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.
{"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":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jiel/jgac055","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":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"134902885","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
ABSTRACT This article discusses the methodology used in the quantification of the level of authorized countermeasures in trade disputes settled under the auspices of the World Trade Organization (WTO)’s dispute settlement system. It discusses the legal framework pertaining to the quantification of the level of the remedies provided for under the WTO agreements in case of failure by the respondent to timely comply with the rulings and recommendations of the Dispute Settlement Body and where no agreement on compensation is reached: suspension of concessions and countermeasures. It analyzes whether the current understanding of ‘damage’ in WTO law is consistent with the prevailing economic reality and suggests an alternate interpretation that would account for value actually added on the territory of the complainant as a basis for quantification of the level of countermeasures. Finally, the article responds to ‘pragmatic’ arguments advanced by those who conceptually oppose to a methodological reform that would authorize countermeasures based on the share of value-added attributable to the complainant rather than on the gross amount of exports of the good affected by the impugned measure.
{"title":"From Bananas to Large Civil Aircraft: An On-Going Quest for Value-Added in the Computation of Countermeasures at the WTO","authors":"Marc-Antoine Couet","doi":"10.1093/jiel/jgac056","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jiel/jgac056","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This article discusses the methodology used in the quantification of the level of authorized countermeasures in trade disputes settled under the auspices of the World Trade Organization (WTO)’s dispute settlement system. It discusses the legal framework pertaining to the quantification of the level of the remedies provided for under the WTO agreements in case of failure by the respondent to timely comply with the rulings and recommendations of the Dispute Settlement Body and where no agreement on compensation is reached: suspension of concessions and countermeasures. It analyzes whether the current understanding of ‘damage’ in WTO law is consistent with the prevailing economic reality and suggests an alternate interpretation that would account for value actually added on the territory of the complainant as a basis for quantification of the level of countermeasures. Finally, the article responds to ‘pragmatic’ arguments advanced by those who conceptually oppose to a methodological reform that would authorize countermeasures based on the share of value-added attributable to the complainant rather than on the gross amount of exports of the good affected by the impugned measure.","PeriodicalId":46864,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Economic Law","volume":"50 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135276889","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
ABSTRACT The future of investment law has in store fundamental shifts, not incremental changes, in three substantive issue areas, which pose immense challenges to the system as it currently stands, namely, climate change, national security, and investor obligations. This article describes those challenges and argues that for these shifts to be accommodated, abolition is not desirable, but reform is necessary and urgent. It suggests procedural ways forward.
{"title":"Investment Law in the Twenty-First Century: Things Will Have to Change in Order to Remain the Same","authors":"Anne van Aaken","doi":"10.1093/jiel/jgac054","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jiel/jgac054","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The future of investment law has in store fundamental shifts, not incremental changes, in three substantive issue areas, which pose immense challenges to the system as it currently stands, namely, climate change, national security, and investor obligations. This article describes those challenges and argues that for these shifts to be accommodated, abolition is not desirable, but reform is necessary and urgent. It suggests procedural ways forward.","PeriodicalId":46864,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Economic Law","volume":"199 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135276885","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The original ‘building blocks or stumbling blocks’ debate considered the positive and negative impacts on the multilateral trading system in the form of the World Trade Organization (WTO) of free trade agreements (FTAs) at a time when FTAs were primarily bilateral and/or regional. This article recasts the debate in light of modern realities. Since the collapse of the Doha Round, WTO Members have increasingly formed FTAs with more than one large economy; plurilateral as well as bilateral groupings; and agreements including WTO-plus commitments. Further, Members have pursued plurilateral subject-specific negotiations both outside the WTO such as the Trade in Services Agreement and within, in the form of Joint Statement Initiatives. The article assesses from General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade formation to the present the extent to which the full range of trade agreements have facilitated experimentation and to which such agreements have had a fragmenting impact on the WTO. While the answers to these questions are nuanced, what is clear is that Members who wish to liberalize more deeply than other Members will find a way to do so outside the WTO rather than abandoning their objectives. As such, the debate today is no longer whether bilateral or regional FTAs are good or bad for a single undertaking-based multilateral WTO. Instead, we must weigh whether it is preferable for new plurilateral initiatives to be accommodated within the WTO at the expense of strict consensus or to reject such initiatives with the understanding that powerful Members will instead to pursue their objectives in plurilateral arrangements outside the WTO.
