WTO faces a legitimacy crisis in the squo, counterplan is key to provide attention and reestablish WTO

Turmoil surrounds the international trading system and especially the World Trade Organization (WTO). The 1999 WTO Ministerial Meeting in Seattle broke down in chaos. Other international gatherings to promote economic integration, including the European Union’s 2000 Summit Meeting in Gothenburg and the 2001 Summit of the Americas in Quebec City, have triggered similar protests and violent clashes between demonstrators and the police. Undoubtedly, the anti-globalization backlash and the rioting in the streets has a number of causes (Blackhurst, 2001; Esty, 2000). And, while some commentators have dismissed the demonstrations as mere ‘noise’, I believe a ‘ signal’ can be extracted from the current difficulties of the trade regime. Simply put, the international trading system has not adapted to a rapidly changing global scene – and now faces a serious legitimacy crisis (Keohane and Nye, 2001). This article explores the origins and implications of this crisis. I argue that the WTO stands at a watershed. The post-World War II international order centered on issue-based ‘decomposable hierarchies’ has begun to break down (Simon, 1996; Keohane and Nye, 2001)." A new, more complex and fluid international system is beginning to emerge. But the new architecture has structural flaws. In particular, little attention has been paid to what is required to establish the legitimacy of international organizations in general and the WTO in particular (Bodansky, 1999; Hurd, 1999; Stephan, 1999). The WTO appears simultaneously to be at the leading edge of the economic integration process and yet curiously old-fashioned and out of step with some modern norms, particularly those involving good public decisionmaking. As recent events have demonstrated, coherently managing interdependence is of vital importance. This need makes the resolution of the legitimacy issues surrounding the WTO of even greater urgency. Many of those who criticize the WTO and other elements of international economic structure have little foundation for the charges they make. Indeed, many of the attacks on the WTO are off-base and deeply confused. The suggestion, for instance, that freer trade leads to greater poverty disregards the enormous gains that have been made by hundreds of millions of people across the planet over the last several decades in countries that have opened themselves up to world markets (Bhagwati, 1993; Anderson and Blackhurst, 1992). Those chanting ‘no WTO’ really do not want an international marketplace without structure or rules in which multinational corporations operate without constraints.