ABSTRACT Global trade can be an important part of the solution to modern global challenges, just as the rule-based multilateral trading system played an instrumental role in fostering peace and prosperity since its creation in 1947. Trade has been a lifeline for producing and accessing critical medical supplies from face masks to vaccines almost since the beginning of the pandemic; trade is also an important means for adapting to climate change as well as cutting emissions; and trade has helped net-food-importing countries faced with food crisis. For trade to be a part of solutions to the range of modern challenges, the role of the World Trade Organization (WTO) is indispensable, and it must be updated for it to remain fit for purpose. The continuing reinvention of the WTO will not be easy, but the outcomes of the 12th Ministerial Conference (MC12) are a good start. In this special contribution to the Journal of International Economic Law, I reflect on the WTO’s role for the twenty-first century and beyond and how the MC12 outcomes will serve as a foundation and a platform for Members to build on to reinvent the WTO.
{"title":"The WTO’S Contribution to the Challenges of Global Commons","authors":"Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala","doi":"10.1093/jiel/jgad005","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jiel/jgad005","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Global trade can be an important part of the solution to modern global challenges, just as the rule-based multilateral trading system played an instrumental role in fostering peace and prosperity since its creation in 1947. Trade has been a lifeline for producing and accessing critical medical supplies from face masks to vaccines almost since the beginning of the pandemic; trade is also an important means for adapting to climate change as well as cutting emissions; and trade has helped net-food-importing countries faced with food crisis. For trade to be a part of solutions to the range of modern challenges, the role of the World Trade Organization (WTO) is indispensable, and it must be updated for it to remain fit for purpose. The continuing reinvention of the WTO will not be easy, but the outcomes of the 12th Ministerial Conference (MC12) are a good start. In this special contribution to the Journal of International Economic Law, I reflect on the WTO’s role for the twenty-first century and beyond and how the MC12 outcomes will serve as a foundation and a platform for Members to build on to reinvent the WTO.","PeriodicalId":46864,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Economic Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135440713","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 Like the Journal of International Economic Law, which we celebrate with this special 25th Anniversary issue, investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) came to life in the second half of the 1990s. The aim of this contribution is to ask whether ISDS has gone through any ‘transformation’, that is any ‘complete’ or ‘radical’ change, in the last twenty-five years. The article argues that, while a lot has changed in two and a half decades, in particular, the amount and breadth of criticism against investor-state arbitration, ISDS remains fundamentally the same, at least if one focuses on the practice of ISDS.
{"title":"ISDS and Its Transformations","authors":"Federico Ortino","doi":"10.1093/jiel/jgac066","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jiel/jgac066","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Like the Journal of International Economic Law, which we celebrate with this special 25th Anniversary issue, investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) came to life in the second half of the 1990s. The aim of this contribution is to ask whether ISDS has gone through any ‘transformation’, that is any ‘complete’ or ‘radical’ change, in the last twenty-five years. The article argues that, while a lot has changed in two and a half decades, in particular, the amount and breadth of criticism against investor-state arbitration, ISDS remains fundamentally the same, at least if one focuses on the practice of ISDS.","PeriodicalId":46864,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Economic Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"136043446","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 International Monetary Fund (IMF) is by design an economic institution, with an exclusive economic mandate. Traditionally, this has meant that the IMF focused its work on monetary, fiscal, exchange rate, and financial sector policies, along with closely related structural aspects. In recent years, however, the IMF’s work has widened to cover a broader range of substantive topics, including governance and anti-corruption, climate change, fintech and the digitalization of finance, inequality, social protection, and gender. This article posits that the IMF’s work in these emerging areas with demonstrated criticality for the institution’s macroeconomic and financial stability mandate is not an expansion of the IMF’s mandate, but rather reflects continuing evolution in the economic understanding of what is critical for the achievement of that mandate. The article explores how macro-criticality is assessed within the IMF’s legal and institutional framework in the context of the IMF’s core powers generally and with a special focus on governance and anti-corruption, climate change, and gender. It also discusses the IMF’s strategies for engagement with its member countries in these three areas.
