Abstract

This article explores how practice theory can contribute towards a better understanding of the regular multilateral diplomacy that sustains the World Trade Organization (WTO). Based on interviews, participant observation and a systematic review of WTO documents, it demonstrates how state representatives define and contest the ways in which the many specialized WTO committees conduct their day-to-day operations. First, I show how informal practices that developed organically out of the continued interactions give structure to the committee work. By providing baselines for mutually intelligible interaction, these practices have enabled the delegations to elaborate on the existing multilateral trade agreements and resolve disagreements before they escalate. Second, the article explains why these same committee practices have been – and remain – contested between the members. Precisely because they define feasible paths of action and normalize certain actions in the eyes of the membership, the representatives creatively try to change or retain certain practices in their everyday exchanges. Overall, the article argues that a full explanation of the performance and significance of the WTO is impossible without understanding the practices that guide its regular work, and why these practices remain contested between an increasing number of active WTO members.

摘要

本文探讨了实践理论如何有助于更好地理解维持世界贸易组织 (WTO) 的常规多边外交。基于采访、参与者观察和对 WTO 文件的系统审查，它展示了国家代表如何定义和质疑许多专门的 WTO 委员会开展日常运作的方式。首先，我展示了从持续互动中有机发展的非正式实践如何为委员会工作提供结构。通过为相互理解的互动提供基线，这些做法使代表团能够详细阐述现有的多边贸易协定，并在分歧升级之前解决分歧。第二，这篇文章解释了为什么这些相同的委员会做法一直 - 并且仍然 - 在成员之间存在争议。正是因为他们定义了可行的行动路径，并在成员眼中规范了某些行动，代表们创造性地试图在日常交流中改变或保留某些做法。总的来说，本文认为，如果不了解指导其日常工作的实践，以及为什么这些实践在越来越多的活跃 WTO 成员之间仍然存在争议，就不可能对 WTO 的绩效和意义做出完整的解释。