Hostname: page-component-669899f699-qzcqf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-25T17:04:49.023Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Legitimacy Chains: Legitimation of Compliance with International Courts Across Social Fields

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2024

Joseph A. Conti
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Political and legal globalization brings into question how to best conceptualize legitimacy and authority in the context of a plurality of potential audiences with distinct standards for evaluating legitimacy. This article proposes legitimacy chains, or the articulation of justifications linked through competitive processes of social evaluation across distinct social fields, as a concept for theorizing supranational authority. The concept is developed through an analysis of World Trade Organization (WTO) disputes over zeroing, a method for calculating import dumping. The article focuses on how the legitimacy work of various interlocutors enabled compliance despite contested legal validity claims, ultimately enhancing the authority of the WTO as final arbiter of legitimate trade practices.

Type
Articles
Information
Law & Society Review , Volume 50 , Issue 1 , March 2016 , pp. 154 - 188
Copyright
© 2016 Law and Society Association.

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

I am grateful for the editorial assistance provided by Sheigla Averill and the constructive commentary provided by the editors and reviewers at Law & Society Review, Matt Canfield, Christopher May, Sungjoon Cho, Howie Erlanger, Sida Liu, Greg Shaffer, Erik Wright, and Moira O'Neil.

References

References

Alter, Karen J., Helfer, Laurence R., & Madsen, Mikael Rask, (2015) “How Context Shapes the Authority of International Courts,” The Danish National Research Foundation's Centre of Excellence for International Courts. iCourts Working Paper Series Paper #18, Denmark.Google Scholar
Baucus, Max, & Rangel, Charles B. (2007) “Letter to Secretary Gutierrez and Ambassador Schwab January 19, 2007,” United States Senate Finance Committee. Available at: http://www.finance.senate.gov/newsroom/chairman/release/?id=43ff917e-b138-4cd7-9e70-953f57d8f86c (accessed 26 September 2014).Google Scholar
Beetham, David (1991) The Legitimation of Power. Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press International.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berger, Peter, & Luckmann, Thomas (1980) The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. New York: Irvington.Google Scholar
Bhala, Raj, & Gantz, David A. (2010) “WTO Case Review 2009,” 27 Arizona J. of International and Comparative Law 85.Google Scholar
Black, Julia (2008) “Constructing and Contesting Legitimacy and Accountability in Polycentric Regulatory Regimes,” 2 Regulation & Governance 137–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blustein, Paul (2009) Misadventures of the Most Favored Nations. New York: Public Affairs.Google Scholar
Bourdieu, Pierre (1986) “Force of Law: Toward a Sociology of the Juridical Field,” 38 Hastings Law J. 805.Google Scholar
Bourdieu, Pierre, & Wacquant, Loic (1992) An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Bown, Chad P., & Prusa, Thomas J. (2011) “US Anti-dumping: Much Ado about Zeroing,” in Martin, W., & Mattoo, A., eds., Unfinished Business? The WTO's Doha Agenda. Washington, DC: The World Bank.Google Scholar
Brewster, Rachel, & Adam, Chilton (2014) “Supplying Compliance: Why and When the United States Complies with WTO Rulings,” 39 Yale J. of International Law 201.Google Scholar
Cho, Sungjoon (2010) “Global Constitutional Lawmaking,” 31 University of Pennsylvania J. of International Economic Law 621–78.Google Scholar
Cho, Sungjoon (2012) “No More Zeroing?: The United States Changes its Antidumping Policy to Comply with the WTO,” 16 American Society of International Law, published online 9 March 2012. Available at: http://www.asil.org/insights/volume/16/issue/8/no-more-zeroing-united-states-changes-its-antidumping-policy-comply-wto (accessed November 29, 2015).Google Scholar
Chorev, Nitsan (2007) Remaking US Trade Policy: From Protectionism to Globalization. Ithaca: Cornell Univ. Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Department of Commerce (2012) Antidumping Proceedings: Calculation of the Weighted-Average Dumping Margin and Assessment Rate in Certain Antidumping Duty Proceedings; Final Modification. 77 Fed. Reg. 8101. February 14, 2012. Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Dezalay, Yves, & Garth, Bryant G. (1996) Dealing in Virtue: International Commercial Arbitration and the Construction of a Transnational Legal Order. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Ehlermann, Claus-Dieter, & Ehring, Lothar (2005) “The Authoritative Interpretation Under Article IX: 2 of the Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization: Current Law, Practice and Possible Improvements,” 8 J. of International Economic Law 803–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Emirbayer, Mustafa, & Mische, Ann (1998) “What Is Agency?” 103 American J. of Sociology 962–1023.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
