Not everyone agreed with all that he said, but he could be called their spiritual domicile in the sense that it was from him that they set out on their journey, and to him that at the end of the day they returned. He expressed thoroughly and completely, with a touch as light as it was sure, the law as it had come to be lived, but in the terminology and according to the concepts that Justinian had caused to be written down.

The international economic law landscape has witnessed a number of significant developments in recent years, with some being gradual while others have been more in the nature of jolts. Among the former are the rise in bilateral and regional trade agreements and their concomitant dispute settlement mechanisms, and an increase in the number of investor–state disputes. Among the latter (‘jolts’) are the US administration’s decisive stance in 2018–19 regarding the WTO’s dispute settlement system – particularly the Appellate Body membership, renewal processes and decision-making – and the rapid increase in reform activities of investor–state arbitration institutions and working groups. Another development has been the so-called US–China ‘trade war’, led by the imposition of tariffs, and the potential role of the security exception in disputes pending at the WTO in relation to such impositions.

Through an exploration of the international career of Norway’s former Prime Minister Gro Harlem Brundtland, this chapter examines the emergence of a style of internationalism that we might call “pragmatarianism.” As a political style it can be compared to the domestic political styles of Hofstadter’s (1964) account of the paranoid style in US domestic politics. The pragmatarian style, by contrast, belongs more properly on the political (social democratic) left. In place of treason as the favored enemy motif, one finds instead the moral vacillation and ignorance of mankind at large: waiting to be fixed by the technocrats and the doyens of market signaling. The chapter explores the emergence, achievements, and tensions within this political style through an examination of Brundtland’s leadership of the World Commission on Environment and Development (1983–1987) and the World Health Organisation (1998–2003). It concludes with some reflections on the relationship between pragmatism and utopianism in the ongoing development of the Nordic humanitarian brand more broadly.

This chapter analyzes the significant changes that have taken place in Danish aid since the 1990s. The historical analysis shows that Denmark forms an exception to “Scandinavian exceptionalism,” with its approach historically much more characterized by pragmatism, mercantilism and subservience to international trends. Though sometimes presented as such, Danish aid today appears neither altruistic, idealist, nor driven by exceptional motives of humanitarianism. We thus show that Danish aid is less a reflection of a political ambition to brand Denmark internationally as a humanitarian frontrunner, and more a by-product of unfolding domestic political priorities influenced by international events and contingent changes. More so than the end of aid then, today is what we may call a new time of pragmatic ambiguity, drawing on “old” ideas, whether self-interest, tied aid or (domestic) political instrumentalization of aid.

Compared with municipal law the various methods by which rights and duties may be created in international law are relatively unsophisticated. Within a state, legal interests may be established by contracts between two or more persons, or by agreements under seal, or under the developed system for transferring property, or indeed by virtue of legislation or judicial decisions. International law is more limited as far as the mechanisms for the creation of new rules are concerned. Custom relies upon a measure of state practice supported by opinio juris and is usually, although not invariably, an evolving and timely process. Treaties, on the other hand, are a more direct and formal method of international law creation.

Jurisdiction concerns the power of the state under international law to regulate or otherwise impact upon people, property and circumstances and reflects the basic principles of state sovereignty, equality of states and non-interference in domestic affairs. Jurisdiction is a central feature of state sovereignty, for it is an exercise of authority which may alter or create or terminate legal relationships and obligations. It may be achieved by means of legislative, executive or judicial action. In each case, the recognised authorities of the state as determined by the legal system of that state perform certain functions permitted them which affect the life around them in various ways. In the United Kingdom, Parliament passes binding statutes, the courts make binding decisions and the administrative machinery of government has the power and jurisdiction (or legal authority) to enforce the rules of law. It is particularly necessary to distinguish between the capacity to make law, whether by legislative or executive or judicial action (prescriptive jurisdiction or the jurisdiction to prescribe), and the capacity to ensure compliance with such law, whether by executive action or through the courts (enforcement jurisdiction or the jurisdiction to enforce). Jurisdiction, although primarily territorial, may be based on other grounds, for example nationality, while enforcement is restricted by territorial factors.

