Strategic Litigation at the WTO

A recent paper by Tilman Kruger on "The Judicialization of Governance in the WTO: Strategic Litigation as an Explanatory Factor?" throws up very interesting issues about the role of the Appellate Body of the WTO, a rule based system vis a vis a power based system, "judicial activism" of the adjudicatory bodies, the impact of the failure of political negotiations on judicial decision making, interpretation of Agreements in the light of global realities when political deadlock fails to suitably legislate to reflect business realities. 


The political and judicial organs have been the two sides of the multilateral organisation. However, with the Doha Development Agenda facing an impasse and consensus looking bleak atleast till the economic downturn subsides, observers believe that the judicial organ has played a decisive part in laying down the "law" for countries to follow. While a majority of decisions are based on a safe "textual" interpretation of the provisions, it is inevitable that instances of creative interpretations and "judicial activism" find their way in Appellate Body decisions. Also when there is ambiguity in the trade agreements and the ambiguity does not get resolved by political consensus and amended rules, the judicial organs have to perforce play the role of interpreting the rules in the light of their understanding of reality and law. It is akin to national judicial bodies "judicial activism" when the legislative or executive branch fails to deliver. However, there are dangers of this judicial activism from political resistance to non-compliance.

Another important point that is made by Tilman is the concept of "strategic litigation" in promoting judicialization of the WTO. Alvaro Santos too in his brilliant piece had alluded to strategic lawyering by Brazil to further its domestic agenda at the WTO. 

Tilman compares the U.S. and EU attitudes towards engaging the WTO to strategically litigate to further their long term interests. the ability to "strategically litigate" at the WTO depends on a variety of factors, especially domestic ones. The paper argues that the Eurpoean Commission's Director General of Trade is far more independent to initiate disputes at the WTO level thatn the USTR which is constrained by domestic political compulsions. This would be true of many other countries. Explaining the importance of "strategic litigation" (using the WTO judicial process to pursue long term interests), the author notes:

"Viewed through the lens of strategic litigation, important shifts in the evolution of WTO governance and its judicialization did not result from a conspiracy of some sorts, blatant judicial activism or an unfettered influence of powerful WTO members. At the same time, they are more than just the results of one or another form of judicial interpretation. In the incidents discussed, the strategic behavior of litigants brought the Appellate Body in a position in which it modified and developed aspects of WTO law and governance. WTO dispute settlement proceedings thus served as an effective forum for the shaping of WTO governance – in the court room, not in the green room."

A few important points that this paper highlights:

1. The importance of judicialization of the WTO in light of the complex political deadlock of the Doha round needs no emphasis.

2. Judicialization can range from over active engagement of member states to an Appellate Body engaging in creative interpretation of Agreements.

3. Developing countries may have a few points to take from the strategy EU or Brazil undertakes in this regard. While there is a constant domestic criticism that WTO is leading to an erosion of sovereignty, can developing countries explore the possibility of engaging in strategic litigation at the WTO to further their domestic development agenda. Trachtman has argued that the WTO offers sufficient policy space for countries to implement their domestic policy space. Can this be channelized to engage the WTO, in the judcial body, with strategic litigation to achieve long term, development goals? What would it entail domestically for developing countries to achieve this?

4. The tension over judicialization underlines the dichotomy between a rule based and power based system. While both are important constituents of the system, a tilt in either favour may be disastrous for the multilateral system. It would be the responsibility of member countries to engage in continuous dialogue to ensure that the balance is not breached. More decisions should be the result of the court room rather than the green room, but to gain wider consensus and implementability the role of negotiation and political consensus is equally important, perhaps not of the green room variety.


5. The ability to engage in "Strategic litigation" is also dependent on a variety of domestic factors. Primary amongst them is what importance WTO litigation is given in the political and bureaucratic circles in the context of a country's development agenda as well as economic strategy. How is it perceived domestically as well as what level of engagement exists in understanding and comprehending the potential it has to achieve its purpose. Further, the level of independence the agency representing the country at the WTO has in terms of taking decisions to strategically litigate is also important. Is it taken at the political level (legislative or executive) or at the bureaucratic level. This would decide to a large extent the degree of strategic litigation as well as the shift from an adhoc based system to a more long term view of the possibilities.