Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T16:27:16.687Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

International Trade Law and Domestic Policy: Canada, the United States, and the WTO. By Jacqueline D. Krikorian. Vancouver: UBC Press, 2012. 290 pages.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2016

Linda C. Reif
Linda C. Reif*
Affiliation:
Faculty of Law, University of Alberta
Get access

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Book Reviews / Recensions de livres
Information
Canadian Yearbook of International Law/Annuaire canadien de droit international , Volume 50 , 2013 , pp. 628 - 632
Copyright
Copyright © The Canadian Council on International Law / Conseil Canadien de Droit International, representing the Board of Editors, Canadian Yearbook of International Law / Comité de Rédaction, Annuaire Canadien de Droit International 2013

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 See, for example, Jackson, John H, “The Evolution of the World Trading System: The Legal and Institutional Context” in Bethlehem, Daniel et al, eds, The Oxford Handbook of International Trade Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009) 30 at 41–44.Google Scholar Marrakech Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, (1994) 33 ILM 1194. General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, 55 UNTS 194.

2 Davey, William J, “The Limits of Judicial Processes” in Bethlehem, , ibid 460 at 461.Google Scholar

3 See Hafner-Burton, Emilie M, Victor, David G, and Lupu, Yonatan, “Political Science Research on International Law: The State of the Field” (2012) 106 AJIL 47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

4 Ibid at 74, 77, 85–86, 90. See also Shaffer, Gregory and Ginsburg, Tom, “The Empirical Turn in International Legal Scholarship” (2012) 106 AJIL 1 at 30–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

5 Hafner-Burton, Victor, and Lupu, supra note 3 at 48.

6 Krikorian, Jacqueline D, International Trade Law and Domestic Policy: Canada, the United States, and the WTO (Vancouver: UBC Press, 2012) at 6, 11–12.Google Scholar

7 Ibid at 5.

8 Krikorian, supra note 6 at 13.

9 Ibid at 14–15.

10 Ibid at 81 (all respondent states listed in Figure 6).

11 See, for example, Hughes, Valerie, “The Institutional Dimension” in Bethlehem, supra note 1, 269 at 277 Google Scholar (panels and Appellate Body are sometimes called “quasi-judicial”); Steinberg, Richard H, “Judicial Lawmaking at the WTO: Discursive, Constitutional, and Political Constraints” (2004) 98 AJIL 247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar