 471–491. Open Google Scholar
  460. Slotboom, Marco M. 2003. Do Public Health Measures Receive Similar Treatment in European Community and World Trade Organization Law? Journal of World Trade 37 (3): 553–596. Open Google Scholar
  461. Smith, Adam M. 2004. “Judicial Nationalism” in International Law: National Identity and Judicial Autonomy at the ICJ. Texas International Law Journal 40 (2): 197–231. Open Google Scholar
  462. Snoderly, Anna Beth. 1996. Clearing the Air: Environmental Regulation, Dispute Resolution, and Domestic Sovereignty under the World Trade Organization. North Carolina Journal of International Law and Commercial Regulation 22 (1): 241–306. Open Google Scholar
  463. Soper, E. Philip. 1983. Legal theory and the obligation of a judge: the Hart/Dworkin dispute. In Ronald Dworkin and Contemporary Jurisprudence, edited by Marshall Cohen, 5–27. Totowa: Rowman & Allanheld. Open Google Scholar
  464. Spamann, Holger. 2004. Standard of review for World Trade Organization Panels in trade remedy cases: a critical analysis. Journal of World Trade 38 (3): 509–555. Open Google Scholar
  465. Stein, Eric. 2001. International integration and democracy: No love at first sight. American Journal of International Law 95 (3): 489–534. Open Google Scholar
  466. Steinberg, Richard H. 2004. Judicial Lawmaking at the WTO: Discursive, Constitutional, and Political Constraints. American Journal of International Law 98: 247–275. Open Google Scholar
  467. Stone Sweet, Alec. 2004. The Judicial Construction of Europe. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press. Open Google Scholar
  468. Study Group of the International Law Commission. 2006. Report: Fragmentation of international law: difficulties arising from the diversification and expansion of international law (finalised by Martti Koskenniemi). New York: United Nations General Assembly. Open Google Scholar
  469. Summers, Robert S. 1991. Statutory interpretation in the United States. In Interpreting statutes – a comparative study, edited by D. Neil MacCormick and Robert S. Summers, 407–459. Aldershot: Darthmouth. Open Google Scholar
  470. Summers, Robert S., and Michele Taruffo. 1991. Interpretation and comparative analysis. In Interpreting statutes – a comparative study, edited by D. Neil MacCormick and Robert S. Summers, 461–510. Aldershot: Darthmouth. Open Google Scholar
  471. Sun, Haochen. 2003. Reshaping the TRIPs agreement concerning public health: two critical issues. Journal of World Trade 37 (1): 163–197. Open Google Scholar
  472. Sweet, Alec Stone, and Thomas L. Brunell. 2013. Trustee Courts and the Judicialization of International Regimes: The Politics of Majoritarian Activism in the European Convention on Human Rights, the European Union, and the World Trade Organization. Journal of Law and Courts 1 (1): 61–88. Open Google Scholar
  473. Sykes, Alan O. 2002. Domestic regulation, sovereignty, and scientific evidence requirements: a pessimistic view. Chicago Journal of International Law 3 (2): 353–368. Open Google Scholar
  474. Sykes, Katie. 2014. Sealing animal welfare into the GATT exceptions: the international dimension of animal welfare in WTO disputes. World Trade Review 13 (3): 471–498. Open Google Scholar
  475. Tamanaha, Brian Z. 2009. Beyond the Formalist - Realist Divide: The Role of Politics in Judging. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press. Open Google Scholar
  476. Taniguchi, Yasuhei, John H. Jackson, Julio Lacarte Muró, George Bermann, Frieder Roessler, and Werner Zdouc. 2008. Panel discussion: Examining the dispute settlement system: how has it performed? In The WTO: governance, dispute settlement & developing countries, edited by Merit E. Janow, Victoria Donaldson, and Alan Yanovich, 387–405. Huntington: Juris Publishing. Open Google Scholar
  477. Terris, Daniel, Cesare P. R. Romano, and Leigh Swigart. 2007. The International Judge: An Introduction to the Men and Women Who Decide the World’s Cases. Waltham/Massachusetts: Brandeis University Press. Open Google Scholar
  478. Thiedemann, Anke. 2005. WTO und Umwelt – Die Auslegung des Art. XX GATT in der Praxis der WTO Streitbeilegungsorgane. Münster: LIT. Open Google Scholar
  479. Thomas, Sébastien. 2009. Trade and environment under WTO rules after the Appellate Body report in Brazil-retreated tyres. Journal of International Commercial Law and Technology 4 (1): 42–49. Open Google Scholar
  480. Thomison, Andrew. 2007. New and Controversial Mandate for the SPS Agreement – The WTO Panel’s Interim Report in the E.C.-Biotech Dispute. Columbia Journal of Environmental Law 32 (2): 287–307. Open Google Scholar
  481. Tomkiewicz, Vincent. 2009. L’interprétation téléologique au sein de l’OMC et la question de la protection environnementale. In La circulation des concepts juridiques: le droit international de l’environnement entre mondialisation et fragmentation, edited by Hélène Ruiz Fabri and Lorenzo Gradoni, 243–266. Paris: Société de législation comparée. Open Google Scholar
  482. Trachtman, Joel P. 1999. The domain of WTO dispute resolution. Harvard International Law Journal 40 (Spring 1999): 333–377. Open Google Scholar
  483. Trachtman, Joel P. 2003. The agency model of judging in economic integration: balancing responsibilities. In The role of the judge in international trade regulation : experience and lessons for the WTO, edited by Thomas Cottier and Petros C. Mavroidis , 135–150. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Open Google Scholar
