Weakening or Abandoning Consensus Not an Option for a Diverse WTO

This chapter argues that weakening or abandoning consensus is not an option for a diverse WTO, demonstrating that consensus is not merely a procedural convention but a foundational feature of the multilateral trading system. Inherited from the GATT era, the Organization’s near-exclusive reliance on consensus has conferred upon it a practical constitutional role and status. Within a highly legalized system that entails sovereignty constraint, consensus operates as a structural safeguard, reassuring Members that their legally binding obligations will not be expanded, reinterpreted or intensified without their explicit or tacit agreement. Furthermore, consensus serves as an institutional expression of inclusiveness and equality of memberships. It operationalizes formal membership equality in daily practice, ensuring that every Member retains meaningful participation and fostering a sense of shared ownership over negotiated outcomes, which is particularly important for smaller Members with limited economic or political leverage. Beyond these constitutional and inclusive functions, consensus generates practical benefits in compliance. While internal and external factors can cause non-compliance, outcomes reached through a consensual process reduce its likelihood compared with voting, supporting the integrity of commitments and treaty obligations. Conversely, abandoning or departing from consensus risks a profound legitimacy loss and erodes confidence in the WTO’s institutional framework. Under majority-based or alternative mechanisms, smaller Members may perceive that their views are effectively marginalized, which weakens procedural fairness and increases risks of selective compliance or disengagement. Ultimately, the chapter concludes that replacing or weakening consensus is an institutional misdiagnosis; its challenges arise not from flaws in the consensus rule itself, but from the complex interplay of political, domestic and strategic factors within the decision-making environment, meaning that potential improvements must focus on institutional practices rather than changing or altering the rule itself.