Communication and interpretation challenges related to economic evidence in trade disputes

Recent years have witnessed numerous instances in which economic evidence has been submitted to adjudicators in the context of WTO disputes. As it turns out, adjudicators have used this evidence only hesitantly as a basis for their decisions. In this paper we argue that a number of communication and interpretation challenges arising from the use of quantitative economic evidence can explain this phenomenon. In particular, we argue that it is in the current context difficult for adjudicators to assess the reliability and (un)biasedness of such evidence. Guidelines on how to assess quantitative evidence and benchmarks against which to evaluate the quality of such evidence may represent a useful if not necessary step in order to raise the acceptance of the use of quantitative evidence in trade disputes.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Graduate Institute Geneva Institutional Repository (Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies)
Published
2025-05-16
DOI
https://doi.org/10.71609/iheid-005f-ky98
Primary Topic
International Arbitration and Investment Law
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Communication and interpretation challenges related to economic evidence in trade disputes

Marios C. Iacovides, Marion Jansen
Graduate Institute Geneva Institutional Repository (Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies)
International Arbitration and Investment Law
article

Communication and interpretation challenges related to economic evidence in trade disputes

Marios C. Iacovides, Marion Jansen
article en

Abstract

Recent years have witnessed numerous instances in which economic evidence has been submitted to adjudicators in the context of WTO disputes. As it turns out, adjudicators have used this evidence only hesitantly as a basis for their decisions. In this paper we argue that a number of communication and interpretation challenges arising from the use of quantitative economic evidence can explain this phenomenon. In particular, we argue that it is in the current context difficult for adjudicators to assess the reliability and (un)biasedness of such evidence. Guidelines on how to assess quantitative evidence and benchmarks against which to evaluate the quality of such evidence may represent a useful if not necessary step in order to raise the acceptance of the use of quantitative evidence in trade disputes.

Graduate Institute Geneva Institutional Repository (Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies)
British Institute of International and Comparative Law (GB), University of Oxford (GB)
Openalex Percentile: Top 100%
International Arbitration and Investment Law
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.