Abstract As homo socius, the man lives in a community. Because the law deals with relationships between people, it is necessary to know the fundamental characteristics of these relationships, which are established in a community between people. Because all major social changes involve crowds, legislation and regulation must know how to address collectives, how they are influenced, how collective emotions are formed, and how they can effectively deal with external behavior in and between groups. This Article presents basic elements of crowds that should be included in legal decisions, especially in general ones. The Article shows potential applications of crowd elements in the law presented as a systemic arrangement of complex adaptive systems that can be reflected in the determination of public opinion through crowds. When a legal system in the right meaning of the word “system” determines public opinion and implements actions through crowds, it could be more effective and efficient and thus also more legitimate.
{"title":"Missing Links Between Crowds and Law","authors":"Mirko Pečarič","doi":"10.1017/glj.2023.14","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/glj.2023.14","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract As homo socius, the man lives in a community. Because the law deals with relationships between people, it is necessary to know the fundamental characteristics of these relationships, which are established in a community between people. Because all major social changes involve crowds, legislation and regulation must know how to address collectives, how they are influenced, how collective emotions are formed, and how they can effectively deal with external behavior in and between groups. This Article presents basic elements of crowds that should be included in legal decisions, especially in general ones. The Article shows potential applications of crowd elements in the law presented as a systemic arrangement of complex adaptive systems that can be reflected in the determination of public opinion through crowds. When a legal system in the right meaning of the word “system” determines public opinion and implements actions through crowds, it could be more effective and efficient and thus also more legitimate.","PeriodicalId":36303,"journal":{"name":"German Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2023-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48855428","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"GLJ volume 24 issue 2 Cover and Front matter","authors":"","doi":"10.1017/glj.2023.23","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/glj.2023.23","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":36303,"journal":{"name":"German Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2023-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43598842","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article considers the structural barriers that exist for individuals to hold the EU responsible for violations of human rights abuses in its CSDP missions, despite the theoretical availability of a framework for remedies. This is a result of jurisdictional complications with CFSP/CDSP measures, attribution difficulties, and ambiguity in what constitutes unlawful human rights conduct. While alternative measures exist to compensate individuals for violation of their rights, these do not align with the often-stated right to an effective remedy within the EU. As such, this Article argues that the field requires serious reform in order to ensure that legal relief for individuals against unlawful conduct by the EU is an effective and enforceable right.
{"title":"Effective Remedies for Human Rights Violations in EU CSDP Military Missions: Smoke and Mirrors in Human Rights Adjudication?","authors":"Joyce De Coninck","doi":"10.1017/glj.2023.19","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/glj.2023.19","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 This article considers the structural barriers that exist for individuals to hold the EU responsible for violations of human rights abuses in its CSDP missions, despite the theoretical availability of a framework for remedies. This is a result of jurisdictional complications with CFSP/CDSP measures, attribution difficulties, and ambiguity in what constitutes unlawful human rights conduct. While alternative measures exist to compensate individuals for violation of their rights, these do not align with the often-stated right to an effective remedy within the EU. As such, this Article argues that the field requires serious reform in order to ensure that legal relief for individuals against unlawful conduct by the EU is an effective and enforceable right.","PeriodicalId":36303,"journal":{"name":"German Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2023-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42639102","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract The two widely used dichotomies of floor/ceiling and centralization/decentralization often fail to capture the full interactions of rights in multilevel constitutional systems such as the EU or the US. This article offers a comprehensive yet straightforward classification linking rights to the division of power between the center and component states. The typology comprises three overarching categories: plurality, partial and full centrality. These categories are broken down into further subcategories and illustrated through comparative examples from the EU and the US. The typology reveals mezzanine structural levels which go unnoticed when analysis is confined to existing dichotomies. The purpose of the typology is, first, to facilitate more accurate comparisons of the EU and the US’s composite systems and make commonalities and divergences easier to identify. Second, through the ensuing clarity, it aids the normative inquiry into what level of government—the center or the state—is better suited to regulate different types of rights and to what extent. Thirdly, it reconnects the EU-US comparison with comparative constitutionalism’s Aristotelian pedigree of utilizing robust categorization as a necessary cognitive tool for maintaining rationally ordered analyses.
{"title":"Beyond Incomplete Dichotomies: A Structural Typology of Dual Rights in the EU and the US","authors":"Mohamed Moussa","doi":"10.1017/glj.2023.18","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/glj.2023.18","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The two widely used dichotomies of floor/ceiling and centralization/decentralization often fail to capture the full interactions of rights in multilevel constitutional systems such as the EU or the US. This article offers a comprehensive yet straightforward classification linking rights to the division of power between the center and component states. The typology comprises three overarching categories: plurality, partial and full centrality. These categories are broken down into further subcategories and illustrated through comparative examples from the EU and the US. The typology reveals mezzanine structural levels which go unnoticed when analysis is confined to existing dichotomies. The purpose of the typology is, first, to facilitate more accurate comparisons of the EU and the US’s composite systems and make commonalities and divergences easier to identify. Second, through the ensuing clarity, it aids the normative inquiry into what level of government—the center or the state—is better suited to regulate different types of rights and to what extent. Thirdly, it reconnects the EU-US comparison with comparative constitutionalism’s Aristotelian pedigree of utilizing robust categorization as a necessary cognitive tool for maintaining rationally ordered analyses.","PeriodicalId":36303,"journal":{"name":"German Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2023-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49514449","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract The Kosovo Specialist Chambers embody a remarkable project involving elements of the domestic law of the Republic of Kosovo, the EU’s external relations law, and international criminal law. The Chambers’ hybrid nature is not only unique, but also atypical in regards to its influence in Kosovo’s constitutional order. The Specialist Constitutional Chamber is one of the instances of the Kosovo Specialist Chambers sitting in the Hague. The Specialist Constitutional Chamber resembles Kosovo’s Constitutional Court on a specific, though exclusive, area of law—the law surrounding the court in general. The two courts not only exercise the same generic function—on the basis of exclusive material criteria—but also possibly parallel and compete with each other. The relationship between the “two courts” is at best explained with the term “fragmentation of constitutional jurisdiction.” While the two courts are forced to endure under the same normative roof—the Constitution—they inherently exercise often conflicting functions and protect irreconcilable ideological perspectives. The article examines the interaction between the two courts primarily in a normative and jurisdictional perspective. It also presents recent tendencies of both courts to divert in divergent pathways. The article concludes that while the two courts present an unobserved case in comparative constitutional law, they also reveal an interesting and unconventional constitutional controversy appearing in the context of a sovereign country’s relationship with international law obligations.
{"title":"“Two Courts” for One Constitution: Fragmentation of Constitutional Review in the Law of the Kosovo Specialist Chambers in The Hague","authors":"Enver Hasani, Fisnik Korenica","doi":"10.1017/glj.2023.4","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/glj.2023.4","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The Kosovo Specialist Chambers embody a remarkable project involving elements of the domestic law of the Republic of Kosovo, the EU’s external relations law, and international criminal law. The Chambers’ hybrid nature is not only unique, but also atypical in regards to its influence in Kosovo’s constitutional order. The Specialist Constitutional Chamber is one of the instances of the Kosovo Specialist Chambers sitting in the Hague. The Specialist Constitutional Chamber resembles Kosovo’s Constitutional Court on a specific, though exclusive, area of law—the law surrounding the court in general. The two courts not only exercise the same generic function—on the basis of exclusive material criteria—but also possibly parallel and compete with each other. The relationship between the “two courts” is at best explained with the term “fragmentation of constitutional jurisdiction.” While the two courts are forced to endure under the same normative roof—the Constitution—they inherently exercise often conflicting functions and protect irreconcilable ideological perspectives. The article examines the interaction between the two courts primarily in a normative and jurisdictional perspective. It also presents recent tendencies of both courts to divert in divergent pathways. The article concludes that while the two courts present an unobserved case in comparative constitutional law, they also reveal an interesting and unconventional constitutional controversy appearing in the context of a sovereign country’s relationship with international law obligations.","PeriodicalId":36303,"journal":{"name":"German Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2023-02-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48282752","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Much ink has been splashed on the ideological, conceptual, and practical challenges that China’s state capitalism has posed to global trade rules. There is a growing perception that the current international trade rules are neither conceptually coherent nor practically effective in tackling China’s state capitalism. This perception has not only led to the emergence of new trade rules in regional trade agreements, but also culminated in the US-China trade war, only further aggravated by the Covid-19 pandemic. This Article contributes to the debate of what trade rules may be needed to counteract China’s state capitalism by unpacking the black box of China’s state capitalism. Based on an analysis of the nature of China’s state capitalism, this Article provides a preliminary evaluation of current trade rules taken to counteract China’s state capitalism, in particular the new rules in the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, and explain why they are unlikely to be successful.
