Abstract

The participation deficit in global governance is usually blamed on power politics; we argue it may actually reflect strategic behavior by excluded countries themselves. In the World Trade Organization, member-states affected by a trade dispute can join litigation as “third parties” to gain access to otherwise private negotiations. In spite of its considerable benefit and negligible cost, third-party participation remains rare. Countries often stay out even when they have a material interest at stake. Why is this? We argue that because the presence of third parties decreases the odds of a settlement and increases the odds of litigation, strategic states may choose to stay out to avoid acting as involuntary spoilers. All states benefit from a swift resolution to trade disputes, so the benefit of participation decreases as more states join a case. We test our model by examining each country’s decision to participate or not in every WTO dispute since 1995. The findings support our theory: states shy away from joining when it is too crowded.

Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.