{"title":"International Trade Agreements: Laboratories of Innovation or Propellers of Fragmentation?","authors":"Meredith Kolsky Lewis","doi":"10.1093/jiel/jgac050","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jiel/jgac050","url":null,"abstract":"The original ‘building blocks or stumbling blocks’ debate considered the positive and negative impacts on the multilateral trading system in the form of the World Trade Organization (WTO) of free trade agreements (FTAs) at a time when FTAs were primarily bilateral and/or regional. This article recasts the debate in light of modern realities. Since the collapse of the Doha Round, WTO Members have increasingly formed FTAs with more than one large economy; plurilateral as well as bilateral groupings; and agreements including WTO-plus commitments. Further, Members have pursued plurilateral subject-specific negotiations both outside the WTO such as the Trade in Services Agreement and within, in the form of Joint Statement Initiatives. The article assesses from General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade formation to the present the extent to which the full range of trade agreements have facilitated experimentation and to which such agreements have had a fragmenting impact on the WTO. While the answers to these questions are nuanced, what is clear is that Members who wish to liberalize more deeply than other Members will find a way to do so outside the WTO rather than abandoning their objectives. As such, the debate today is no longer whether bilateral or regional FTAs are good or bad for a single undertaking-based multilateral WTO. Instead, we must weigh whether it is preferable for new plurilateral initiatives to be accommodated within the WTO at the expense of strict consensus or to reject such initiatives with the understanding that powerful Members will instead to pursue their objectives in plurilateral arrangements outside the WTO.","PeriodicalId":46864,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Economic Law","volume":"33 6 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.1,"publicationDate":"2022-12-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"138531660","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article explores the ‘Trade and …’ ‘Debate’ in the context of trade and environment issues. It provides an explanation of the evolution of discussions of such issues in a non-dispute settlement context, using developments in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations’ integration efforts as illustrations. It also highlights a number of opportunities for trade and environment collaboration in negotiations for free trade agreement and Digital Economy Partnership Agreements.
这篇文章探讨了在贸易和环境问题的背景下“贸易和……”的“辩论”。它以东南亚国家联盟(Association of Southeast Asian Nations)一体化努力的发展为例，解释了在非争端解决背景下对这些问题讨论的演变。它还强调了自由贸易协定和数字经济伙伴关系协定谈判中贸易和环境合作的一些机会。
{"title":"The Evolution of the ‘Trade and …’ ‘Debate’—A View from ASEAN","authors":"Locknie Hsu","doi":"10.1093/jiel/jgac051","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jiel/jgac051","url":null,"abstract":"This article explores the ‘Trade and …’ ‘Debate’ in the context of trade and environment issues. It provides an explanation of the evolution of discussions of such issues in a non-dispute settlement context, using developments in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations’ integration efforts as illustrations. It also highlights a number of opportunities for trade and environment collaboration in negotiations for free trade agreement and Digital Economy Partnership Agreements.","PeriodicalId":46864,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Economic Law","volume":"22 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.1,"publicationDate":"2022-12-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"138531659","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) has enhanced global cooperation in a key area of International Economic Law. In particular, WIPO’s international intellectual property (IP) treaties have done much to bridge the territorial nature of IP with the business needs of innovators and brand owners who operate in an interconnected global economy. They also vividly illustrate the benefits of multilateral cooperation: IP can flow from anywhere to everywhere, thus requiring a truly global approach toward cooperation. Here, we explain some of the practical benefits of WIPO’s Patent Cooperation Treaty, Madrid, and Hague Systems, especially over the last 25 years. Their success has made these systems even more attractive to IP users worldwide and has transformed WIPO’s international filing mechanisms into a truly global endeavor.