{"title":"Unpacking the Black Box of China’s State Capitalism","authors":"Ming Du","doi":"10.1017/glj.2023.2","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/glj.2023.2","url":null,"abstract":"Much ink has been splashed on the ideological, conceptual, and practical challenges that China’s state capitalism has posed to global trade rules. There is a growing perception that the current international trade rules are neither conceptually coherent nor practically effective in tackling China’s state capitalism. This perception has not only led to the emergence of new trade rules in regional trade agreements, but also culminated in the US-China trade war, only further aggravated by the Covid-19 pandemic. This Article contributes to the debate of what trade rules may be needed to counteract China’s state capitalism by unpacking the black box of China’s state capitalism. Based on an analysis of the nature of China’s state capitalism, this Article provides a preliminary evaluation of current trade rules taken to counteract China’s state capitalism, in particular the new rules in the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, and explain why they are unlikely to be successful.","PeriodicalId":36303,"journal":{"name":"German Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2023-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42898719","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract Recent years have seen a proliferation of Special Economic Zones (SEZs) in developed and developing countries. Developed in Europe in its modern shape, most SEZs are located outside the continent today, notably in the developing world, where SEZs form part of these countries’ export-oriented growth policy tools and overall economic development. At a period of growing unilateralism and the return of the State as an economic actor, this contribution seeks to tackle the rise of SEZ laws in the global south, with a particular focus on Africa. It will scrutinize the reasons for their establishment, the measures chosen to promote them, and the international ramifications in these respective regions and broadly on the global plane, notably at the WTO. With the entry into force of the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) Agreement, African countries face challenges of multi-layered SEZ governance, which this contribution intends to address. These challenges also extend to the cross-regional trade agreements these countries conclude, individually and as a bloc. Since SEZs are often assimilated with a category of subsidies and are discriminatory trade measures, this contribution, in essence, investigates the extent to which current trade rules at multilateral and regional levels address these controversial aspects of SEZs.
{"title":"Special Economic Zones in an Era of Multilateralism Decadence and Struggles for Post-Pandemic Economic Recovery: Perspectives from the Global South","authors":"Regis Yann Simo","doi":"10.1017/glj.2023.11","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/glj.2023.11","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Recent years have seen a proliferation of Special Economic Zones (SEZs) in developed and developing countries. Developed in Europe in its modern shape, most SEZs are located outside the continent today, notably in the developing world, where SEZs form part of these countries’ export-oriented growth policy tools and overall economic development. At a period of growing unilateralism and the return of the State as an economic actor, this contribution seeks to tackle the rise of SEZ laws in the global south, with a particular focus on Africa. It will scrutinize the reasons for their establishment, the measures chosen to promote them, and the international ramifications in these respective regions and broadly on the global plane, notably at the WTO. With the entry into force of the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) Agreement, African countries face challenges of multi-layered SEZ governance, which this contribution intends to address. These challenges also extend to the cross-regional trade agreements these countries conclude, individually and as a bloc. Since SEZs are often assimilated with a category of subsidies and are discriminatory trade measures, this contribution, in essence, investigates the extent to which current trade rules at multilateral and regional levels address these controversial aspects of SEZs.","PeriodicalId":36303,"journal":{"name":"German Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2023-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49428733","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract China’s participation in the World Trade Organization (WTO) has been a rollercoaster of milestones and frictions. China has emerged as a leading trading nation, which has contributed to the expansion of world trade. Some of its trading partners, however, and most vocally the United States, complain that China has reached its new status by eluding its WTO commitments. Under President Trump, the United States reacted strongly against China, almost bringing the WTO (but not China!) to its knees. These actions have been criticized in different ways: Some underline their unilateral character (and the ensuing legal issues they raise), whereas others focus on the regime-neutrality of the WTO, which should, in principle, be able to accommodate Western liberal democracies, developing countries, and socialist countries like China equally. In this short Article, we argue that staying idle is no solution to the China issue and that addressing it through unilateral actions is no solution either. Both approaches would only deepen the current WTO crisis. In our view, the only viable solution for the WTO system requires adding new disciplines to the existing multilateral rules.
{"title":"China in the WTO Twenty Years On: How to Mend a Broken Relationship?","authors":"P. Mavroidis, A. Sapir","doi":"10.1017/glj.2023.1","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/glj.2023.1","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract China’s participation in the World Trade Organization (WTO) has been a rollercoaster of milestones and frictions. China has emerged as a leading trading nation, which has contributed to the expansion of world trade. Some of its trading partners, however, and most vocally the United States, complain that China has reached its new status by eluding its WTO commitments. Under President Trump, the United States reacted strongly against China, almost bringing the WTO (but not China!) to its knees. These actions have been criticized in different ways: Some underline their unilateral character (and the ensuing legal issues they raise), whereas others focus on the regime-neutrality of the WTO, which should, in principle, be able to accommodate Western liberal democracies, developing countries, and socialist countries like China equally. In this short Article, we argue that staying idle is no solution to the China issue and that addressing it through unilateral actions is no solution either. Both approaches would only deepen the current WTO crisis. In our view, the only viable solution for the WTO system requires adding new disciplines to the existing multilateral rules.","PeriodicalId":36303,"journal":{"name":"German Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2023-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42981785","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract This Article critically analyzes the main legal and policy issues that are likely to determine the development of the EU’s trade policy concerning rules on State intervention in the market, specifically on subsidies and SOEs. The article assesses the aforementioned issue especially within the context of the new trade strategy entitled “An Open, Sustainable and Assertive Trade Policy” set out by the European Commission in February 2021, at the core of which stands the concept of strategic autonomy. The focus of our analysis is on key elements of the current EU competition and trade policies and normative initiatives, namely: the relaxation of the usual State aid regime under Articles 107 and 108 TFEU to give Member States more flexibility in supporting their economies and strengthen EU industrial policy; the likelihood of EU proposals resulting in any substantial change to international trade law on subsidies and SOEs at the multilateral (WTO) level; a systemic horizontal investigation into the relevant trade rules promoted by the EU in its most recent practice of PTAs; and, finally, the EU pursuing stronger protection of its companies with its recently announced new regulation on foreign subsidies, on the basis of which the European Commission can investigate foreign subsidies and impose remedies. Even though, at first sight, it may seem that the current evolution of the EU trade policy on these issues seems inconsistent, the Article argues that the unilateral, bilateral, and multilateral approaches are indeed strictly intertwined, and they reveal a significant shift in the most recent EU trade policy objective in relation to the role of State in the market.
