How does the existence of an international institution change the strategic calculations of states engaged in an international dispute? This paper investigates the question by modeling an international institution as an alternative to bilateral bargaining for a dispute settlement. The equilibrium results show that only one of the two countries may find the option of appealing to an international institution attractive, and that the institution can influence the bargaining outcome even when it is not directly involved in settling the dispute. Moreover, the results show that countries condition their behavior on the type of the institution that they are dealing with: While a high capacity institution can induce cooperation, a low capacity institution does not. These findings have important implications for WTO reforms and provide an explanation for restrictive membership adopted by many significant international institutions.
The Strategic Use of International Institutions in Dispute Settlement* Available to Purchase
I thank John Duggan, Curt Signorino, Randy Stone, Seok-ju Cho, Jin Li, Kris Ramsay, Siyang Xiong, and Jun Wako for many discussions. I also thank Michael Barnett, Anna Bogomolnaia, Karl Brandt, Daina Chiba, Christina Davis, Jeffrey Dunoff, Raymond Duvall, Nevzat Eren, John Freeman, Jesse Johnson, Robert Keohane, Cliff Morgan, Brian Pollins, Kathryn Sikkink, Randy Stevenson, Richard Stoll, and Ahmer Tarar for their input at various stages of the project. Special thanks to Ashley Leeds, Lisa Martin, Beth Simmons, Branislav Slantchev, Christopher Way, two anonymous reviewers, and the QJPS editors for detailed comments. Support from W. Allen Wallis Institute of Political Economy is gratefully acknowledged. Any remaining errors are the sole responsibility of the author.
Fang S (2010), "The Strategic Use of International Institutions in Dispute Settlement*". Quarterly Journal of Political Science, Vol. 5 No. 2 pp. 107–131, doi: https://doi.org/10.1561/100.00009020
Download citation file:
