In this article, we provide some descriptive statistics of the first twenty years of the WTO (World Trade Organization) dispute settlement., that we have extracted from the data set that we have put together, and made publicly available (http://globalgovernancepro gramme.eui.eu/wto-case-law-project/). The statistical information that we present here is divided into three thematic units: the statutory and de facto duration of each stage of the process, paying particular attention to the eventual conclusion of litigation; the identity and participation in the process of the various institutional players, that is, not only complainants and defendants, but also third parties, as well as the WTO judges (panellists and Appellate Body members); and, finally, information regarding the subjectmatter of various disputes, regarding the frequency with which claims regarding consistency of measures with the covered agreements (but also, at a more disaggregate level, e.g. specific provisions) have been raised. We call our work ‘descriptive statistics’, because, in an effort to provide raw material that will help researchers to conduct their research as they see fit, we have consciously refrained from systematically interpreting the data that we have assembled.

World Trade Organization (WTO) judges are proposed by the WTO Secretariat and elected to act as 'judges' if either approved by the parties to a dispute, or, by the WTO Director-General in case no agreement between the parties has been possible. They are typically 'Geneva crowd', that is, they are either current or former delegates representing their country before the WTO. This observation holds for both first as well as second instance WTO judges (e.g., Panellists and members of the Appellate Body). In that, the WTO evidences an attitude strikingly similar to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). Whereas the legal regime has been heavily 'legalized', the people called to enforce it remain the same.