Scandinavian countries have historically been liberal frontrunners in regard to asylum and immigration policy. Today, however, this picture has changed and each of the Scandinavian countries has introduced more restrictive measures. The present chapter examines the various domestic policy measures adopted by Denmark, Norway and Sweden in the field of asylum and immigration since 2015 and the dilemmas they raise for the traditional “Scandinavian humanitarian brand.” It argues that the particular kind of restrictive policymaking pursued by Scandinavian countries can be conceptualized as a form of negative nation branding. In order to achieve the deterrent effect of these policies, Scandinavian states are further prompted to actively advertise new restrictions in public discourse and through targeted campaigns. On this basis, the chapter discusses whether negative nation branding in regard to asylum and migration have international spillover effects.

Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) include substantive rights and obligations like those set out in the WTO Agreement. Most FTAs also contain provisions establishing mechanisms for third-party adjudication of disputes that may arise between the parties. This leads to on overlap of jurisdiction (Kwak and Marceau 2006), whereby WTO Members could challenge their FTA partners’ measures in the WTO and under the respective FTA dispute settlement mechanism (DSM).

More than 1,000 investor–state dispute settlement (ISDS) claims have been brought to date based on investment treaties, most of them in recent years. Many of the claims have challenged sensitive areas of government regulation, and some have resulted in multi-billion-dollar awards. ISDS has become a posterchild for anti-globalization groups and is increasingly considered problematic by a range of developing country governments. Yet, criticism of ISDS is not always associated with opposition to economic globalization, multinational firms, or to a rules-based international order. The CATO Institute, a prominent libertarian think-tank, is critical of what it sees as a positive discrimination in favour of foreign investors and the German Association of Judges, a stalwart defender of the rule of law, came out against the mechanism in the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership. Right or wrong, ISDS has become one of the most controversial issues in global economic governance.

How do people make choices? A short answer is that science is not absolutely sure. The longer answer is that science understands some, but not all, aspects of the complex cognitive activity in the human brain that produces what we might call a choice. To engage this complex area of study, the first question we might ask is what we mean by choice. I use the word choice in this book to describe the act or process of selecting or determining an outcome. Choice is the activity we initiate in our brains to reach an outcome. This outcome can take various forms, such as a decision, judgment, assessment, or behavior. Herein, choice is conceptually broader than decision making, which is traditionally understood as the process by which one reaches a decision

In recent years, the international dispute settlement mechanisms of both trade and investment, which were regarded as hallmark institutions in both fields, have never been tested as they are today. (On the trade side, the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) of the World Trade Organization (WTO), which functions through ad hoc panels and the standing Appellate Body (AB), is witnessing a gradual demise of its appeal mechanism. This is because of the United States’ dissatisfaction with the overall conduct of business by the AB. Specifically, the United States accuses the AB of bias, judicial activism, and non-adherence to time-frames for hearing appeals, among other things (Sen 2019). In protesting against the AB’s alleged mischievousness, the United States is blocking the appointment and renewal of term of the AB’s members. The WTO’s AB shut down on 11 December 2019, being left with only one member after two of its members’ terms expired. With this stalemate in mind, countries are likely to resort to preferential trade agreements (PTA) in order to settle their disputes while those that are negotiating new PTAs will likely be influenced by the AB stalemate in constituting their dispute settlement chapters in their new agreements. Indeed, this has happened with the PTAs that were adopted during and after the time that the WTO Agreements were negotiated – the dispute settlement chapters mirror that of the WTO because it was believed to be an ideal system at the time. Equally, the misfortunes of the AB will likely be considered in the constitution and working of the existing and future PTAs’ dispute settlement institutions.