WTO dispute procedures, standard of review, and deference to national governments

Professors Croley and Jackson consider the appropriate level of deference to national government decisions to be shown by dispute settlement bodies under the new WTO/GATT rules-a question that proved to be contentious during the Uruguay Round where some negotiators proposed an approach analogous to the U.S. Chevron doctrine. The authors examine the policy objectives of judicial review, both national and international, and argue that the justifications for the Chevron doctrine carry little weight in the international arena, though some deference is supportable on other grounds.