John Jackson was one of the giants in trade law, with Robert Hudec (who died some years ago) as his equal, though their abilities and interests nicely complemented each other.Footnote 1 They both were read with profit, along with other luminaries such as Michael Trebilcock of Toronto, by economists such as myself. They also inspired modern trade-law stars such as my colleagues Petros Mavroidis, David Leebron at Rice, and Alan Sykes at Stanford.
I recall John Jackson, whose death came as a shock to me as I was not aware of his illness, particularly because I was a frequent visitor to Michigan where Alan Deardorff and Robert Stern, distinguished trade economists, organized many conferences on topics that intertwined law and economics. So, one always met John Jackson there, and also his wife, Joan, now his widow.
I had often interacted with lawyers, especially human rights and tax lawyers, because of my long-standing interest in flows of humanity across national borders and my proposal that income tax jurisdiction be extended to nationals residing or working abroad. But in John, I found a kindred spirit in my main love, international trade. We were in constant touch over difficult issues, and he would always respond with insight and illuminations. We also encountered each other at the WTO, including in expert groups where I recall fondly also two kindred spirits, Sylvia Ostry and Robert Baldwin. John was the world's leading authority on the Dispute Settlement Mechanism, which he had inspired.
My great pleasure, when I was elected to the WTO's Hall of Fame, was to discover that John had received this honour as the first recipient, which showed that John's reputation as an architect of the multilateral trading system had transcended mere scholarship. In his case, the honour was entirely well deserved, though I was surprised to discover that the honour had also been extended to a compatriot of mine whose opposition to trade liberalization should have led to his election instead to a Hall of Shame!
I saw John often after he moved to Washington and consulted with him on issues of trade policy that keep us scholars busy, because protectionism, like New York's cockroaches, can never be stamped out.
A great man and scholar has left us. But his legacy is with us. So is, for me and doubtless for many others, the memory of his warm and generous friendship.