{"title":"The IMF’s Evolving Role Within a Constant Mandate","authors":"Kristalina Georgieva, Rhoda Weeks-Brown","doi":"10.1093/jiel/jgac064","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jiel/jgac064","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The International Monetary Fund (IMF) is by design an economic institution, with an exclusive economic mandate. Traditionally, this has meant that the IMF focused its work on monetary, fiscal, exchange rate, and financial sector policies, along with closely related structural aspects. In recent years, however, the IMF’s work has widened to cover a broader range of substantive topics, including governance and anti-corruption, climate change, fintech and the digitalization of finance, inequality, social protection, and gender. This article posits that the IMF’s work in these emerging areas with demonstrated criticality for the institution’s macroeconomic and financial stability mandate is not an expansion of the IMF’s mandate, but rather reflects continuing evolution in the economic understanding of what is critical for the achievement of that mandate. The article explores how macro-criticality is assessed within the IMF’s legal and institutional framework in the context of the IMF’s core powers generally and with a special focus on governance and anti-corruption, climate change, and gender. It also discusses the IMF’s strategies for engagement with its member countries in these three areas.","PeriodicalId":46864,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Economic Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"136082613","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}
{"title":"From the Editors in Chief","authors":"K. Claussen, S. Puig, M. Waibel","doi":"10.1093/jiel/jgad002","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jiel/jgad002","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":46864,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Economic Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.1,"publicationDate":"2023-01-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45560083","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 After 25 years of the practice of World Trade Organization (WTO) dispute settlement, the system’s ability to continue performing that function has been significantly hampered as a result of the lack of a consensus among WTO Members to (re)appoint Appellate Body Members, resulting in the Appellate Body being defunct as of December 2019. This brief contribution reflects on the various narratives of the causes of the current state of WTO dispute settlement and comments on the role of the Appellate Body. It concludes that no sole responsibility for the current deadlock can be attributed to the Appellate Body. Undoubtedly, the Appellate Body could have decided differently on certain questions. However, asking whether or how the Appellate Body dug its own grave fails to acknowledge the role of WTO Members, collectively and individually, in preserving binding, compulsory WTO dispute settlement providing for appellate review.
{"title":"25 Years of Law and Practice at the WTO: Did the Appellate Body Dig its Own Grave?","authors":"Isabelle Van Damme","doi":"10.1093/jiel/jgac067","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jiel/jgac067","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT After 25 years of the practice of World Trade Organization (WTO) dispute settlement, the system’s ability to continue performing that function has been significantly hampered as a result of the lack of a consensus among WTO Members to (re)appoint Appellate Body Members, resulting in the Appellate Body being defunct as of December 2019. This brief contribution reflects on the various narratives of the causes of the current state of WTO dispute settlement and comments on the role of the Appellate Body. It concludes that no sole responsibility for the current deadlock can be attributed to the Appellate Body. Undoubtedly, the Appellate Body could have decided differently on certain questions. However, asking whether or how the Appellate Body dug its own grave fails to acknowledge the role of WTO Members, collectively and individually, in preserving binding, compulsory WTO dispute settlement providing for appellate review.","PeriodicalId":46864,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Economic Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135393361","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}
Since the birth of the Journal of International Economic Law (JIEL) in 1998, the foundations of international economic law have undergone multidimensional changes. Emerging political and economic challenges have shaped international economic law into becoming inherently dynamic; not only have new frameworks developed for analyses of international economic relations, but novel social and environmental aspects of government policy now also fall within the field’s ambit. These challenges have shaken the normative foundations of international economic law and new paradigms in this field of law have emerged. Recent developments addressing matters ranging from the climate crisis to the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic signify a turn in the WTO from negotiating trade rules to addressing pressing concerns facing humankind. When JIEL was first established, civil society renewed its calls for the inclusion of social and environmental concerns in so-called ‘trade and …’ policies. Today, the interlinkages between trade and other issues form an integral part of the international trading system. These new challenges and shifts in economic policy bring (some) traditional understandings of international economic law into question, and challenge the various normative underpinnings of international economic law in three ways: first, in the rise of novel approaches to international economic norm creation; second, in the expansion of subject areas covered by international economic rules; and third, in the steady disintegration of the traditional binaries, such as those between hard and soft law, between public and private actors, and between human rights and investment. These three changes have further provoked the development of analytical frameworks to study these norms. The eclectic and wide-ranging contributions in this special issue offer insightful critiques and provocative challenges to the community of international economic law actors facing unprecedented problems as the Journal celebrates its twenty-fifth anniversary.
