Let's say you are a government who is concerned about the WTO-consistency of a particular measure of a trading partner. You'd really like for that measure to be found in violation of WTO rules. Does bringing additional, less convincing, claims against other measures (perhaps related to the first measure, perhaps not) increase the chances that you'll win the claim you really care about? The theory is that the panel can "split the difference" by finding a violation for the claim you really want to win, but rejecting the other claims, thereby seeming to give both sides something.
I'd be curious to hear if somebody has ever tried to answer this question, empirically or otherwise.
