Suchergebnisse

Transforming World Trade and Investment Law for Sustainable Development explains why the 2030 UN Sustainable Development Agenda for 'Transforming our World'-aimed at realizing 'the human rights of all' and seventeen agreed Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)-requires transforming the United Nations (UN) and World Trade Organization (WTO) legal systems, as well as international investment law and adjudication. UN and WTO law protect regulatory competition between diverse neo-liberal, state capitalist, European ordo-liberal, and third-world conceptions of multilevel trade and investment regulation. However, geopolitical rivalries and trade wars increasingly undermine transnational rule of law and effective regulation of market failures, governance failures, and constitutional failures. For example, the intergovernmental negotiations in the context of the 1992 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change have failed to prevent or considerably limit climate change. In order to prevent trade, investment, energy, and climate conflicts, sustainable development requires reforming trade, investment, and environmental rules and dispute settlement systems. The global health pandemics confirm the need for constitutional reforms of multilevel governance of global public goods. Investment law and adjudication must better reconcile governmental duties to protect human rights and decarbonize economies with the property rights of foreign investors. The constitutional, human rights, and environmental litigation in Europe enhances the legal accountability of democratic governments for protecting sustainable development, but European economic constitutionalism has been rejected by Anglo-Saxon neo-liberalism, China's authoritarian state capitalism, and many third-world governments. The more that regional economic orders (like the China-led Belt and Road networks) reveal heterogeneity and power politics block UN and WTO reforms, the more the US-led neo-liberal world order risks disintegrating. UN and WTO law must promote private-public network governance, civil society participation, and stronger judicial accountability in order to stabilize and depoliticize multilevel governance of the SDGs.

The current human disasters – like illegal wars of aggression, violent suppression of human and democratic rights, health pandemics, climate change, ocean pollution, overfishing and other biodiversity losses, non-compliance with United Nations (UN) and World Trade Organization (WTO) law – reflect governance failures and insufficient cooperation (section I.) to protect the 'sustainable development goals' (SDGs). Since 1950, Europe's multilevel constitutionalism succeeded in progressively limiting transnational governance failures; yet, it is not followed outside Europe (section II.). Geopolitical rivalries (e. g. among authoritarian and democratic states) and competing national and regional regulations (e. g. on decarbonisation, digitalisation, and securitisation of economies) increasingly undermine UN and WTO legal restraints and judicial remedies (see section III.). The more globalisation is perceived as creating vulnerabilities justifying national security restrictions (e. g. against spread of viruses, weaponisation of interdependence), the more democracies resort to plurilateral second-best responses like trade, investment and environmental agreements conditioning market access on respect for human rights and greenhouse gas reductions (section IV.). This contribution explains why regulatory competition, 'authoritarian alliances', and their influence on plurilateral agreements (e. g. in Asia) render 'constitutional UN/WTO reforms' and realisation of the SDGs unlikely.

The 2030 UN Sustainable Development Agenda aims at 'transforming our world' to protect universally agreed sustainable development goals (SDGs) that – due to globalization – can no longer be secured by any state without international law and multilevel governance of global public goods (PGs). Democratic and republican constitutionalism historically emerged as the most effective methods for protecting local and national PGs demanded by citizens; they need to be complemented by functionally limited, multilevel constitutionalism securing transnational 'aggregate PGs' like mutually beneficial trade, investment and environmental protection systems. This contribution explains why commitments to human rights, democratic governance and rule of law have become incomplete safeguards of the SDGs without complementary, constitutional reforms of international trade law (II), investment law (III) and environmental law (IV). Human rights require embedding national 'constitutionalism 1.0' and functionally limited 'treaty constitutions 2.0' into 'cosmopolitan constitutionalism 3.0' empowering and protecting citizens and representative, multilevel governance institutions (V). Constitutional, participatory and deliberative democracy, private-public partnerships (e.g. for inventing and producing vaccines) and citizen-driven network governance (e.g. for decarbonizing economies) remain crucial for providing PGs and for protecting humanity against authoritarian power politics (VI). Are the necessary constitutional reforms politically feasible at a time of Russian wars of aggression aimed at suppressing human rights and democratic governance?

ABSTRACT
The current non-compliance with United Nations (UN) and World Trade Organization (WTO) agreements protecting transnational public goods, military aggression among WTO members, violent suppression of human and democratic rights, global health pandemics, climate change, ocean pollution, overfishing, and other biodiversity losses reflect 'governance failures' (e.g. to limit 'market failures') and 'constitutional failures' (e.g. to protect human and democratic rights and the sustainable development goals). The geopolitical rivalries among totalitarian governments and democracies render constitutional UN and WTO reforms unlikely. They entail 'regulatory competition' (e.g. among neoliberalism, state capitalism, and ordo-liberal constitutionalism) and plurilateral responses aimed at limiting abuses of power (like collective countermeasures against Russia's illegal wars and war crimes) and at protecting transnational public goods (like plurilateral 'climate change mitigation clubs', appeal arbitration among WTO members, regional human rights and security agreements). The power politics disrupting the UN and WTO legal systems is bound to promote regionalization of economic law, re-globalization of supply chains, and geopolitical rivalries resulting from conflicting value priorities and neglect for the human rights underlying the sustainable development goals.