{"title":"New (Paradigms In) International Economic Law","authors":"A. Bjorklund, G. Marceau","doi":"10.1093/jiel/jgac062","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jiel/jgac062","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Since the birth of the Journal of International Economic Law (JIEL) in 1998, the foundations of international economic law have undergone multidimensional changes. Emerging political and economic challenges have shaped international economic law into becoming inherently dynamic; not only have new frameworks developed for analyses of international economic relations, but novel social and environmental aspects of government policy now also fall within the field’s ambit. These challenges have shaken the normative foundations of international economic law and new paradigms in this field of law have emerged. Recent developments addressing matters ranging from the climate crisis to the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic signify a turn in the WTO from negotiating trade rules to addressing pressing concerns facing humankind. When JIEL was first established, civil society renewed its calls for the inclusion of social and environmental concerns in so-called ‘trade and …’ policies. Today, the interlinkages between trade and other issues form an integral part of the international trading system. These new challenges and shifts in economic policy bring (some) traditional understandings of international economic law into question, and challenge the various normative underpinnings of international economic law in three ways: first, in the rise of novel approaches to international economic norm creation; second, in the expansion of subject areas covered by international economic rules; and third, in the steady disintegration of the traditional binaries, such as those between hard and soft law, between public and private actors, and between human rights and investment. These three changes have further provoked the development of analytical frameworks to study these norms. The eclectic and wide-ranging contributions in this special issue offer insightful critiques and provocative challenges to the community of international economic law actors facing unprecedented problems as the Journal celebrates its twenty-fifth anniversary.","PeriodicalId":46864,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Economic Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.1,"publicationDate":"2023-01-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46997859","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}
Originally, the multilateral trading regime did not address state capitalism in a comprehensive manner, since none of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade founders had espoused this form of economic governance. The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade did contain specific provisions dealing with state trading and with subsidies, but nothing more. This situation has remained unchanged over the years, except for tightening the screws in areas already regulated (like subsidies), even though the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade/World Trade Organization membership has become more and more heterogenous, with some members being overtly state capitalists. This was the case because these new members were either too small to really matter (e.g. Hungary) or because it was hoped that bigger players would transform into market economies (e.g. China). In hindsight, this has proved to be a grave error, since many of the difficulties that the world trading system currently faces originate in the unsatisfactory disciplining of state intervention in the workings of the economy of World Trade Organization members.
{"title":"State Capitalism in the GATT/WTO Legal Order","authors":"P. Mavroidis, A. Sapir","doi":"10.1093/jiel/jgad001","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jiel/jgad001","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Originally, the multilateral trading regime did not address state capitalism in a comprehensive manner, since none of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade founders had espoused this form of economic governance. The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade did contain specific provisions dealing with state trading and with subsidies, but nothing more. This situation has remained unchanged over the years, except for tightening the screws in areas already regulated (like subsidies), even though the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade/World Trade Organization membership has become more and more heterogenous, with some members being overtly state capitalists. This was the case because these new members were either too small to really matter (e.g. Hungary) or because it was hoped that bigger players would transform into market economies (e.g. China). In hindsight, this has proved to be a grave error, since many of the difficulties that the world trading system currently faces originate in the unsatisfactory disciplining of state intervention in the workings of the economy of World Trade Organization members.","PeriodicalId":46864,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Economic Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.1,"publicationDate":"2023-01-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46355683","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 past decade has witnessed the creation of a new international tax regime. The original international tax regime was created a century ago by the League of Nations. Until the 1980s, it functioned reasonably well and prevented most instances of double taxation and double non-taxation by allocating cross-border income between home and host jurisdictions based on a compromise reached in 1923. However, since the advent of globalization in the 1980s and digitalization in the 1990s, the original international tax regime ceased to function as intended. The main problems were the increased mobility of capital related to increased intangibility and digitalization, together with a relaxation of capital controls and increased tax competition. These developments posed a problem for countries that wished to leave their borders open to reap the benefits of globalization and to engage in tax competition to attract investment. The outcome was a significant fall in tax revenues that threatened the social safety net of the modern welfare state. The trilemma of open borders, tax competition, and satisfying voters’ demand for social insurance culminated in the financial crisis of 2008–09, where many countries were forced to implement austerity measures at the same time that parliamentary hearings, leaks, and media reports revealed that rich individuals and large corporations were paying very little tax on cross-border income. The results over the past decade have been the creation of a new international tax regime designed to curb both tax evasion by the rich and tax competition among countries seeking to attract business activity within their borders by granting various preferential tax provisions to multinational enterprises. The key question going forward is how the new international tax regime will deal with international (in)equity, i.e. the economic digital divide. In what follows, I will first discuss the decline of the original international tax regime from 1980 to 2009, then the creation of the new international tax regime from 2010 on, and finally the implications of the new international tax regime for the economic digital divide.