  484. Trebilcock, Michael, and Julie A Soloway. 2002. International trade policy and domestic food safety regulation: The case for substantial deference by the WTO Dispute Settlement Body under the SPS Agreement. In The political economy of international trade law: Essays in Honor of Robert E. Hudec, edited by Daniel L. M Kennedy and James C Southwick, 537–574. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press. Open Google Scholar
  485. Trommer, Silke. 2017. The WTO in an Era of Preferential Trade Agreements: Thick and Thin Institutions in Global Trade Governance. World Trade Review 16 (3): 501–526. Open Google Scholar
  486. Troper, Michel, Christophe Grzegorczyk, and Jean-Louis Gardies. 1991. Statutory interpretation in France. In Interpreting statutes – a comparative study, edited by D. Neil MacCormick and Robert S. Summers, 171–212. Aldershot: Darthmouth. Open Google Scholar
  487. Tumonis, Vitalis. 2013. Adjudication Fallacies: The Role of International Courts in Interstate Dispute Settlement. Wisconsin International Law Journal 33 (1): 35–64. Open Google Scholar
  488. Turk, Matthew C. 2011. Why Does the Complainant Always Win at the WTO?: A Reputation-Based Theory of Litigation at the World Trade Organization. Northwestern Journal of International Law & Business 31 (Spring 2011): 385–437. Open Google Scholar
  489. Urakami, Kenichiro. 2001. Unsolved problems and implications for the chapeau of GATT Article XX. In Reconciling environment and trade, edited by Edith Brown Weiss and John H. Jackson, 167–184. Ardsley: Transnational Publishers. Open Google Scholar
  490. US Trade Representative. 2020. Report on the Appellate Body of the World Trade Organization. Available at Open Google Scholar
  491. <https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/Report_on_the_Appellate_Body_of_the_World_Trade_Organization.pdf>. Open Google Scholar
  492. Van Calster, Geert. 2008. Faites Vos Jeux – Regulatory Autonomy and the World Trade Organisation after Brazil Tyres. Journal of Environmental Law 20 (1): 121–136. Open Google Scholar
  493. Van Damme, Isabelle. 2009. Treaty interpretation by the WTO Appellate Body. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press. Open Google Scholar
  494. Van Damme, Isabelle. 2010. Treaty interpretation by the WTO Appellate Body. European Journal of International Law 21 (3): 605–648. Open Google Scholar
  495. Van den Bossche, Peter. 2006. From afterthought to centrepiece: the WTO Appellate Body and its rise to prominence in the world trading system. In The WTO at ten: the contribution of the dispute settlement system, edited by Alan Yanovich, Jan Bohanes, and Sacerdoti, Giorgio, 289–325. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press.Van den Bossche, Peter. 2008. Looking for Proportionality in WTO Law. Legal Issues of Economic Integration 35 (3): 283–294. Open Google Scholar
  496. Van den Bossche, Peter L. H. van den. 2014. Reform of the WTO Dispute Settlement System – Fixing What Ain’t Broke?, Melbourne Law School. Available at <http://www.law.unimelb.edu.au/files/dmfile/ReformoftheWTODisputeSettlementSystem-FixingWhatAintBrokeMelbourneLawSchool10Feb2014final.pdf>. Open Google Scholar
  497. Venzke, Ingo. 2012. Making General Exceptions: The Spell of Precedents in Developing Article XX GATT into Standards for Domestic Regulatory Policy. In International Judicial Lawmaking: On Public Authority and Democratic Legitimation in Global Governance, edited by Armin von Bogdandy and Ingo Venzke, 179–249. Heidelberg/New York/Dordrecht/London: Springer. Open Google Scholar
  498. Venzke, Ingo. 2016. Judicial authority and styles of reasoning: self-presentation between legalism and deliberation. In Establishing Judicial Authority in International Economic Law, edited by Henrik Palmer Olsen, Joanna Jemielniak, and Laura Nielsen, 240–262. Cambridge International Trade and Economic Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Open Google Scholar
  499. Vidigal, Geraldo. 2017. Why Is There So Little Litigation under Free Trade Agreements? Retaliation and Adjudication in International Dispute Settlement. Journal of International Economic Law 20 (4). Oxford Academic: 927–950. Open Google Scholar
  500. Voon, Tania S. 2009. China – Publications and Audiovisual Products. American Journal of International Law 103 (4): 710–716. Open Google Scholar
  501. Vranes, Erich. 2009. Trade and the environment: fundamental issues in international law, WTO law, and legal theory. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press. Open Google Scholar
  502. Walker, Vern R. 1998. Keeping the WTO from becoming the “World Trans-science Organization”: scientific uncertainty, science policy, and factfinding in the growth hormones dispute. Cornell Journal of International Law 31 (2): 251–319. Open Google Scholar
  503. Walker, Vern R. 2003. The myth of science as a “neutral arbiter” for triggering precautions. Boston College International and Comparative Law Review 26 (2): 197–228. Open Google Scholar
  504. Watkins-Bienz, Renée M. 2004. Die Hart-Dworkin Debatte – Ein Beitrag zu den internationalen Kontroversen der Gegenwart. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot. Open Google Scholar
  505. Watson, James K. R. 2013. The WTO and the environment: development of competence beyond trade. Abingdon/New York: Routledge. Open Google Scholar
  506. Weiler, Joseph H. H. 1991. The Transformation of Europe. Yale Law Journal 100 (8): 2403–2483. Open Google Scholar
  507. Weiler, Joseph H. H., ed. 2000. The EU, the WTO and the NAFTA: towards a common law of international trade? Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press. Open Google Scholar
  508. Weiler, Joseph 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): 191–207. Open Google Scholar
  509. Weiler, Joseph H. H. 2009. Brazil – Measures Affecting Imports of Retreaded Tyres (DS322). World Trade Review 8 (1): 137–144. Open Google Scholar
