If one wants to get a grasp on the international institutional arrangement of what J. G. Ruggie called “embedded liberalism,” which included the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), one must first carefully examine the conditions that made the regime of accumulation called Fordism possible. More precisely, it is essential to grasp how the particular evolution of class struggle in the US strongly influenced the organization of capitalism in this country, and subsequently the international institutions at the core of the embedded liberalism. Simply put, the thesis defended in this article is that the evolution of class struggle in the US in the 1930s and the following decades has been the main influence in the shaping of Fordism and an undervalued factor in the creation of the GATT. The GATT, in other words, is an agreement that strongly corresponds to the necessity of the management of the class struggle associated with Fordism.

The main objective of this article is to explore the background of the World Trade Organization’s (WTO) Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) crisis using Marxist, neo-Marxist or, at least, Marxist-influenced theories of political economy and international relations. Its purpose is twofold. First, to propose an interpretation of the actual WTO crisis that will address alternative interpretations’ gaps. Second, to advance theoretical inputs founded on Marxist or Marxist-influenced writing in political economy, inputs which could be useful elsewhere in critical studies in international law. At the root of the crisis lies the functioning of neoliberalism (understood as the regime of accumulation promoted by US-dominant classes) and the institutions it uses to regulate itself, to deal with contradictions that hurt its capacity to produce profit, and to allow capital accumulation. One of the most important of these institutions, at the international level, is the WTO. We argue that neoliberalism’s incapacity to continuously provide, since the Asian crisis in 1997, a satisfying rate of profit to US capitalists (and to Western capitalists in general, even if our argument focuses on the former) lured it into a crisis. Since the WTO’s main function is to prevent neoliberalism from being hurt by contradictions that would limit its capacity to provide profits allowing capital accumulation, it was inevitable that one day or another, the struggle faced by the latter would also drag the former down in an institutional crisis.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract