Suchergebnisse

In a time of changing trade norms, when free trade seems to be giving way to new kinds of nationalism, some fundamental questions about trade are still not being asked. Is trade consensual or coercive? Is 'free trade' as currently practiced really free? If not, what difference can trade law make in addressing economically oppressive practices that nationalistic trade policies cannot? In this book Garcia offers an examination of trade law's roots in consensual exchange, highlighting the central role of consent in differentiating trade from legally facilitated coercion, exploitation or predation. The book revisits the premise of consensual exchange which underlies the rhetoric of 'free trade', and then examines the social and political conditions that are a necessary part of a more genuine trade law system, in service of the idea that recovering consent in trade law can promote human flourishing on a global scale

Why does a textbook on trade law end with a chapter on justice? By justice I mean that branch of political theory (going back to Aristotle) that concerns itself with the allocative fairness of social institutions, i.e. how rights, resources, privileges and opportunities are divided among those participating in the social enterprise. Why, indeed, has the relationship between justice and international economic law become an increasingly urgent subject of academic and policy debate? First, it has been increasingly recognized that international economic law and its institutions are powerful engines of resource allocation, establishing patterns of distribution for market access, subsidies, IP, investment capital, rights of establishment, dispute resolution between states and within states, and among various groups, entities, firms and individuals. So, we must then ask ourselves, "What kind of distributive pattern is international economic law making, and what do we think of it?" The stark figures on global poverty and political instability around the world, with an undeniable (but contentious) connection to the structure of economic relations between and within countries, have highlighted the stakes involved in this relationship. So too have the globalization debates, putting the distributive effects of international economic law and its institutions at the centre of global justice.

International trade and economic globalization are in crisis. In the U.S. and elsewhere, current regimes like NAFTA and the EU, and trade deals like the TTIP and the TPP, have become targets for the political backlash against trade and its larger context, economic globalization. Brexit and the 2016 U.S. election remind us that many feel betrayed by current trade policies, that free trade is being imposed on them at their cost but for others' benefit. At the heart of this crisis, however, there are as always opportunities. First, we have an opportunity to return to trade's roots in consent. Trade is nothing more or less than the economic bargains we agree to, and the rules we agree on to protect, support and facilitate these bargains. However, by this standard much of what passes today for trade is not really trade at all but something else: coercion, exploitation, or worse. Second, we have an opportunity to look below the surface of contemporary events, where deeper underlying trends point towards the early days of a larger, more inclusive set of socioeconomic relationships we can call global market society. These two lines of investigation themselves converge into the present inquiry: what kind of trade regulation does a global market society need in order to flourish? How is that different from conventional, contemporary "trade" agreements? And how do we support the most vulnerable workers and others marginalized by economic globalization in the process of collectively pursuing these economic and social opportunities? If the heart of trade is consensual economic exchange, then this has ramifications throughout the entire social framework we use to recognize, support, protect and facilitate consensual economic exchanges.

Development is about aspiration—our longing for a better life as individuals and as a community—and respect, as we individually and collectively recognize and support these aspirations. Development requires the freedom to define and choose that better life; a fair share of the resources needed to realize that life; and narratives of where we currently stand with regard to our aspirations and why, where we want to go, and what it will take to get there. This means that development inevitably takes place in and through politics, law, and the social sciences (especially economics), as we work to articulate our claims and understand how development can occur sustainably within an environment of finite resources. Development raises difficult issues of causality, path dependence, responsibility and justice, which can and have led to urgent and painful conflicts. However, globalization and recent innovative thinking on development may herald a new "post-national" development discourse in which we no longer arbitrarily distinguish between the "local" and the "global," opening the way to increased understanding and cooperation towards deeply shared aims, and a more just global order, meaning inclusive, effective investment in human capabilities for everyone.

This Perspective argues that investment law is ripe for a paradigm shift away from pure capital protection. Rather, investment law should be recognized as part of a comprehensive global economic governance system for ensuring justice and the rule of law, in this case in the allocation of investment capital.

Globalization is fundamentally transforming economic and social relations but its impact has yet to be fully realized in jurisprudence and political theory. In this article I argue that globalization is creating new normative possibilities by developing the social basis for a truly "global" justice, thereby transcending the objections most commonly raised by contractarian and communitarian critics. As globalization reduces or eliminates the role of time and space in many kinds of interactions, we see emerging a new global community, consisting of shared understandings, practices, and traditions capable of supporting obligations of justice at a global level. Members of this global web of relationships are increasingly aware of each other's needs and circumstances, increasingly capable of effectively addressing these needs, and increasingly contributing to these circumstances in the first place. They find themselves involved in the same global market society, and together they look to the same organizations, especially those at the meta-state level, to provide regulatory approaches to problems of global social policy. I argue that these developments are constituting community with respect to different issues, institutions and sets of social relations within the global social space. Among other implications, this allows for a "global basic package" or "global minimum ethics" approach to global justice, consisting of a basic bundle of political, social, and economic rights safeguarded through global law and delivered in a partnership between global and national institutions. I conclude by arguing that globalization is changing not only the content of our substantive norms but also the pace at which communal bonds emerge, allowing us to begin envisioning a "post-global" future.