  510. Weiler, Joseph H. H, and Iulia Motoc. 2003. Taking democracy seriously: the normative challenges to the international system. In International economic governance and non-economic concerns: New challenges for the international legal order, edited by Stefan Griller, 48–77. Wien/New York: Springer. Open Google Scholar
  511. Weimer, Maria. 2014. Risk Regulation, GMO’s, and the Challenges to Deliberation in EU Governance - Politicization and Scientification as Co-Producing Trends. Amsterdam Centre for European Law and Governance Research Paper. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam. Available at <http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2400553>. Open Google Scholar
  512. Weiss, Wolfgang. 2003. Security and predictability under WTO law. World Trade Review 2 (2): 183–219. Open Google Scholar
  513. Wessel, Jared. 2006. Judicial Policy-Making at the International Criminal Court: An Institutional Guide to Analyzing International Adjudication. Columbia Journal of Transnational Law 44 (2): 377–452. Open Google Scholar
  514. Whitlock, Joseph P. 2002. Japan – Measures affecting agricultural products: lessons for future SPS and agricultural trade disputes. Law and Policy in International Business (now Georgetown Journal of International Law) 33 (4): 741–776. Open Google Scholar
  515. Whittington, Keith E. 2003. Legislative sanctions and the strategic environment of judicial review. International Journal of Constitutional Law 1 (3): 446–474. Open Google Scholar
  516. Wiers, Jochem, and James Mathis. 2001. The report of the Appellate Body in the Asbestos Dispute: WTO Appellate Body Report 12 March 2001, W⁠T⁠/⁠D⁠S⁠1⁠3⁠5⁠/⁠A⁠B⁠/⁠R⁠, European Communities – Measures affecting asbestos and asbestos-containing products. Legal Issues of Economic Integration 28 (2): 211–255. Open Google Scholar
  517. Winham, Gilbert R. 2003. International regime conflict in trade and environment: the Biosafety Protocol and the WTO. World Trade Review 2 (2): 131–155. Open Google Scholar
  518. Winickoff, David, Sheila Jasanoff, Lawrence Busch, Robin Grove-White, and Brian Wynne. 2005. Adjudicating the GM Food Wars: Science, Risk, and Democracy in World Trade Law. Yale Journal of International Law 30: 81–123. Open Google Scholar
  519. Winter, Gerd. 2003. The GATT and environmental protection: problems of construction. Journal of Environmental Law 15 (2): 113–140. Open Google Scholar
  520. Wirth, David A. 2006. The Transatlantic Dispute Against the European Communities: Some Preliminary Thoughts. In EU and WTO Law: How Tight is the Legal Straitjacket for Environmental Product Regulation, edited by Marc Pallmaerts, 175–208. Brussels: VUBPRESS Brussels University Press. Available at <http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1145&context=lsfp>. Open Google Scholar
  521. Wofford, Carrie. 2000. A greener future at the WTO: The refinement of WTO jurisprudence on environmental exceptions to GATT. Harvard Environmental Law Review 24 (2): 563–592. Open Google Scholar
  522. Wu, Mark. 2008. Free trade and the protection of public morals: an analysis of the newly emerging public morals clause doctrine. Yale Journal of International Law 33 (1): 215–251. Open Google Scholar
  523. Xu Yi-chong, and Patrick Weller. 2004. The governance of world trade – international civil servants and the GATT/WTO. Cheltenham/Northampton: Edward Elgar. Open Google Scholar
  524. Yavitz, Laura. 2001. The WTO and the environment: the shrimp case that created a new world order. Journal of Natural Resources and Environmental Law 16 (2): 203–255. Open Google Scholar
  525. Yavitz, Laura. 2002. The World Trade Organization Appellate Body report, European Communities – measures affecting asbestos and asbestos containing products, Mar. 12, 2001, WT/DS135/AB/R. Minnesota Journal of Global Trade (now Minnesota Journal of International Law) 11 (1): 43–67. Open Google Scholar
  526. Yoo-Sun Jung. 2013. Dispute Settlement Mechanisms and Power Asymmetry in Regional Trade Agreements. Available at <https://ncgg.princeton.edu/IPES/2013/papers/S930_rm2.pdf>. Open Google Scholar
  527. Yung, Corey Rayburn. 2011. Flexing Judicial Muscle: An Empirical Study of Judicial Activism in the Federal Courts. Northwestern University Law Review 105 (1): 1–60. Open Google Scholar
  528. Zangl, Bernhard, Achim Helmedach, Aletta Mondré, Alexander Kocks, Gerald Neubauer, and Kerstin Blome. 2012. Between law and politics: Explaining international dispute settlement behavior. European Journal of International Relations 18 (2): 369–401. Open Google Scholar
  529. Zarbiyev, Fuad. 2012. Judicial Activism in International Law - A Conceptual Framework for Analysis. Journal of International Dispute Settlement 3 (2): 1–32. Open Google Scholar
  530. Zdouc, Werner. 2008. Features of the Appellate Body that have defined its performance. In The WTO: governance, dispute settlement & developing countries, edited by Merit E. Janow, Victoria Donaldson, and Alan Yanovich, 369–385. Huntington: Juris Publishing. Open Google Scholar
  531. Zeitler, Helge Elisabeth. 2005. “Good Faith” in the WTO Jurisprudence – Necessary Balancing Element or an Open Door to Judicial Activism? Journal of International Economic Law 8 (3): 721–758. Open Google Scholar
  532. Zleptnig, Stefan. 2002. The standard of review in WTO law: an analysis of law, legitimacy and the distribution of legal and political authority. European Business Law Review 13 (5): 427–457. Open Google Scholar
  533. Zleptnig, Stefan. 2010. Non-economic objectives in WTO law: justification provisions of GATT, GATS, SPS and TBT agreements. Leiden/Boston: Nijhoff. Open Google Scholar