{"title":"WIPO’s Contributions to International Cooperation on Intellectual Property","authors":"Lisa Jorgenson, C. Fink","doi":"10.1093/jiel/jgac049","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jiel/jgac049","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) has enhanced global cooperation in a key area of International Economic Law. In particular, WIPO’s international intellectual property (IP) treaties have done much to bridge the territorial nature of IP with the business needs of innovators and brand owners who operate in an interconnected global economy. They also vividly illustrate the benefits of multilateral cooperation: IP can flow from anywhere to everywhere, thus requiring a truly global approach toward cooperation. Here, we explain some of the practical benefits of WIPO’s Patent Cooperation Treaty, Madrid, and Hague Systems, especially over the last 25 years. Their success has made these systems even more attractive to IP users worldwide and has transformed WIPO’s international filing mechanisms into a truly global endeavor.","PeriodicalId":46864,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Economic Law","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.1,"publicationDate":"2022-12-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43638132","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
A central challenge to the legitimacy of international investment law is its failure to take account of a state’s commitments to its people under international human rights law—duties that stand on a special moral plane. The vortex of this challenge is the fair and equitable treatment standard, where tribunals protect the ‘legitimate expectations’ of investors but disregard these preeminent moral commitments. This article develops a new framework for integrating those commitments into fair and equitable treatment decision-making and treaty-drafting. Deploying an interdisciplinary approach that draws on political philosophy as well as extant law and doctrine, I argue that the current international political morality requires putting human rights on a higher plane than commitments to investors. As a result, tribunals should give great deference to state measures that negatively affect investors if the state justifies them based on its international human rights law obligations and lesser but still significant deference for measures based on encouragements or permissions in international human rights law. It operationalizes this approach for tribunals by recasting the doctrine of legitimate expectations and provides examples of how it would work in specific disputes. This article concludes with suggestions for integrating states’ human rights mandates into future investment agreements.
{"title":"Fair and Equitable Treatment and Human Rights: A Moral and Legal Reconciliation","authors":"Steven R. Ratner","doi":"10.1093/jiel/jgac045","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jiel/jgac045","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 A central challenge to the legitimacy of international investment law is its failure to take account of a state’s commitments to its people under international human rights law—duties that stand on a special moral plane. The vortex of this challenge is the fair and equitable treatment standard, where tribunals protect the ‘legitimate expectations’ of investors but disregard these preeminent moral commitments. This article develops a new framework for integrating those commitments into fair and equitable treatment decision-making and treaty-drafting. Deploying an interdisciplinary approach that draws on political philosophy as well as extant law and doctrine, I argue that the current international political morality requires putting human rights on a higher plane than commitments to investors. As a result, tribunals should give great deference to state measures that negatively affect investors if the state justifies them based on its international human rights law obligations and lesser but still significant deference for measures based on encouragements or permissions in international human rights law. It operationalizes this approach for tribunals by recasting the doctrine of legitimate expectations and provides examples of how it would work in specific disputes. This article concludes with suggestions for integrating states’ human rights mandates into future investment agreements.","PeriodicalId":46864,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Economic Law","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.1,"publicationDate":"2022-11-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43449253","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Dirk A Zetzsche, Marco Bodellini, Roberta Consiglio
This paper analyses the relationship between the EU sustainable finance legal framework and the most common international environmental, social, and governance standards. We find that standards included in the EU sustainable finance legal framework partly overlap with the international environmental, social and governance standards, while diverging as to the details. This overlap creates frictions, given that financial service providers need to decide which of the overlapping, yet partly diverging, standards they apply. The EU environmental taxonomy presents unique features and a higher level of sophistication when compared to the international environmental, social and governance standards. This may result in both upsides and downsides. On the upside, the EU sustainable finance legal framework could function as a pacemaker and facilitate impact measurement across the industry, while on the downside, we see additional costs for firms and resistance against the granular EU approach. At the same time, the EU sustainable finance legal framework lacks details on the social and governance dimensions. Here, reference to the international standards compensates for the lack of an EU social and governance taxonomy. While this allows for alignment of EU and international social and governance-oriented investors, a greater degree of sophistication at the EU level could enhance the potential for impact measurement—a particularly important aspect for socially sustainable investments.
{"title":"The EU Sustainable Finance Framework in Light of International Standards","authors":"Dirk A Zetzsche, Marco Bodellini, Roberta Consiglio","doi":"10.1093/jiel/jgac043","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jiel/jgac043","url":null,"abstract":"This paper analyses the relationship between the EU sustainable finance legal framework and the most common international environmental, social, and governance standards. We find that standards included in the EU sustainable finance legal framework partly overlap with the international environmental, social and governance standards, while diverging as to the details. This overlap creates frictions, given that financial service providers need to decide which of the overlapping, yet partly diverging, standards they apply. The EU environmental taxonomy presents unique features and a higher level of sophistication when compared to the international environmental, social and governance standards. This may result in both upsides and downsides. On the upside, the EU sustainable finance legal framework could function as a pacemaker and facilitate impact measurement across the industry, while on the downside, we see additional costs for firms and resistance against the granular EU approach. At the same time, the EU sustainable finance legal framework lacks details on the social and governance dimensions. Here, reference to the international standards compensates for the lack of an EU social and governance taxonomy. While this allows for alignment of EU and international social and governance-oriented investors, a greater degree of sophistication at the EU level could enhance the potential for impact measurement—a particularly important aspect for socially sustainable investments.","PeriodicalId":46864,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Economic Law","volume":"64 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.1,"publicationDate":"2022-11-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"138508228","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Deliberation of trade security is crucial for maintaining multilateral coordination and enabling governments, businesses, and individuals to navigate global economic networks. World Trade Organization (WTO) members’ mounting invocations of security-based trade restrictiveness increasingly challenge an institution that requires persistent coordination and transparency to function. WTO members need space to discuss—and disagree with—the intersection of security and trade policies. While members make use of existing WTO institutions and procedures, the exceptionalism and secrecy of security hinder notification, and review of security-rooted trade practices. This article provides a descriptive analysis and prescriptions for WTO institutional techniques for addressing members’ security-related measures daily—that is, on a routine basis, via trade policy review and WTO notification processes. It shows that the trade community already possess the tools to manage the growing issue-area of trade and security.