{"title":"The EU Trade Agenda—Rules on State Intervention in the Market","authors":"N. Boschiero, S. Silingardi","doi":"10.1017/glj.2023.5","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/glj.2023.5","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This Article critically analyzes the main legal and policy issues that are likely to determine the development of the EU’s trade policy concerning rules on State intervention in the market, specifically on subsidies and SOEs. The article assesses the aforementioned issue especially within the context of the new trade strategy entitled “An Open, Sustainable and Assertive Trade Policy” set out by the European Commission in February 2021, at the core of which stands the concept of strategic autonomy. The focus of our analysis is on key elements of the current EU competition and trade policies and normative initiatives, namely: the relaxation of the usual State aid regime under Articles 107 and 108 TFEU to give Member States more flexibility in supporting their economies and strengthen EU industrial policy; the likelihood of EU proposals resulting in any substantial change to international trade law on subsidies and SOEs at the multilateral (WTO) level; a systemic horizontal investigation into the relevant trade rules promoted by the EU in its most recent practice of PTAs; and, finally, the EU pursuing stronger protection of its companies with its recently announced new regulation on foreign subsidies, on the basis of which the European Commission can investigate foreign subsidies and impose remedies. Even though, at first sight, it may seem that the current evolution of the EU trade policy on these issues seems inconsistent, the Article argues that the unilateral, bilateral, and multilateral approaches are indeed strictly intertwined, and they reveal a significant shift in the most recent EU trade policy objective in relation to the role of State in the market.","PeriodicalId":36303,"journal":{"name":"German Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2023-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45856074","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract This Article contributes to the discussion about the development of international trade regulation of state interventionism by situating the tensions that exist about the future design of subsidies and state enterprises treaty regulation in the broader context of current systemic challenges to the multilateral trading system. While recent studies have explored the issues of subsidies and state-owned enterprises (SOEs) as one of the most significant in impact among the contemporary challenges to the WTO, there is certainly scope to discuss further such a problem from the broader point of view of the crisis of the multilateral trading system, its systemic challenges and the concomitant increasing politicization of international trade relations. To this end, this Article analyzes the interactions between the lasting decline of the WTO, growing political interferences with international trade flows and the prospects of reforming multilateral trade rules to address its systemic challenges and manage/mitigate newly central problems of the 21st century such as the Covid-19 Pandemic, climate change and the greening of economic production and international trade. The Article argues that existing WTO rules are not adequate to address these challenges and problems. It concludes that, like in the GATT era, it is only the spirit of pragmatism that may provide chances to find alternatives to growing frustration with negotiating inaction and, hence, to reform the system. However, the question remains whether it is possible to find an approach to imagine, remodel and craft multilateral rules that are sensitive to different economic, political, and social choices and able to rebalance the position of all members, large and small, rich and poor.
{"title":"Systemic Changes in the Politicization of the International Trade Relations and the Decline of the Multilateral Trading System","authors":"G. Sacerdoti, L. Borlini","doi":"10.1017/glj.2023.10","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/glj.2023.10","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This Article contributes to the discussion about the development of international trade regulation of state interventionism by situating the tensions that exist about the future design of subsidies and state enterprises treaty regulation in the broader context of current systemic challenges to the multilateral trading system. While recent studies have explored the issues of subsidies and state-owned enterprises (SOEs) as one of the most significant in impact among the contemporary challenges to the WTO, there is certainly scope to discuss further such a problem from the broader point of view of the crisis of the multilateral trading system, its systemic challenges and the concomitant increasing politicization of international trade relations. To this end, this Article analyzes the interactions between the lasting decline of the WTO, growing political interferences with international trade flows and the prospects of reforming multilateral trade rules to address its systemic challenges and manage/mitigate newly central problems of the 21st century such as the Covid-19 Pandemic, climate change and the greening of economic production and international trade. The Article argues that existing WTO rules are not adequate to address these challenges and problems. It concludes that, like in the GATT era, it is only the spirit of pragmatism that may provide chances to find alternatives to growing frustration with negotiating inaction and, hence, to reform the system. However, the question remains whether it is possible to find an approach to imagine, remodel and craft multilateral rules that are sensitive to different economic, political, and social choices and able to rebalance the position of all members, large and small, rich and poor.","PeriodicalId":36303,"journal":{"name":"German Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2023-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41940654","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：