Financial Crisis, International Relations and International Economic Laws
The 2008 Financial Crisis has affected nearly every aspect of every economy in the world in some way or another. In a short span of time, its causes and consequences have been analyzed in great detail. However, while plenty has been written about its impact on domestic systems, its impact on international economic law is yet to receive the same kind of attention. This paper discusses the impact of the Crisis on the larger framework of international relations. It then examines the effect these changes have on key ongoing debates in international economic law particularly the much delayed Doha Development Agenda and the regulation of Sovereign Wealth Funds.
Towards the Multilateralization of International Investment Law
This article explores whether a multilateral investment treaty is necessary and possible in the framework of foreign direct investment (FDI) law or whether the current multifaceted and multilayered system of bilateral and regional investment agreements should be retained. This article aims to study existing investment regimes with a view toward creating a multilateral investment framework. This goal, however, does not suggest that current bilateral and regional investment regimes should be replaced or that the existing regimes are inadequate. The article reviews the multilateralization of FDI regulation, followed by an overview of the current principles and rules of FDI. As a necessary next step, the article examines the support for a multilateral investment framework. The main reasons behind such a framework are twofold: the current fragmented international investment regime may encourage regulatory competition among the various models of international investment agreements; and investor-state arbitration is causing issues of inconsistency of arbitral awards as well as forum shopping in dispute resolution. Finally, the article identifies policy considerations for a future multilateral investment framework. The article concludes that the World Trade Organization (WTO) has the opportunity here to incorporate years of experience of bilateral and regional investment agreements and develop a multilateral agreement for investment. Such an agreement in the WTO context would not replace current investment regulatory regimes, but could clarify the relationship among the General Agreement on Trade in Services, the Agreement on Trade-Related Investment Measures, and bilateral investment treaties.
Making and Breaking Impasses in International Regimes: The WTO, Seattle, and Doha
We cannot fully understand and improve global governance without understanding the process of negotiation in international organizations and other regimes. The strategies and tactics used by governments and official mediators partly determine whether negotiations end in impasse or agreement as well as the terms of agreements reached. A contrast between the World Trade Organization's negotiations in two recent cases, in 1999 and 2001, illustrates how variations in the negotiation process can shape regime rules, their evolution through time, and their legitimacy. This contrast reveals gaps in current regime literature and suggests five hypotheses for investigation in other regimes.