Par Daniel Drache
Acting Director Robarts Centre for Canadian Studies and Professor of Political Science York University
Comments Welcome drache@yorku.ca
www.yorku.ca/drache for other reports and studies
Extrait
The best that can be said about the Sutherland 2004 and the Warwick 2007 Reports on the future of the WTO and the reform of the multilateral trading system is that both boards of enquiry launched modest trial balloons about modifying voting procedures to reinforce the logic of the system. With their ambiguity, blandness, and shortcomings, these high-level bodies did not address the imbalance between the formal legalism of the WTO’s rules and its rule-bending institutional practices. Nor did they propose an acceptable common ground for reform, one that would bridge the deep divisions between members and the G20/G33 coalitions. Most importantly, no candid answer was forthcoming to the question, would a culture of adaptive incrementalism give the WTO new authority to respond to the many challenges the world trading order faced? As such, neither Report was insightful on what Pauwelyn describes as “the delicate balance between law and politics” and the need for alternative forms of global governance and a more effective institutional architecture. A critical reading of both Reports helps shed light on the reasons why the WTO has been unable to move forward and renew itself.
Télécharger l’article The Structural Imbalances of the WTO Reconsidered. A Critical Reading of the Sutherland and Warwick Commissions.