Similar publications

from the topics "European Law & International Law & Comparative Law"
Cover of book: Recognition of Restructuring Plans under the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency
Book Titles Full access
Abbas Abbasov
Recognition of Restructuring Plans under the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency
Cover of book: Auftrag, Dienst- und Arbeitsvertrag
Book Titles No access
Chia-Te Hsiao
Auftrag, Dienst- und Arbeitsvertrag
Cover of book: Comparative Perspectives on the Law of Energy Transition in Europe
Edited Book Full access
Michael Rodi, Johannes Saurer
Comparative Perspectives on the Law of Energy Transition in Europe
Cover of book: Die Rolle des Gerichts im Rahmen des Prozessvergleichs
Book Titles No access
Adomas Jankauskis
Die Rolle des Gerichts im Rahmen des Prozessvergleichs
Cover of book: Questioning the Role of Competition Law in the 21st Century
Edited Book No access
Ranjana Andrea Achleitner, Eva Fischer, Lena Hornkohl, Bernadette Zelger
Questioning the Role of Competition Law in the 21st Century

Notice

This work is protected by copyright and may only be used in accordance with the provisions of the Terms of Use and License Agreement. Any use of the work beyond this is expressly prohibited and will be prosecuted.

Give feedback

We welcome your feedback on content and features. Your message helps us to continuously improve our service.

Rating
Attach images
or drag and drop
PNG or JPG (max. 3 MB)

Welcome to Inlibra – Your Platform for Digital Professional Information

Nomos, C.H.Beck, VDI and over 100 other publishers combine their content here to create one of the largest platforms for digital professional information.

Research efficiently, cite long-term, use reliably – all united in one place.

Login

Forgotten your password?
Login via Open Athens
Don't have an account yet?
Register now

Cite publication

Download: RIS BibTex