Abstract
This Essay identifies five assumptions that have worked their way into the debate on standing before the dispute settlement panels of the World Trade Organization (“WTO”). The dispute settlement process is one of the most visible — and most scrutinized — activities of the WTO. Moreover, the dispute settlement process constitutes an integral part of the international trade regime. The five assumptions discussed in this Essay are assumptions; they have neither been proven nor disproven by either side of the debate. This Essay does not empirically treat any of these assumptions, other than to demonstrate that they are assumptions. Rather, this Essay discusses the degradation to the debate over standing that could be caused by acceptance of these assumptions, and sets out ground rules for avoiding these harms. A real understanding of the WTO, and real progress in improving the international trade regime, will only be achieved through meticulous study that avoids easy assumptions.
Recommended Citation
Philip M. Nichols,
Two Snowflakes are Alike: Assumptions Made in the Debate Over Standing Before World Trade Organization Dispute Settlement Boards,
24 Fordham Int'l L.J. 427
(2000).
Available at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/ilj/vol24/iss1/18