European Commission (2013) Commission Staff Working Document Accompanying the document Report from the Commission to the European Parliament: Overview of Third Country Trade Defense Actions Against the European Union for the Year 2012. 22 April. SWD(2013) 140 final. Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
Ferree, Myra Marx (2003) “Resonance and Radicalism: Feminist Framing in the Abortion Debates of the United States and Germany,” 109 American J. of Sociology 304–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fish, Stanley (1989) Doing What Comes Naturally: Change, Rhetoric, and the Practice of Theory in Literary & Legal Studies. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Fligstein, Neil, & McAdam, Douglas (2012) A Theory of Fields. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldstein, Judith (1996) “International Law and Domestic Institutions: Reconciling North American ‘Unfair’ Trade Laws,” 50 International Organization 541–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haas, Peter M., ed. (1997) Knowledge, Power and International Policy Co-ordination. Columbia, SC: Univ. of South Carolina Press.Google Scholar
Halliday, Terrence C., & Carruthers, Bruce G. (2007) “The Recursivity of Law: Global Norm Making and National Lawmaking in the Globalization of Corporate Insolvency Regimes,” 112 American J. of Sociology 1135–1202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hart, H.L.A (2012) The Concept of Law. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holmes, Oliver Wendell Jr. (1997) “The Path of the Law,” 110 Harvard Law Rev. 991–1009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horlick, Gary N. (2009) “A Personal History of Zeroing,” 4 Global Trade and Customs J. 161–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
IUST (2007) “Administration, Congress Explore Zeroing Compliance Options,” Inside US Trade. (accessed 9 February 2007).Google Scholar
Kirk, Ron (2011) “Letters to Honorable Orin G. Hatch and Honorable Sander M. Levin Pursuant to section 123(g)(l) (D) of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act.” 14 September. On file with author.Google Scholar
Koppell, Jonathan G. (2008) “Global Governance Organizations: Legitimacy and Authority in Conflict,” 18 J. of Public Administration Research and Theory 177–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laclau, Ernsto, & Chantal, Mouffe (1985) Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: Towards a Radical Democratic Politics. London: Verso.Google Scholar
Leiter, Brian (2005) “American Legal Realism,” in Golding, M.P., & Edmunson, W.A., eds., The Blackwell Guide to Philosophy of Law and Legal Theory. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Levin, Sander M., et al. (November 29, 2011) Letter to Honorable John E. Bryson and Honorable Ron Kirk regarding the Department of Commerce's Proposed Rule Change. Congressional Documents and Publications.Google Scholar
Levitt, Peggy, & Merry, Sally (2009) “Vernacularization on the Ground: Local Uses of Global Women's Rights in Peru, China, India and the United States,” 9 Global Networks 441–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peters, Birgit, & Karlsson Schaffer, Johan (2013) “The Turn to Authority Beyond States,” 4 Transnational Legal Theory 315–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Picciotto, Sol (2005) “The WTO's Appellate Body: Legal Formalism as a Legitimation of Global Governance,” 18 Governance 477–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Posner, Richard A. (1986) “Legal Formalism, Legal Realism, and the Interpretation of Statutes and the Constitution,” 37 Case Western Reserve Law Rev. 179.Google Scholar
Robertson, Scott (2009) “Views Mixed on WTO ‘Zeroing’ Ruling,” 24 American Metal Market.Google Scholar
Shaffer, Gregory (2012) “Transnational Legal Process and State Change,” 37 Law & Social Inquiry 229–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stewart, Terrence P. (1993) The GATT Uruguay Round: A Negotiating History (1986-1992), Vol. 2: Commentary. Deventer: Kleuwer.Google Scholar
Suchman, Mark C. (1995) “Managing Legitimacy: Strategic and Institutional Approaches,” 20 Academy of Management Rev. 571–610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, Charles (1993) “To Follow a Rule …” in Calhoun, C., LiPuma, E., & Postone, M., eds., Bourdieu: Critical Perspectives. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Tsebelis, George (2002) Veto Players: How Political Institutions Work. Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Unger, Roberto Mangabeira (1983) The Critical Legal Studies Movement. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
United States Trade Representative (USTR) (2012) United States Trade Representative Ron Kirk Announces Solution to Years-Old Zeroing Disputes, Demonstrating Commitment to Export Growth and Job Creation, press release, 6 February. Available at http://www.ustr.gov/about-us/press-office/press-releases/2012/united-states-trade-representative-ron-kirk-announces-solu (accessed 24 September 2014).Google Scholar
Weber, Max (1978) Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology. Berkeley: Univ. of California Press.Google Scholar
Zürn, Michael, Binder, Martin, & Ecker-Ehrhardt, Matthias (2012) “International Authority and its Politicization,” 4 International Theory 69–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Congressional Hearings

