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

Substance and Style

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

Edition
1/2021
Copyright Year
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
Monograph

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. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  2. Zleptnig, Stefan. 2010. Non-economic objectives in WTO law: justification provisions of GATT, GATS, SPS and TBT agreements. Leiden/Boston: Nijhoff. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  3. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  4. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  5. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  6. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  7. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  8. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  9. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  10. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  11. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  12. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  13. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  14. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  15. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  16. Winter, Gerd. 2003. The GATT and environmental protection: problems of construction. Journal of Environmental Law 15 (2): 113–140. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  17. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  18. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  19. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  20. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  21. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  22. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  23. Weiss, Wolfgang. 2003. Security and predictability under WTO law. World Trade Review 2 (2): 183–219. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  24. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  25. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  26. Weiler, Joseph H. H. 2009. Brazil – Measures Affecting Imports of Retreaded Tyres (DS322). World Trade Review 8 (1): 137–144. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  27. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  28. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  29. Weiler, Joseph H. H. 1991. The Transformation of Europe. Yale Law Journal 100 (8): 2403–2483. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  30. Watson, James K. R. 2013. The WTO and the environment: development of competence beyond trade. Abingdon/New York: Routledge. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  31. Watkins-Bienz, Renée M. 2004. Die Hart-Dworkin Debatte – Ein Beitrag zu den internationalen Kontroversen der Gegenwart. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  32. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  33. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  34. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  35. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  36. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  37. Aleinikoff, Alexander. 1987. Constitutional law in the age of balancing. Yale Law Journal 96: 943–1005. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  38. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  39. Alexy, Robert. 1995. Recht, Vernunft, Diskurs. Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  40. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  41. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  42. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  43. Alter, Karen J. 2003. Resolving or exacerbating disputes? The WTO’s new dispute resolution system. International Affairs 79 (4): 783–800. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  44. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  45. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  46. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  47. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  48. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  49. Appleton, Arthur E. 1999. Shrimp/turtle: untangling the nets. Journal of International Economic Law 2 (3): 447–496. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  50. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  51. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  52. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  53. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  54. Bacchus, James. 2001. The role of lawyers in the WTO. Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law 34 (4): 953–961. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  55. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  56. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  57. Bacchus, James. 2004a. A few thoughts on legitimacy, democracy, and the WTO. Journal of International Economic Law 7: 667–673. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  58. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  59. Bacchus, James. 2005. Appellators: The Quest for the Meaning of and/or. World Trade Review 4 (3): 499–523. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  60. Bahri, Amrita. 2019. Appellate Body Held Hostage: Is Judicial Activism at Fair Trial? Working Papers. Institute of European Law. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  61. Barak, Aharon. 2005. Purposive interpretation in law. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  62. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  63. Barfield, Claude E. 2002. The constitutional flaws of the WTO and what to do about them. Geneva. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  64. Bartels, Lorand. 2001. Applicable law in WTO dispute settlement proceedings. Journal of World Trade 35 (3): 499–519. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  65. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  66. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  67. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  68. Baum, Lawrence. 2006. Judges and their audiences: a perspective on judicial behavior. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  69. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  70. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  71. Beck, Gunnar. 2012. The legal reasoning of the European Court of Justice. Oxford: Hart. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  72. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  73. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  74. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  75. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  76. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  77. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  78. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  79. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  80. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  81. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  82. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  83. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  84. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  85. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  86. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  87. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  88. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  89. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  90. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  91. Bourdieu, Pierre. 1987. The Force of Law: Toward a Sociology of the Juridical Field. Hastings Law Journal 38 (5): 805–853. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  92. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  93. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  94. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  95. Brewer, Scott. 1998. Scientific expert testimony and intellectual due process. Yale Law Journal 107 (6): 1535–1681. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  96. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  97. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  98. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  99. Broude, Tomer. 2004. International governance in the WTO: judicial boundaries and political capitulation. London: Cameron May. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  100. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  101. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  102. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  103. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  104. Busch, Marc L. 2007. Overlapping Institutions, Forum Shopping, and Dispute Settlement in International Trade. International Organization 61 (4): 735–761. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  105. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  106. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  107. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  108. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  109. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  110. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  111. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  112. Carvalho, Nuno Pires de. 2002. The TRIPS Regime of Patent rights. New York: Kluwer Law International. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  113. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  114. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  115. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  116. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  117. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  118. Charnovitz, Steve. 1991. Exploring the environmental exceptions in GATT Article XX. Journal of World Trade 25 (5): 37–55. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  119. Charnovitz, Steve. 2007. The WTO’s environmental progress. Journal of International Economic Law 10 (3): 685–706. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  120. Charnovitz, Steve. 2018. How American Rejectionism Undermines International Economic Law. Trade, Law and Development 10 (2): 226–269. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  121. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  122. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  123. Cheyne, Ilona. 2007. Gateways to the precautionary principle in WTO law. Journal of Environmental Law 19 (2): 155–172. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  124. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  125. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  126. Cho, Sungjoon. 2009a. Of the World Trade Court’s Burden. European Journal of International Law 20 (3): 675–727. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  127. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  128. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  129. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  130. Chua, Adrian T. L. 1998. Precedent and principles of WTO Panel jurisprudence. Berkeley Journal of International Law 16 (1): 171–196. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  131. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  132. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  133. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  134. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  135. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  136. Condon, Bradly J. 2010. Lost in Translation: Plurilingual Interpretation of WTO Law. Journal of International Dispute Settlement 1 (1): 191–216. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  137. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  138. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  139. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  140. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  141. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  142. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  143. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  144. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  145. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  146. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  147. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  148. Craig, Paul, and Gráinne de Búrca. 2011. EU Law: Text, Cases, and Materials. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  149. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  150. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  151. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  152. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  153. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  154. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  155. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  156. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  157. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  158. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  159. Delbrück, Jost. 1997. Proportionality. In Encyclopedia of public international law, Vol. 3, edited by Rudolf Bernhardt, 1140–144. Amsterdam: North Holland. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  160. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  161. Desmedt, Axel. 2001. Proportionality in WTO law. Journal of International Economic Law 4 (3): 441–480. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  162. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  163. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  164. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  165. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  166. Dörr, Oliver, and Kirsten Schmalenbach, eds. 2012. Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties: a commentary. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  167. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  168. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  169. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  170. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  171. Dunoff, Jeffrey L., and Mark A. Pollack. 2017. The Judicial Trilemma. Research Paper. Temple University Legal Studies. Temple University. Available at Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  172. <https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2955172>. Accessed 7 March 2021. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  173. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  174. Dworkin, Ronald. 1981. Taking Rights Seriously. London: Duckworth. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  175. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  176. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  177. Eggers, Barbara. 2001. The Precautionary Principle in WTO Law. Available at Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  178. <http://www.sub.uni-hamburg.de/opus/volltexte/2001/451/>. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  179. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  180. Ehlermann, Claus-Dieter. 2003a. Reflections on the Appellate Body of the WTO. Journal of International Economic Law 6 (3): 695–708. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  181. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  182. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  183. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  184. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  185. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  186. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  187. Emmerich-Fritsche, Angelika. 2000. Der Grundsatz der Verhältnismäßigkeit als Direktive und Schranke der EG-Rechtssetzung. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  188. Enderlein, Wolfgang. 1992. Abwägung in Recht und Moral. Freiburg/München: Alber. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  189. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  190. Epps, Tracey. 2008. International trade and health protection: a critical assessment of the WTO’s SPS Agreement. Cheltenham/Northhampton: Edward Elgar. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  191. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  192. Esty, Daniel C. 2002. The World Trade Organization’s legitimacy crisis. World Trade Review 1 (1): 7–22. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  193. Fastenrath, Ulrich. 1991. Lücken im Völkerrecht – Zu Rechtscharakter, Quellen, Systemzusammenhang, Methodenlehre und Funktionen des Völkerrechts. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  194. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  195. Feteris, Eveline T. 1999. Fundamentals of legal argumentation: a survey of theories on the justification of judicial decisions. Dordrecht: Springer. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  196. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  197. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  198. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  199. Foltea, Marina. 2012. International organizations in WTO dispute settlement: how much institutional sensitivity? Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  200. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  201. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  202. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  203. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  204. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  205. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  206. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  207. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  208. Gallagher, Kevin P. 2009. Handbook on Trade and the Environment. Cheltenham/Northhampton: Edward Elgar. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  209. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  210. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  211. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  212. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  213. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  214. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  215. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  216. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  217. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  218. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  219. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  220. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  221. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  222. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  223. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  224. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  225. Greenwald, John. 2003. WTO Dispute Settlement: an Exercise in Trade Law Legislation? Journal of International Economic Law 6 (1): 113–124. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  226. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  227. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  228. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  229. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  230. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  231. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  232. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  233. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  234. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  235. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  236. Guzman, Andrew T. 2008. Determining the Appropriate Standard of Review in WTO Disputes. Cornell International Law Journal 42 (1): 42–76. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  237. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  238. Habermas, Jürgen. 1992. Faktizität und Geltung: Beiträge zur Diskurstheorie des Rechts. Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  239. Harris, Allison P., and Maya Sen. 2019. Bias and Judging. Annual Review of Political Science 22: 241–259. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  240. Hart, Herbert L. A. 1994. The Concept of Law. 2nd ed. Oxford: Clarendon. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  241. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  242. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  243. Hector, Pascal. 1992. Das völkerrechtliche Abwägungsgebot –- Abgrenzung der Souveränitätssphären durch Verfahren. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  244. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  245. Herwig, Alexia. 2008. Whither Science in WTO Dispute Settlement? Leiden Journal of International Law 21 (4): 823–846. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  246. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  247. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  248. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  249. Higgins, Rosalyn. 1968. Policy Considerations and the International Judicial Process. International & Comparative Law Quarterly 17 (1): 58–84. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  250. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  251. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  252. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  253. Hillenkamp, Thomas. 2006. 32 Probleme aus dem Strafrecht, Allgemeiner Teil. 12th ed. Neuwied: Luchterhand. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  254. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  255. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  256. Hoekman, Bernard. 2016. The World Trade Order: Global Governance by Judiciary? European Journal of International Law 27 (4): 1083–1093. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  257. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  258. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  259. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  260. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  261. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  262. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  263. Howse, Robert. 2002c. The Sardines Panel and AB rulings - some preliminary reactions. Legal Issues of Economic Integration 29 (3): 247–254. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  264. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  265. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  266. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  267. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  268. Howse, Robert. 2009. Moving the WTO forward – one case at a step. Cornell International Law Journal 42 (2): 223–231. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  269. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  270. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  271. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  272. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  273. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  274. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  275. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  276. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  277. Hubmann, Heinrich. 1977. Wertung und Abwägung im Recht. Köln: Heymanns. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  278. Hudec, Robert E. 2003. Science and “post-discriminatory” WTO law. Boston College International and Comparative Law Review 26 (2): 185–195. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  279. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  280. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  281. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  282. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  283. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  284. Iida, Keisuke. 2004. Is WTO Dispute Settlement Effective? Global Governance 10 (2): 207–225. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  285. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  286. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  287. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  288. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  289. Jans, Jan H. 2000. Proportionality revisited. Legal Issues of Economic Integration 27 (3): 239–265. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  290. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  291. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  292. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  293. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  294. Johannesson, Louise, and Petros C. Mavroidis. 2015. Black Cat, White Cat: The Identity of the WTO Judges. Working Paper. Stockholm: IFN. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  295. Kapterian, Gisele. 2010. A critique of the WTO jurisprudence on “necessity”. International and Comparative Law Quarterly 59 (January 2010): 89–127. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  296. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  297. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  298. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  299. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  300. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  301. Kennedy, Duncan. 1997. A critique of adjudication {fin de siècle}. Cambridge/London: Harvard University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  302. Kepplinger, Hans Mathias, and Thomas Zerback. 2009. Der Einfluss der Medien auf Richter und Staatsanwälte. Publizistik 54 (2): 216–239. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  303. Klabbers, Jan. 1992. Jurisprudence in international trade law: Article XX of GATT. Journal of World Trade 26 (2): 63–94. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  304. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  305. Kmiec, Keenan. 2004. The Origin and Current Meanings of Judicial Activism. California Law Review 92 (5): 1441–1477. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  306. Kneubuehler, Lorenz. 2001. Integration durch Rechtsprechung in der EG und der WTO. Bern: Stämpfli. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  307. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  308. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  309. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  310. Kolsky Lewis, Meredith. 2006. The lack of dissent in WTO dispute settlement. Journal of International Economic Law 9 (4): 895–931. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  311. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  312. Krajewski, Markus. 2001. Democratic legitimacy and constitutional perspectives of WTO Law. Journal of World Trade 35 (1): 167–186. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  313. Krüger, Tilman. 2013. Strategic Litigation in the World Trade Organization. Doctoral thesis, microfiche version, Bremen: University of Bremen. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  314. Krugmann, Michael. 2004. Der Grundsatz der Verhältnismäßigkeit im Völkerrecht. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  315. Kulick, Andreas. 2012. Global public interest in international investment law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  316. Kulovesi, Kati. 2011. The WTO Dispute Settlement System. Challenges of the Environment, Legitimacy and Fragmentation. Aalphen an den Rijn: Wolters Kluwer. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  317. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  318. Ladeur, Karl-Heinz. 2004. Kritik der Abwägung in der Grundrechtsdogmatik. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  319. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  320. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  321. Lang, Andrew. 2016. The Judicial Sensibility of the WTO Appellate Body. European Journal of International Law 27 (4): 1095–1105. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  322. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  323. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  324. Lasser, Mitchel. 2001. Do Judges Deploy Policy. Cardozo Law Review 22 (3): 863–899. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  325. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  326. <https://www.jeanmonnetprogram.org/archive/papers/03/030101.pdf>. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  327. Lasser, Mitchel. 2004. Judicial Deliberations – A comparative Analysis of Judicial Transparency and Legitimacy. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  328. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  329. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  330. Leisner, Walter. 1997. Der Abwägungsstaat: Verhältnismäßigkeit als Gerechtigkeit? Berlin: Duncker & Humblot. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  331. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  332. Lennard, Michael. 2002. Navigating by the Stars: Interpreting the WTO Agreements. Journal of International Economic Law 5 (1): 17–89. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  333. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  334. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  335. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  336. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  337. Lindquist, Stefanie, and Frank Cross. 2009. Measuring Judicial Activism. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  338. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  339. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  340. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  341. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  342. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  343. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  344. Lovric, Daniel. 2010. Deference to the Legislature in WTO Challenges to Legislation. Alphen aan den Rijn: Kluwer Law International. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  345. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  346. Lucy, William. 1999. Understanding and explaining adjudication. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  347. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  348. Lydgate, Emily Barrett. 2012. Sustainable development in the WTO: from mutual supportiveness to balancing. World Trade Review 11 (4): 621–639. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  349. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  350. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  351. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  352. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  353. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  354. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  355. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  356. Marceau, Gabrielle. 2018. Evolutive Interpretation by the WTO Adjudicator. Journal of International Economic Law 21 (4). Oxford Academic: 791–813. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  357. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  358. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  359. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  360. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  361. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  362. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  363. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  364. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  365. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  366. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  367. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  368. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  369. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  370. Mavroidis, Petros C. 2000. Trade and environment after the shrimps-turtles litigation. Journal of World Trade 41 (1): 73–88. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  371. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  372. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  373. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  374. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  375. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  376. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  377. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  378. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  379. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  380. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  381. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  382. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  383. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  384. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  385. Melillo, Margherita. 2019. Informal Dispute Resolution in Preferential Trade Agreements. Journal of World Trade 53 (1). Kluwer Law International: 95–127. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  386. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  387. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  388. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  389. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  390. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  391. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  392. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  393. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  394. Münch, Ingo, and Philip Kunig, eds. 2012. Grundgesetz : Kommentar. 6th ed. München: Beck. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  395. