منابع

الف ـ فارسی

1. انصاری، مهدی، 1390، «نظریة نقض کارآمد قرارداد از دیدگاه مکتب تحلیل اقتصادی حقوق»، فصلنامة حقوق، مجلة دانشکده حقوق و علوم سیاسی دانشگاه تهران، دورة 41، شمارة 1، بهار 1390، صص 39-57.
2. شیروی، عبدالحسین، 1391، حقوق تجارت بین­الملل، ویراست 2، چاپ چهارم، تهران، سمت.
   1. Bagwell, Kyle, (2008), "Remedies in the World Trade Organization: an Economic Perspective", in Merit E. Janow, Victoria Donaldson, and Alan Yanovich (eds), The WTO: Governance, Dispute Settlement, and Developing Countries, Huntington: Juris Publishing, pp. 733-770.
   2. Bohanes, E.g. Jan and Garza, Fernanda, (2012), ‘Going Beyond Stereotypes: Participation of Developing Countries in WTO Dispute Settlement’, Trade, Law and Development Vol. 4, pp. 45–124.
   3. Bronckers, Marco & Baetens, Freya, (2013), Reconsidering financial remedies in WTO dispute settlement, Journal of International Economic Law, Vol. 16, issue. 2, pp. 281–311.
   4. Bronckers, Marco & Goelen, Sophie, (2012), Financial Liability of the EU for WTO Violations – A legislative proposal benefiting innocent bystanders’, Legal Issues of Economic Integration, Vol. 39, No. 4, pp. 399–418.
   5. Bronckers, Marco & Van den Broek, Naboth, (2005), Financial Compensation in the WTO: Improving the Remedies of WTO Dispute Settlement, Vol. 8, Journal of International Economic Law, pp. 101-126.
   6. Davies, Arwel, (2006), Reviewing dispute settlement at the World Trade Organization, World Trade Review , Vol. 5, Issue. 1, pp. 31-67.
   7. Grossmann, Gene M. & Sykes, Alan O., (2011), ‘‘Optimal’’ Retaliation in the WTO: A Commentary on the Upland Cotton Arbitration’, World Trade Review, Vol. 10, Special Issue 01, pp. 133–164.
   8. Jack, Brian, (2011), Enforcing Member State Compliance with EU Environmental Law: A Critical Evaluation of the Use of Financial Penalties, Journal of Environmental Law, Vol. 23, issue. 1, pp. 73—95.
   9. Jackson, John H., (1979), Governmental Disputes in International Trade Relations: A Proposal in the Context of GAT’, Journal of World Trade Law, Vol. 13, Issue. 1, pp. 1-21.
   10. Jackson, John, (2004), International Law Status of WTO Dispute Settlement Reports: Obligation to Comply or Option to ‘‘Buy Out’’?, American Journal of International Law, Vol. 98, pp. 109-125.
   11. Mabadeje, Esq, Bukola, (2008), WTO Dispute Settlement Remedies: Monetary Compensation as an Alternative for Developing Countries, Essays on the Future of the World Trade Organization, by Editions Interuniversitaires Suisses Vol. 2, p. 20
   12. Mavroidis, Petros C., (2000), Remedies in the WTO Legal Syastem: Between a Rock and a Hard Place, European Journal of International Law, Vol. 11, pp. 763–813.
   13. Mavroidis, Petros C., (2012), ‘Briefing Paper on Compliance in the WTO: Enforcement Amongst Unequal Disputants’, No. 4/2012, CUTS International, pp. 1-4.
   14. Pauwelyn, Joost, (2010), The Calculation and Design of Trade Retaliation in Context: what is the Goal of Suspending WTO Obligations?, with comments by John Jackson and Alan O. Sykes, in Chad P. Bown and Joost Pauwelyn (eds), The Law, Economics and Politics of Retaliation in WTO Dispute Settlement, Cambridge University Press, New York, pp. 99-114.
   15. Pelc, Krzystof J., (2010), Eluding Efficiency: Why do We Not See More Efficient Breach at the WTO?, World Trade Review, Vol. 9, Issue. 4, pp. 629-642.
       1. Posner, Eric A. & Sykes, Alan O., (2011), Efficient Breach of International Law: Optimal Remedies, ‘Legalized Noncompliance, and Related Issues, University of Chicago Law & Economics, Olin Working Paper No. 546; Stanford Law and Economics Olin Working Paper No. 409, available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=1780463, (last visited: 06/22/2015)
       2. Kaufmann-Kohler, Gabrielle, (2010), ‘Compensation assessments: Perspectives from investment arbitration,’ in Chad P. Bown and Joost Pauwelyn (eds.),The Law Economics and Politics of Trade Retaliation in WTO Dispute Settlement,Cambridge University Press, pp. 623-640.
       3. Schnepf, Randy, (2011), ‘Brazil’s WTO Case against the U.S. Cotton Program’, CRS Report for Congress, pp. 1-16.
       4. Shepherd, Jordan, Sokolova, Maria V., Wakjira, Wagari Negassa, (2012), EFFECTIVE COMPLIANCE IN THE DSU: THE MECHANICS OF MONETARY OMPENSATION AS A FORM OF REPARATION, Trade and Investment Law Clinic Papers, pp. 1-76.
       5. Sykes, Alan O. (2010), Optimal Sanctions in the WTO: the Case for Decoupling (and the Uneasy Case for the status quo), Stanford Law and Economics Olin Working Paper No. 379, available at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1444589. (last visited: 06/22/2015).
       6. WON LEE, KIL, (2011), IMPROVING REMEDIES IN THE WTO DISPUTE SETTLEMENT SYSTEM, DISSERTATION, Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of the Science of Law in Law in the Graduate College of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, pp. 1-209.
       7. Zimmerman, Claus D., (2012), The Neglected Link between the Legal Nature of WTO Rules, the Political Filtering of WTO Disputes, and the Absence of Retrospective WTO Remedies, Trade, Law & Development, Vol. 4, No. 1, p. 251.
       8. CJEU, Case C-387/97 Commission v Greece (2000) ECR I-5047.
       9. CJEU, C-278/01 Commission v Spain (2003) ECR I-14144.
       10. General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT)
       11. General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS)
       12. Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (DSU)
       13. WTO Appellate Body Report, Japan – Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages, Report of the Appellate Body, WT/DS8/AB/R, WT/DS10/AB/R, WT/DS11/AB/R, adopted 4 October 1996
       14. WTO Appellate Body Report, EC – Regime for the Importation, Sale and Distribution of Bananas, WT/DS27/AB/R, adopted 9 September 1997
       15. WTO Appellate Body Report, Turkey – Restrictions on Imports of Textile and Clothing Products, Report of the Appellate Body, WT/DS34/AB/R, adopted 22 October 1999.
       16. WTO Appellate Body Report, EC – Export Subsidies on Sugar, WT/DS265/AB/R, WT/DS266/AB/R, WT/DS283/AB/R, adopted 28 April 2005.
       17. WTO Decision by the Arbitrators, EC – Regime for the Importation, Sale and Distribution of Bananas – Recourse to Arbitration by the EC under Article 22.6 of the DSU, WT/DS27/ARB/ ECU, adopted 24 March 2000, paras 73, 126 and 177.
       18. WTO Decision by the Arbitrators, United States — Measures Affecting the Cross-Border Supply of Gambling and Betting Services, Recourse to Arbitration by Antigua and Barbuda under Article 22.6 of the DSU, WT/DS285/ARB, adopted 21 December 2007, para 4.114.
       19. WTO Panel Report, United States – Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act, WT/DS160/R, adopted 15 June 2000.
       20. WTO Panel Report, United States – Subsidies on Upland Cotton, WT/DS267/1, adopted 27 September 2002.

ب ـ لاتین

Documents