The Use of Trade Coercion and China’s Model of ‘Passive-Aggressive Legalism’

IF 2.6 1区 社会学 Q1 LAW Journal of International Economic Law Pub Date : 2023-01-07 DOI:10.1093/jiel/jgac055
Ben Czapnik, Bryan Mercurio
{"title":"The Use of Trade Coercion and China’s Model of ‘Passive-Aggressive Legalism’","authors":"Ben Czapnik, Bryan Mercurio","doi":"10.1093/jiel/jgac055","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT There is a growing view among both governments and commentators, especially in the West, that China engages in acts of trade coercion which violate the law and spirit of the multilateral trading system. And while there is a developing literature discussing this issue, the debate currently lacks clarity about how China’s approach differs from other types of coercion which do not inspire the same backlash. This article advances the literature by suggesting that Chinese trade coercion is particularly threatening to the rules-based system (RBS) as it uses methods that had largely been eradicated under the GATT/WTO system. Chinese trade coercion therefore represents a “new” and important phenomenon in international trade as it uses coercion for strategic purposes, usually as retaliation for perceived affronts in matters unrelated to trade. We label this approach “passive-aggressive legalism” because, rather than relying on open dialogue to resolve diplomatic frictions, China implements informal and “plausibly deniable” retaliatory measures to indirectly make its displeasure known and felt. The article concludes by making broader claims about why China’s approach represents a threat to the WTO system and may even undermine the effectiveness of rules-based constraints in other domains of global regulation.","PeriodicalId":46864,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Economic Law","volume":"14 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of International Economic Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jiel/jgac055","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

ABSTRACT There is a growing view among both governments and commentators, especially in the West, that China engages in acts of trade coercion which violate the law and spirit of the multilateral trading system. And while there is a developing literature discussing this issue, the debate currently lacks clarity about how China’s approach differs from other types of coercion which do not inspire the same backlash. This article advances the literature by suggesting that Chinese trade coercion is particularly threatening to the rules-based system (RBS) as it uses methods that had largely been eradicated under the GATT/WTO system. Chinese trade coercion therefore represents a “new” and important phenomenon in international trade as it uses coercion for strategic purposes, usually as retaliation for perceived affronts in matters unrelated to trade. We label this approach “passive-aggressive legalism” because, rather than relying on open dialogue to resolve diplomatic frictions, China implements informal and “plausibly deniable” retaliatory measures to indirectly make its displeasure known and felt. The article concludes by making broader claims about why China’s approach represents a threat to the WTO system and may even undermine the effectiveness of rules-based constraints in other domains of global regulation.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
贸易胁迫的使用与中国的“被动侵略法家”模式
越来越多的政府和评论家,尤其是西方国家的政府和评论家认为,中国的贸易胁迫行为违反了多边贸易体制的法律和精神。尽管有越来越多的文献讨论这一问题,但目前的争论尚不清楚中国的做法与其他类型的胁迫有何不同,后者不会引发同样的反弹。本文通过提出中国的贸易胁迫对基于规则的体系(RBS)尤其具有威胁性,因为它使用的方法在关贸总协定/世贸组织体系下基本上已经被根除了。因此,中国的贸易胁迫在国际贸易中代表了一种“新的”和重要的现象,因为它将胁迫用于战略目的,通常是对与贸易无关的事务上的冒犯进行报复。我们将这种做法称为“被动攻击的法律主义”,因为中国不是依靠公开对话来解决外交摩擦,而是采取非正式的、“貌似可否认的”报复措施,间接地让人们知道和感受到它的不满。文章最后提出了更广泛的主张,即为什么中国的做法对WTO体系构成了威胁,甚至可能破坏其他全球监管领域基于规则的约束的有效性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
9.70%
发文量
42
期刊介绍: The Journal of International Economic Law is dedicated to encouraging thoughtful and scholarly attention to a very broad range of subjects that concern the relation of law to international economic activity, by providing the major English language medium for publication of high-quality manuscripts relevant to the endeavours of scholars, government officials, legal professionals, and others. The journal"s emphasis is on fundamental, long-term, systemic problems and possible solutions, in the light of empirical observations and experience, as well as theoretical and multi-disciplinary approaches.
期刊最新文献
Dynamic diffusion The automatic termination clause in the Fisheries Subsidies Agreement—brinkmanship for future negotiation or a time bomb for self-destruction? The utility of appellate review at the WTO and its optimal structure Rethinking the ‘Full Reparation’ standard in energy investment arbitration: how to take climate change into account Regulatory autonomy in digital trade agreements
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1