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  396. Neumann, Jan. 2002. Die Koordination des WTO-Rechts mit anderen völkerrechtlichen Ordnungen. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  397. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  398. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  399. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  400. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  401. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  402. Notaro, Nicola. 2003. Judicial approaches to trade and environment: the EC and the WTO. London: Cameron May International Law Publishers. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  403. Oesch, Matthias. 2003. Standards of review in WTO dispute settlement. Journal of International Economic Law 6 (3): 635–659. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  404. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  405. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  406. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  407. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  408. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  409. Pair, Lara M. 2001. Judicial Activism in the ICJ Charter Interpretation. ILSA Journal of International & Comparative Law 8: 181–221. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  410. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  411. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  412. Parish, Matthew. 2010. On Necessity. Journal of World Investment & Trade 11 (2): 169–195. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  413. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  414. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  415. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  416. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  417. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  418. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  419. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  420. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  421. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  422. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  423. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  424. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  425. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  426. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  427. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  428. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  429. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  430. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  431. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  432. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  433. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  434. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  435. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  436. <http://telc.jura.uni-halle.de/sites/default/files/BeitraegeTWR/Heft118.pdf>. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  437. Poiares Maduro, Miguel. 1998. We, The Court. Oxford/Portland: Hart. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  438. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  439. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  440. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  441. Posner, Richard. 1995. Judges’ Writing Styles (And Do They Matter?). University of Chicago Law Review 62: 1420–1449. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  442. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  443. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  444. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  445. Rafi, Anusheh. 2004. Kriterien für ein gutes Urteil. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  446. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  447. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  448. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  449. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  450. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  451. <https://cadmus.eui.eu/bitstream/handle/1814/47045/LAW_2017_11.pdf?sequence=1>. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  452. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  453. Reusch, Ralf. 2007. Legitimation des WTO-Streitbeilegungsverfahrens. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  454. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  455. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  456. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  457. Ruffert, Matthias. 2001. Der Entscheidungsmaßstab im WTO - Streitbeilegungsverfahren – Prozessuale Relativierung materieller Verpflichtungen? Zeitschrift für vergleichende Rechtswissenschaft 100 (3): 304–321. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  458. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  459. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  460. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  461. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  462. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  463. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  464. Schauer, Frederick. 1988. Formalism. Yale Law Journal 97 (4): 509–548. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  465. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  466. <http://law.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1197&context=uvalwps>. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  467. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  468. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  469. <http://cadmus.eui.eu/bitstream/handle/1814/169/law01-05.pdf?sequence=1>. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  470. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  471. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  472. Schwarze, Jürgen, Ulrich Becker, Armin Hatje, and Johann Schoo, eds. 2012. EU-Kommentar. 3rd ed. Baden-Baden: Nomos. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  473. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  474. <http://www.jeanmonnetprogram.org/archive/papers/04/040401.pdf>. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  475. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  476. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  477. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  478. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  479. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  480. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  481. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  482. Shahabuddeen, Mohamed. 1996. Precedent in the world court. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  483. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  484. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  485. Shapiro, Martin. 1994. Judges As Liars. Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy 17 (1): 155–156. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  486. Shaw, Malcolm. 1991. International Law. Cambridge: Grotius. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  487. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  488. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  489. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  490. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  491. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  492. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  493. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  494. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  495. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  496. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  497. Stein, Eric. 2001. International integration and democracy: No love at first sight. American Journal of International Law 95 (3): 489–534. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  498. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  499. Stone Sweet, Alec. 2004. The Judicial Construction of Europe. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  500. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  501. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  502. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  503. Sun, Haochen. 2003. Reshaping the TRIPs agreement concerning public health: two critical issues. Journal of World Trade 37 (1): 163–197. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  504. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  505. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  506. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  507. Tamanaha, Brian Z. 2009. Beyond the Formalist - Realist Divide: The Role of Politics in Judging. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  508. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  509. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  510. Thiedemann, Anke. 2005. WTO und Umwelt – Die Auslegung des Art. XX GATT in der Praxis der WTO Streitbeilegungsorgane. Münster: LIT. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  511. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  512. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  513. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  514. Trachtman, Joel P. 1999. The domain of WTO dispute resolution. Harvard International Law Journal 40 (Spring 1999): 333–377. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  515. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  516. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  517. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  518. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  519. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  520. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  521. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  522. US Trade Representative. 2020. Report on the Appellate Body of the World Trade Organization. Available at Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  523. <https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/Report_on_the_Appellate_Body_of_the_World_Trade_Organization.pdf>. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  524. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  525. Van Damme, Isabelle. 2009. Treaty interpretation by the WTO Appellate Body. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  526. Van Damme, Isabelle. 2010. Treaty interpretation by the WTO Appellate Body. European Journal of International Law 21 (3): 605–648. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  527. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  528. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  529. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  530. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  531. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  532. Voon, Tania S. 2009. China – Publications and Audiovisual Products. American Journal of International Law 103 (4): 710–716. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426
  533. 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 DOI: 10.5771/9783845299426

