When a government has concerns about the policy measure of a trade partner, there
are multiple strategies available for how to negotiate the issue. Each implies selection
of a different negotiation forum. A legal strategy through adjudication involves filing a
formal GATT/WTO complaint and relying on adjudication by a neutral panel. A more
ad hoc approach is typical in bilateral negotiations that rely on informal talks, which
can accommodate various kinds of diplomatic pressure including issue linkage or threat
strategies. Finally there is a third option of pursuing the issue in the broader context of
a negotiation including multiple sectors such as a regional trade forum or GATT/WTO
trade round. This forum is most conducive to issue linkage strategies.
The choice of negotiation forum restricts the options for agenda-setting. The filing of a
legal complaint constrains the agenda to a lawyer’s brief for presentation to a third party
panel. In adjudication cases following the GATT/WTO dispute settlement proceedings,
the key question is the legal strength of a case for a specific policy measure and whether
countries choose to settle early or wait for a panel ruling to set the standard for the
final negotiation on compliance. In contrast, the multilateral or regional fora promote
negotiation on multiple issues for a comprehensive negotiation that can appeal to the
diverse economic interests of participants. The range of issues will influence the stakes of
the negotiation at the international level and the mobilization of interest groups at the
domestic level (Davis, 2003). In cross-sector negotiations, the key question is whether the
package of issues will raise a lobbying coalition to outweigh protectionist interests.
In many trade disputes, a complaint about a particular trade barrier could be raised
in any of these negotiation fora. An overview of several important U.S.-Japan trade ne-
gotiations illustrates this point. U.S. complaints about Japan’s quantitative restrictions
on agricultural imports were addressed in the Tokyo Round, bilateral talks in the early
1980s, a GATT dispute panel in 1987, and in the Uruguay Round. Japan’s restrictions
on forestry products were addressed in comprehensive U.S.-Japan bilateral negotiations,
which produced the Market-Oriented Sector-Selective (MOSS) trade agreement in 1986,
the Uruguay Round, and later arose as a central issue in the APEC talks on Early Vol-
untary Sectoral Liberalization during the 1998 Kuala Lumpur Ministerial meeting. Some
trade topics involve the negotiation of an agreement in a new area and are not suitable
8
Convention