过去的十年见证了新的国际税收制度的诞生。最初的国际税收制度是一个世纪前由国际联盟(League of Nations)创立的。直到20世纪80年代，它还运行得相当好，并根据1923年达成的妥协，通过在母国和东道国司法管辖区之间分配跨境收入，防止了大多数双重征税和双重不征税的情况。然而，自20世纪80年代全球化和90年代数字化出现以来，最初的国际税收制度不再像预期的那样发挥作用。主要问题是与无形性和数字化增加相关的资本流动性增加，以及资本管制的放松和税收竞争的加剧。这些事态发展给那些希望开放边界以从全球化中获益并参与税收竞争以吸引投资的国家带来了问题。其结果是税收收入大幅下降，威胁到现代福利国家的社会安全网。开放边界、税收竞争和满足选民对社会保险需求的三难困境在2008-09年的金融危机中达到顶峰，许多国家被迫实施紧缩措施，与此同时，议会听证会、泄密和媒体报道显示，富裕的个人和大公司对跨境收入只缴纳了很少的税。过去十年的结果是建立了一种新的国际税收制度，旨在遏制富人的逃税行为和各国之间的税收竞争，这些国家试图通过给予跨国企业各种优惠税收规定来吸引其境内的商业活动。未来的关键问题是新的国际税收制度将如何处理国际(不)公平，即经济数字鸿沟。在接下来的内容中，我将首先讨论1980年至2009年原有国际税收制度的衰落，然后讨论2010年以来新国际税收制度的建立，最后讨论新国际税收制度对经济数字鸿沟的影响。
{"title":"International Taxation, Globalization, and the Economic Digital Divide","authors":"Reuven Avi-Yonah","doi":"10.1093/jiel/jgac068","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jiel/jgac068","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The past decade has witnessed the creation of a new international tax regime. The original international tax regime was created a century ago by the League of Nations. Until the 1980s, it functioned reasonably well and prevented most instances of double taxation and double non-taxation by allocating cross-border income between home and host jurisdictions based on a compromise reached in 1923. However, since the advent of globalization in the 1980s and digitalization in the 1990s, the original international tax regime ceased to function as intended. The main problems were the increased mobility of capital related to increased intangibility and digitalization, together with a relaxation of capital controls and increased tax competition. These developments posed a problem for countries that wished to leave their borders open to reap the benefits of globalization and to engage in tax competition to attract investment. The outcome was a significant fall in tax revenues that threatened the social safety net of the modern welfare state. The trilemma of open borders, tax competition, and satisfying voters’ demand for social insurance culminated in the financial crisis of 2008–09, where many countries were forced to implement austerity measures at the same time that parliamentary hearings, leaks, and media reports revealed that rich individuals and large corporations were paying very little tax on cross-border income. The results over the past decade have been the creation of a new international tax regime designed to curb both tax evasion by the rich and tax competition among countries seeking to attract business activity within their borders by granting various preferential tax provisions to multinational enterprises. The key question going forward is how the new international tax regime will deal with international (in)equity, i.e. the economic digital divide. In what follows, I will first discuss the decline of the original international tax regime from 1980 to 2009, then the creation of the new international tax regime from 2010 on, and finally the implications of the new international tax regime for the economic digital divide.","PeriodicalId":46864,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Economic Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135898651","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 International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes was established in 1966 as a facility for the resolution of international investment disputes. Today, it has 158 member states and has administered roughly 70% of all known investor-state cases. International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes has taken a leadership role in modernizing the procedures for investor-state dispute resolution, especially in the 2006 and 2022 amendments to those rules.
{"title":"The Role of ICSID in International Economic Law","authors":"Meg Kinnear","doi":"10.1093/jiel/jgac059","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jiel/jgac059","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes was established in 1966 as a facility for the resolution of international investment disputes. Today, it has 158 member states and has administered roughly 70% of all known investor-state cases. International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes has taken a leadership role in modernizing the procedures for investor-state dispute resolution, especially in the 2006 and 2022 amendments to those rules.","PeriodicalId":46864,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Economic Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135948049","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}
Platforms constitute a novel context for social interaction. Physical distance makes little to no difference to interaction, and so the frequency and intensity of cross-territorial border interaction grow dramatically. This growth in interaction will be globalization on steroids. Platforms increase both collision among national rules (jurisdictional collision) and collision at the international level among functional rules (fragmentation). Revised normative and organizational tools will be needed to manage the increased globalization and fragmentation resulting from the rise of platform commerce. These tools may include modifications and extensions of existing rules of trade law, but they will embrace other areas of regulation in a much more nuanced manner than has been necessary until now. The existing fragmentation or ‘siloed’ nature of our international trade and regulatory systems will need to be modified—lateralized—to allow a more coherent approach.
{"title":"Platforms and Global Governance: Globalization on Steroids","authors":"J. Trachtman","doi":"10.1093/jiel/jgac063","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jiel/jgac063","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Platforms constitute a novel context for social interaction. Physical distance makes little to no difference to interaction, and so the frequency and intensity of cross-territorial border interaction grow dramatically. This growth in interaction will be globalization on steroids. Platforms increase both collision among national rules (jurisdictional collision) and collision at the international level among functional rules (fragmentation). Revised normative and organizational tools will be needed to manage the increased globalization and fragmentation resulting from the rise of platform commerce. These tools may include modifications and extensions of existing rules of trade law, but they will embrace other areas of regulation in a much more nuanced manner than has been necessary until now. The existing fragmentation or ‘siloed’ nature of our international trade and regulatory systems will need to be modified—lateralized—to allow a more coherent approach.","PeriodicalId":46864,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Economic Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.1,"publicationDate":"2023-01-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48499055","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：