| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
© Oxford University Press 2005, all rights reserved
Mini-Symposium on Developing Countries in the Doha Round |
Chairing a WTO Negotiation
1 Professor, School of International Relations, University of Southern California
Since 1997 efforts by member states of the World Trade Organization to negotiate multilateral decisions, at the ministerial level and below, have been less efficient and less legitimate than many would prefer. Yet proposals for formal changes to decision-making institutions have not achieved consensus. Meanwhile, member states have given a limited role to the chairs of their negotiating bodies to build consensus and mediate deadlocks. Very little has been published describing how chairs perform this function or assessing the effectiveness of different techniques. Research indicates that WTO chairs use three types of mediation tactics. The most passive are observation, diagnosis and communication tactics. Type 2 are called formulation tactics, and occasionally they use the most directive or manipulative tactics. Each type of move raises its own dilemmas for the chair, whose decisions are sometimes controversial. The way these mediators operate may have a significant effect on the likelihood of agreement, the distribution of gains and losses, and the WTO’s legitimacy, even in a famously ‘member-driven’ organization. A review of recent experience points to lessons for future practice and suggests an informal innovation to enhance chairs’ preparation for this task.