It is generally presumed that World Trade Organization (WTO) members display a preference for dispute settlement under WTO rules over those provided for in preferential trade agreements (PTAs). This assumption is driven by observations relating to the large number of PTAs, the low number of PTA cases and the large number of WTO cases, including between PTA partners. These observations are challenged by adopting a methodology that has so far seen relatively limited use in the study of international law network analysis. This article finds, first, the network of connections among WTO members formed by PTAs is far less dense than appears to have been assumed. Second, while almost half of all WTO members have participated in WTO proceedings at least once, the vast majority of bilateral relations among WTO members have never been subject to WTO dispute settlement. This puts the perceived idleness of PTA dispute settlement into perspective. Lastly, the share of WTO cases that could have been settled under PTA procedures is far lower than commonly believed. This low share shows that there is no widespread predilection for the WTO, as commonly argued, but, more often than not, a genuine absence of choice. Ultimately, as the PTA network is unable to act as a substitute, WTO dispute settlement continues to hold a central place in the rules-based global trading system.

中文翻译：

---

优惠贸易协定与世贸组织的争端解决：闲置与论坛选择的网络分析

人们普遍认为，世界贸易组织 (WTO) 成员在 WTO 规则下表现出对争端解决的偏好，而不是优惠贸易协定 (PTA) 中规定的争端解决方式。这一假设是由与大量 PTA、少量 PTA 案件和大量 WTO 案件（包括 PTA 合作伙伴之间）相关的观察推动的。这些观察受到采用迄今为止在国际法网络分析研究中使用相对有限的方法的挑战。本文发现，首先，由 PTA 形成的 WTO 成员之间的联系网络远没有想象的那么密集。其次，虽然几乎一半的世贸组织成员至少参加过一次世贸组织程序，世贸组织成员之间的绝大多数双边关系从未受到世贸组织争端解决的约束。这让人们看到了 PTA 争端解决的闲置。最后，可以通过 PTA 程序解决的 WTO 案件的比例远低于人们普遍认为的。这一低比例表明，世贸组织并没有像人们普遍认为的那样普遍偏爱，但通常情况下，确实没有选择。最终，由于 PTA 网络无法替代，WTO 争端解决机制继续在基于规则的全球贸易体系中占据中心位置。这一低比例表明，世贸组织并没有像人们普遍认为的那样普遍偏爱，但通常情况下，确实没有选择。最终，由于 PTA 网络无法替代，WTO 争端解决机制继续在基于规则的全球贸易体系中占据中心位置。这一低比例表明，世贸组织并没有像人们普遍认为的那样普遍偏爱，但通常情况下，确实没有选择。最终，由于 PTA 网络无法替代，WTO 争端解决机制继续在基于规则的全球贸易体系中占据中心位置。