Learning to Dispute: Repeat Participation, Expertise, and Reputation at the World Trade Organization Joseph A. Conti This mixed-method analysis examines the effects of repeat participation on disputing at the World Trade Organization (WTO). Differences between disputants in terms of their experience with WTO disputing processes affect the likelihood of a dispute transitioning to a panel review in distinct ways, depend- ing upon the configuration of the parties. More experienced complainants tend to achieve settlements, while more experienced respondents tend to refuse conciliation. Strategies of experienced respondents are derived from the exper- tise generated from repeated direct participation and the normalcy of disputing for repeat players as well as the benefits accruing from a reputation for being unlikely to settle. Repeat players also seek to avoid disputes expected to produce unfavorable jurisprudence but do not actively try to create new case law through the selection of disputes. This research demonstrates a dynamic learn- ing process in how parties use international legal forums and thus extends sociolegal scholarship beyond the nation-state. INTRODUCTION The normative claim underwriting recourse to law in international affairs is that law treats all legal actors, including vastly unequal countries, Joseph A. Conti is an assistant professor of sociology and law at the University of Wisconsin, Madison. Please direct comments and other correspondence to jconti@ssc.wisc.edu. This research has been supported by a National Science Foundation Dissertation Improve- ment Grant (#0402260), the University of California Institute on Global Conflict and Coop- eration Dissertation Fellowship, the Horowitz Foundation for Social Policy Dissertation Grant, the James D. Kline Fund for International Studies, the Abelina Suarez Educational Trust, and the American Bar Foundation. Special thanks are owed to three anonymous reviewers. Jennifer Earl, John Sutton, Richard Appelbaum, Karen Alter, and Moira O’Neil each provided valuable commentary on this research. All errors are my own. Law & Social Inquiry Volume 35, Issue 3, 625–662, Summer 2010 Law & Social Inquiry Journal of the American Bar Foundation © 2010 American Bar Foundation. 625