{"title":"Let’s Agree to Disagree: A Strategy for Trade-Security","authors":"Mona Pinchis-Paulsen","doi":"10.1093/jiel/jgac048","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jiel/jgac048","url":null,"abstract":"Deliberation of trade security is crucial for maintaining multilateral coordination and enabling governments, businesses, and individuals to navigate global economic networks. World Trade Organization (WTO) members’ mounting invocations of security-based trade restrictiveness increasingly challenge an institution that requires persistent coordination and transparency to function. WTO members need space to discuss—and disagree with—the intersection of security and trade policies. While members make use of existing WTO institutions and procedures, the exceptionalism and secrecy of security hinder notification, and review of security-rooted trade practices. This article provides a descriptive analysis and prescriptions for WTO institutional techniques for addressing members’ security-related measures daily—that is, on a routine basis, via trade policy review and WTO notification processes. It shows that the trade community already possess the tools to manage the growing issue-area of trade and security.","PeriodicalId":46864,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Economic Law","volume":"65 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.1,"publicationDate":"2022-11-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"138508227","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Scholars and negotiators often assert that model treaty texts published by international institutions (IIs) shape investment treaty design. This paper empirically investigates the reuse of international institutions’ treaty templates. It tracks the imprint of six international institution templates on the text of negotiated international investment agreements (IIAs) using the Electronic Database of Investment Treaties. We find that the overall impact of international institution models has been low. No international investment agreement in our dataset was copied from an international institution’s model wholesale. On average, annual similarity between model texts and negotiated investment treaties is lower than 40% and significantly lower than the influence of international institutions’ models in the structurally similar international tax treaty regime. However, we do find evidence of an impact of international institutions' language on specific salient clauses. For example, the text of key investment protection clauses in the 1967 Draft Convention of the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development was reproduced in hundreds of international investment agreements and novel clauses on investor responsibility first introduced in the 2006 International Institute for Sustainable Development model have subsequently been copied verbatim into negotiated international investment agreements. Our work concludes by discussing explanations for the comparatively low imprint of international institutions, notes other pathways for these institutions to influence treaty design, and sketches out an agenda for future research.
{"title":"Main Act or Side Show? Model Agreements by International Institutions and Their Reuse in Investment Treaty Texts","authors":"Wolfgang Alschner, Manfred Elsig, Simon Wüthrich","doi":"10.1093/jiel/jgac044","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jiel/jgac044","url":null,"abstract":"Scholars and negotiators often assert that model treaty texts published by international institutions (IIs) shape investment treaty design. This paper empirically investigates the reuse of international institutions’ treaty templates. It tracks the imprint of six international institution templates on the text of negotiated international investment agreements (IIAs) using the Electronic Database of Investment Treaties. We find that the overall impact of international institution models has been low. No international investment agreement in our dataset was copied from an international institution’s model wholesale. On average, annual similarity between model texts and negotiated investment treaties is lower than 40% and significantly lower than the influence of international institutions’ models in the structurally similar international tax treaty regime. However, we do find evidence of an impact of international institutions' language on specific salient clauses. For example, the text of key investment protection clauses in the 1967 Draft Convention of the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development was reproduced in hundreds of international investment agreements and novel clauses on investor responsibility first introduced in the 2006 International Institute for Sustainable Development model have subsequently been copied verbatim into negotiated international investment agreements. Our work concludes by discussing explanations for the comparatively low imprint of international institutions, notes other pathways for these institutions to influence treaty design, and sketches out an agenda for future research.","PeriodicalId":46864,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Economic Law","volume":"52 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.1,"publicationDate":"2022-11-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"138508230","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","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：