738 International Organization The Puzzle Why do complainants file some disputes regionally,others multilaterally,and still others not at all?The most obvious answer would be that institutional rules pre- determine where complainants file.The purpose of this section is to show that there is ample opportunity for forum shopping,not least because,as with most other trade agreements,the WTO and NAFTA permit it.The WTO is less forth- coming than NAFTA on this point.On the one hand,the WTO claims "compul- sory jurisdiction"over those disputes that arise among its members.On the other hand,the WTO approves preferential trade agreements under Article XXIV of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT),taking into account that many have dispute settlement mechanisms of their own,thus inviting forum shopping. For example,in reviewing the Canada-U.S.Free Trade Agreement(FTA),which preceded NAFTA,a GATT Working Group asked representatives of both coun- tries what would happen"if the conclusions of the bilateral dispute settlement pro- ceedings...and those reached under the multilateral dispute settlement proceedings were different or even contradictory...?"0 For its part,NAFTA's main dispute settlement mechanism,Chapter 20,explains that"disputes regarding any matter arising under both this Agreement and the Gen- eral Agreement on Tariffs and Trade,any agreement negotiated thereunder,or any successor agreement...may be settled in either forum at the discretion of the complaining Party."This language is echoed in most other trade agreements, from the U.S.-Chile to the EC-Mexico and Canada-Costa Rica accords.2 If there is a disagreement over the complainant's choice of forum,NAFTA's Article 2005, paragraph 2,says that"normally"it should hear the dispute,with Articles 2005, paragraphs 3 to 4,claiming jurisdiction over disputes under Article 104(Environ- mental and Conservation Agreements),Chapter 7(Sanitary and Phytosanitary Mea- sures)and Chapter 9(Standards).These limited claims of jurisdiction,however, reflect the fact that,at the time of its inception,NAFTA either had an exclusive or stronger grasp of these issues in relation to the GATT,3 though they are unlikely (and,in fact,are doubtful to be able)to prevent a complainant from going,instead, to the WTO.14 10.GATT Basic Instruments and Selected Documents 1995,suppl.38. 11.Article 2005:1.Under the FTA,this was Article 1801:2. 12.Indeed,in reviewing the texts of all trade agreements containing a formal dispute settlement chapter,as listed in the Dartmouth Tuck Trade Agreement Database,I found only a few exceptions that,like the CARICOM-Colombia agreement,make no mention of the opportunity for forum shop- ping.See Tuck School of Business at Dartmouth,Tuck Trade Agreements Database.Available at (http:// cibresearch.tuck.dartmouth.edu/trade_agreements_db/).Accessed 21 March 2007. 13.In particular,there is no equivalent of Article 104 under the WTO,and while Chapters 7 and 9 had no formal equivalent under GATT,they do under the WTO (that is,the Agreement on the Appli- cation of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures,and the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade). 14.Marceau2001,1111.The Puzzle Why do complainants file some disputes regionally, others multilaterally, and still others not at all? The most obvious answer would be that institutional rules pre￾determine where complainants file+ The purpose of this section is to show that there is ample opportunity for forum shopping, not least because, as with most other trade agreements, the WTO and NAFTA permit it+ The WTO is less forth￾coming than NAFTA on this point+ On the one hand, the WTO claims “compul￾sory jurisdiction” over those disputes that arise among its members+ On the other hand, the WTO approves preferential trade agreements under Article XXIV of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade ~GATT!, taking into account that many have dispute settlement mechanisms of their own, thus inviting forum shopping+ For example, in reviewing the Canada–U+S+ Free Trade Agreement ~FTA!, which preceded NAFTA, a GATT Working Group asked representatives of both coun￾tries what would happen “if the conclusions of the bilateral dispute settlement pro￾ceedings +++ and those reached under the multilateral dispute settlement proceedings were different or even contradictory+++ ?”10 For its part, NAFTA’s main dispute settlement mechanism, Chapter 20, explains that “disputes regarding any matter arising under both this Agreement and the Gen￾eral Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, any agreement negotiated thereunder, or any successor agreement +++ may be settled in either forum at the discretion of the complaining Party+”11 This language is echoed in most other trade agreements, from the U+S+–Chile to the EC–Mexico and Canada–Costa Rica accords+ 12 If there is a disagreement over the complainant’s choice of forum, NAFTA’s Article 2005, paragraph 2, says that “normally” it should hear the dispute, with Articles 2005, paragraphs 3 to 4, claiming jurisdiction over disputes under Article 104 ~Environ￾mental and Conservation Agreements!, Chapter 7 ~Sanitary and Phytosanitary Mea￾sures! and Chapter 9 ~Standards!+ These limited claims of jurisdiction, however, reflect the fact that, at the time of its inception, NAFTA either had an exclusive or stronger grasp of these issues in relation to the GATT, 13 though they are unlikely ~and, in fact, are doubtful to be able! to prevent a complainant from going, instead, to the WTO+ 14 10+ GATT Basic Instruments and Selected Documents 1995, suppl+ 38+ 11+ Article 2005:1+ Under the FTA, this was Article 1801:2+ 12+ Indeed, in reviewing the texts of all trade agreements containing a formal dispute settlement chapter, as listed in the Dartmouth Tuck Trade Agreement Database, I found only a few exceptions that, like the CARICOM–Colombia agreement, make no mention of the opportunity for forum shop￾ping+ See Tuck School of Business at Dartmouth, Tuck Trade Agreements Database+ Available at ^http:00 cibresearch+tuck+dartmouth+edu0trade_agreements_db0&+ Accessed 21 March 2007+ 13+ In particular, there is no equivalent of Article 104 under the WTO, and while Chapters 7 and 9 had no formal equivalent under GATT, they do under the WTO ~that is, the Agreement on the Appli￾cation of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures, and the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade!+ 14+ Marceau 2001, 1111+ 738 International Organization