Similar publications

from the series "Schriftenreihe des Zentrums für Europäische Rechtspolitik der Universität Bremen (ZERP)"
Cover of book: Konflikt und Transformation: Essays zur Europäischen Rechtspolitik
Monograph No access
Christian Joerges
Konflikt und Transformation: Essays zur Europäischen Rechtspolitik
Cover of book: Ökologische Aspekte im öffentlich-rechtlichen Beschaffungswesen
Monograph No access
Felix Steengrafe
Ökologische Aspekte im öffentlich-rechtlichen Beschaffungswesen
Cover of book: Exploring the Uncharted Waters of European Competition Law 4.0
Monograph No access
Hendrik Schulze
Exploring the Uncharted Waters of European Competition Law 4.0
Cover of book: What Place for Fairness in Digital Content Contracts?
Monograph No access
Agustin Reyna
What Place for Fairness in Digital Content Contracts?
Cover of book: The Relationship between Trade-Related Environmental Measures in Multilateral Environmental Agreements and the WTO Law
Monograph No access
Lidia Rieder
The Relationship between Trade-Related Environmental Measures in Multilateral Environmental Agreements and the WTO Law

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)

Login

Forgotten your password?
Login via your Institution (SSO, Shibboleth, OpenAthens)
Don't have an account yet?
Register now

Cite publication

Download: RIS BibTex