US Congress. House, Committee on Ways and Means, Sub-committee on Trade of the US House of Representative's Ways and Means Committee. The Future of the World Trade Organization. Hearing on May 17, 2005 (Serial 109-33). Washington: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
US Congress. House, Committee on Ways and Means. Hearing on Economic Challenges Facing Middle Class Families. Hearing on January 31, 2007 (Serial 110-4). Washington: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
US Congress. Senate, Committee on Finance, Subcommittee on International Trade, Dispute Settlements in the WTO. Hearing, 106th Cong, 2nd Session on June 20, 2000 (S. Hrg. 106–629). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
US Congress. Senate, Committee on Finance. Nominations of Christopher Padilla, Christina Pearson, and Benjamin Sasse. Hearing on November 1, 2007 (S. Hrg. 110–858).Google Scholar

Cases Cited

World Trade OrganizationGoogle Scholar
Report of the Panel, EC – Anti-Dumping Duties on Audio Tapes in Cassettes Originating in Japan, ADP/136, General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (April 28, 1995), unadopted.Google Scholar
Report of the Panel, Australia – Subsidies Provided to Producers and Exporters of Automotive Leather – Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by the United States (“Automotive Leather II”) (Complainant: United States), WT/DS126/RW (January 21, 2000).Google Scholar
Appellate Body Report, European Communities – Anti-Dumping Duties on Imports of Cotton-type Bed Linen from India (“Bed Linens”) (Complainant: India), DS141/AB/R (March 1, 2001).Google Scholar
Appellate Body Report, United States – Final Dumping Determination on Softwood Lumber from Canada (“Softwood Lumber V”) (Complainant: Canada), DS264/AB/R (August 11, 2004).Google Scholar
Report of the Panel, United States – Laws, Regulations, and Methodology for Calculating Dumping Margins (“Zeroing”) (Complainant: European Communities), DS294/R (October 31, 2005).Google Scholar
Appellate Body Report, United States – Measures Relating to Zeroing and Sunset Reviews (“Zeroing”) (Complainant: Japan), DS322/AB/R. (January 9, 2007).Google Scholar
Report of the Panel, United States – Anti-Dumping Measure on Shrimp from Ecuador (“Shrimp”) (Complainant: Ecuador) DS335/R (January 30, 2007).Google Scholar
Report of the Panel, United States – Final Anti-dumping Measures on Stainless Steel from Mexico (“Stainless Steel”) (Complainant: Mexico) DS344/R (December 20, 2007).Google Scholar
Appellate Body Report, United States – Final Anti-dumping Measures on Stainless Steel from Mexico (“Stainless Steel”) (Complainant: Mexico) DS344/AB/R, (April 30, 2008).Google Scholar
Report of the Panel, United States – Continued Existence and Application of Zeroing Methodology (“Continued Zeroing) (Complainant: European Communities). DS350/R (October 1, 2008).Google Scholar
Report of the Panel, United States – Use of Zeroing in Anti-Dumping Measures Involving Products from Korea (“Zeroing”) (Complainant: Korea). DS402/R (January 18, 2011).Google Scholar
Report of the Panel, United States – Anti-Dumping Measures on Shrimp and Diamond Sawblades from China (“Shrimp and Sawblades”) (Complainant: China). DS422/R (June 8, 2012).Google Scholar

US Court Cases

Chevron U.S.A. v. NRDC, 467 U.S. 837 (1984).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Timken Co. v. United States 354 F.3d 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2004).Google Scholar
US Steel Corp. v. United States 637 F. Supp. 2d 1199 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2009).Google Scholar
US Steel Corp. v. United States 621 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010).Google Scholar

US Statutes Cited

Uruguay Round Agreement Act (1994, 8 December) Public Law 103–465, US Statutes at Large 108, pp. 4809–5053.Google Scholar
Tariff Act of 1930 (2011, 7 January) 19 US Code 4.Google Scholar

Treaties Cited

Anti-Dumping Agreement: Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, Annex 1A, THE LEGAL TEXTS: THE RESULTS OF THE URUGUAY ROUND OF MULTILATERAL TRADE NEGOTIATIONS 145 (1999), 1868 U.N.T.S. 201, [Not reproduced in I.L.M.].Google Scholar
DSU, Dispute Settlement Rules: Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes, Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, Annex 2, THE LEGAL TEXTS: THE RESULTS OF THE URUGUAY ROUND OF MULTILATERAL TRADE NEGOTIATIONS 354 (1999), 1869 U.N.T.S. 401, 33 I.L.M. 1226 (1994).Google Scholar
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, opened for signature, 30 October 1947, 61 Stat. A-11, T.I.A.S. No. 1700, 55 U.N.T.S. 194 (entered into force 1 January 1948).Google Scholar
WTO Agreement: Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, 15 April 1994, THE LEGAL TEXTS: THE RESULTS OF THE URUGUAY ROUND OF MULTILATERAL TRADE NEGOTIATIONS 4 (1999), 1867 U.N.T.S. 154, 33 I.L.M. 1144 (1994).Google Scholar