¹ We may take as examples the Conference on International Economic Co-operation (C.I.E.C.) in Paris in 1976–77, the 5th session of the U.N. Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD V) in Manila in 1979, and the 11th Special Session of the General Assembly on Economic and Developmental Questions in August–September, 1980, as well as the lack of progress on the elaboration of codes of conduct on technology transfer and multinationals and the delay of the start of the proposed global negotiations.

² North–South: a programme for survival. The report of the independent commission on international development issues under the chairmanship of Willy Brandt, London, 1980, 26 ffGoogle Scholar.

³ Two preparatory meetings on the level of foreign ministers took place in Vienna in November, 1980, and March, 1981: it was decided to invite 23 states to the summit which took place at Cancun in October, 1981, and at which the questions of food production and agriculture, trade and commodities, energy and international monetary order, were the main subjects of a deliberately informal exchange of views between the participating heads of state and government.

⁴ The concept of a global round of negotiations originates from the Summit Conference of Non-Aligned States in Havana in 1979. The basic idea was that the various unresolved North–South issues should be negotiated together within the United Nations in three phases. A U.N. conference for global negotiations should elaborate the general lines in the first place, in a second phase the detailed negotiations would be held within the competent U.N. special agencies such as the I.M.F., and in the third phase the conference should seek to devise a compromise package deal on the basis of the proposals.

⁵ U.N.-Doc. A/Res.3281 (XXIX) of 12 12, 1974Google Scholar. See Tomuschat, Christian, “The Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of States: some thoughts on the significance of declarations of the United Nations General Assembly” (in German with an English summary), Zeitschrift für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völlkerrecht (1976), 36, 444Google Scholar; Feuer, Guy “La Charte des Droits et Devoirs Economiques des Etats”, (1975) 79Google Scholar Revue Générale du Droit International Public 2, 272.

⁶ Restructuring the international economic framework, Report by the Secretary-General of UNCTAD to the fifth session of the conference, TD/221/Rev.1, 104, United Nations, New York, 1980Google Scholar. The Havana Conference adopted the Havana Charter which provided for the creation of an International Trade Organisation. However, only the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) eventually materialised from this initiative.

⁷ U.N.-Doc. A/34/150 of 17 12, 1979Google Scholar, para. 1. The Report of the Secretary-General appears as U.N.-Doc. A/35/466 of 10 10, 1980Google Scholar.

⁸ Hossain, Kamal (ed.), Legal aspects of a New International Economic Order, London/New York, 1980, 177 ffGoogle Scholar; International Committee on Legal Aspects of an N.I.E.O., Preliminary Report of the Committee, International Law Association, Belgrade Conference, 1980Google Scholar.

⁹ Consolidation and progressive development of the principles and norms of international economic law relating n particular to the legal aspects of the new international economic order, U.N.-Doc. A/35/166 of 15 12, 1980Google Scholar. UNITAR has contributed to the study and analysis of the N.I.E.O. already by number of studies and publications published under its auspices (UNITAR/CEESTEM Library on N.I.E.O., Pergamon Press); see, in particular, Laszlo, Ervin, Baker, Robert Jr, Eisenberg, Elliott, Raman, Venkata, The objectives of the New International Economic Order, Pergamon Policy Studies No. 1, UNITAR, 1978Google Scholar.

¹⁰ See, for example, Schwarzenberger, Georg, The dynamics of international law, London, 1976, 8Google Scholar.

¹¹ Cf. Seidl-Hohenveldern, Ignaz, “International economic ‘Soft Law’”, Academy of nternational Law, Collected Courses of The Hague, 163 (1979) II, 165Google Scholar; Schreuer, Christoph, “Recommendations and the traditional sources of international law”, (1977) 20 German Yearbook of International Law 103Google Scholar; Miehsler, Herbert, “Zur Autorität von Beschlussen nternationaler Institutionen”, Schreuer, Christoph (ed.), Autorität und Internationale Ordnung, Berlin, 1979, 35Google Scholar.

¹² For the outcome of the Tokyo-Round in regard to developing countries, see Berger, Robert G., “Preferential trade treatment for less developed countries: implications of the Tokyo Round”, (1979) Harvard International Law Journal, 20Google Scholar.

¹³ See, for example, Bedjaoui, Mohammed, Towards a new International Economic Order (Series: New challenges to international law), UNESCO, 1979Google Scholar; Seidl-Hohenveldern, op. cit., Sauvant, Karl P. and Hasenpflug, Hajo, The New International Economic Order, 1977Google Scholar.

¹⁴ Mutharika, A. Peter, The international law of development, basic documents, Vol. 1–4, New York, 1978Google Scholar: Flory, Maurice, Droit international du diveloppement, Paris, 1977Google Scholar; Benedek, Wolfgang, “Entwicklungsvolkerrecht–neuer Bereich oder neue Perspektive (Gestaltwandel) im Volkerrecht?” in Reformen des Rechts, (Festschrift zur 200-Jahr-Feierder Rechtswissenschaftlichen Fakultät der Universität Gvaz), Graz, 1979, 881Google Scholar; Schachter, Oscar, “The evolving international law of development”, (1976) 15Columbia Journal ofTransnational LawGoogle Scholar; Petersmann, E. Ulrich, “Die Dritte Welt und das Wirtschaftsvölkerrecht; ‘Entwicklungsland’ als privilegierter Rechtsstatus”, (1976) 36 Zeitschrift für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht 492Google Scholar; Petersmann, , “Entwicklungsvölkerrecht”, “Droit International du Développement”, “International Economic Development Law”: Mythos oder Wirklichkeit?, (1974) 17 German Yearbook of International Law 145Google Scholar; Virally, Michel, “Oú en est le Droit International du Développement?”, (1975) 29 Revue juridique et politique Independance et Cooperation 279Google Scholar; Virally, , “Vers Un Droit International Du Développement”, (1965) 11 Annuaire Française du Droit International 3Google Scholar; Virally, , “Pays en voie de développement et transformation du droit international”, Société Française pour le Droit International, Colloque d'Aix-en-Provence, Paris 1974Google Scholar.

¹⁵ Wälde, Thomas W., “North–South economic co-operation and international economic development law: legal process and institutional considerations”, (1980) 23 G.Y.I.L 59. In his seminal work The changing structure of international law, London 1964Google Scholar, Wolfgang Friedmann identified international economic development law as a future new area of international law.

¹⁶ See Benedek, W., op. cit., at 898;Google ScholarFlory, M., op. cit., at 36 and 165;Google Scholar M. Virally, op. cit.: For paradigmatic change in international law, see in particular: Ginther, Konrad, “Systemwandel und Theoriendynamik im Völkerrecht”, Multum Non Multa, Festschrift für Kurt Lipstein, Peter Feuerstein und Clive Parry (Hg.), Heidelberg/Karlsruhe, 1980;Google ScholarWildhaber, Luzius, “Wo steht das Volkerrecht heute? Versuch einer Standortbestimmung”, (1980) 36Google Scholar Schweizerisches Jahrbuch für Internationales Recht (Annuaire suisse de droit international).

¹⁷ Cf. art. 1 (2) of the International Covenants. A comprehensive expression of the right to economic self-determination is contained in the Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of States, 1974, which however was adopted despite the opposition of those industrialised states mostly concerned. For a full account of the right of economic self-determination see Reinhard, Hans, “Rechtsgleichheit und Selbstbestimmung der Volker in wirtschaftlicher Hinsicht,” Beiträgezum ausländischen öffentlichen Recht und Völkerrecht 74, Heidelberg, 1980.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Cf. Ramcharan, B. G., “Equality and Discrimination in International Economic Law: Development and International Economic Co-operation”, The Year Book of World Affairs, London, 1981, 79Google Scholar.

¹⁹ Differential and more Favourable Treatment, Reciprocity and Fuller Participation of Developing Countries, GATT, Basic Instruments and Selected Documents (B.I.S.D.), Twenty-sixth Supplement, Geneva, 1980, 203Google Scholar. Other decisions of GATT adopted the same day with particular regard to developing countries are the Declaration on Trade Measures taken for Balance of Payments Purposes and Safeguard Action for Development Purposes, ibid.

²⁰ See arts. 23 and 24 of the draft: U.N.-Doc. A/35/443 of 18 09, 1980Google Scholar, and Hubbard, Damian, “The International Law Commission and the New International Economic Order”, (1978) 22 G.Y.I.L 80Google Scholar; Hubbard points to the fundamental conflict between the uniformity principle of classical most-favoured-nation clauses and the principle of differential treatment and collective self-reliance.

²¹ Generalized System of Preferences, Waiver, B.I.S.D., 18 Supplement, 24. Another waiver of 26 11, 1971Google Scholar, concerning trade negotiations among developing countries allowed for preferences among developing countries negotiated then in. form of a Protocol, ibid., 26.

²² See for a general discussion of the status of “developing countries” as a privileged legal status: Petersmann, 1976, loc. cit., for the World Bank Group and GATT, see Verwey, Will D., “The Recognition of the Developing Countries as Special Subjects of International Law beyond the Sphere of United Nations Resolutions”, The Right to Development at the International Level, Workshop at The Hague, 16/18 10, 1979Google Scholar, Hague Academy of International Law and United Nations University, Alphen aan den Rijn 1980, 372Google Scholar.

²³ Scheuner, Ulrich, “Solidarität unter den Nationen als Grundsatz in der gegenwartigen internationalen Gemeinschaft”, Recht im Dienst des Friedens, Festschrift für Eberhard Menzel Berlin, 1979, 251Google Scholar; Schachter, Oscar, Sharing the World's Resources, New York, 1977Google Scholar.

²⁴ Schachter, loc. cit., 9.

²⁵ Friedmann, Wolfgang, “ The Relevance of International Law to the Process of Economic and Social Development”, Proc. A.S.I.L., Washington, 1966, 8.Google Scholar

²⁶ Cf. Talbot, Ross B., “ The International Fund for Agricultural Development”, (1980) Political Science Quarterly, 261Google Scholar. The initial contributions were composed as follows: O.E.C.D. 567 million dollars, OPEC 435 million dollars, developing countries 9 million dollars. This capital was almost fully committed after the first three years of operations of the Fund. Negotiations for replenishment to provide the financial means for another three-year period from 1981 to 1983 are underway.

²⁷ See Multilaterally Agreed Equitable Principles and Rules for the Control of Restrictive Business Practices, TC/RBP/Conf/10, United Nations 1980: (adopted at the U.N. Conference on Restrictive Business Practices, New York, 22 04, 1980)Google Scholar: For a general legal analysis of codes of conduct see Baade, Hans W., “The Legal Effect of Codes of Conduct for Multinational Enterprises”, (1979) 22 G.Y.I.LGoogle Scholar.

²⁸ For a private international law perspective see Lando, Ole, “Renegotiation and Revision of International Contracts”, (1980) 23 G.Y.I.L 37–58Google Scholar.

²⁹ A most interesting example is the Southern African Development Co-ordination Conference (S.A.D.C.C., 1980), other examples may be found in the Andean Pact (Carthagena Agreement, 1969/1979), the ASEAN group (1967) or ECOWAS (1975).

³⁰ E.C.A. has played a promotive role in most of the efforts of African institution-building and integration. It also has developed its own sub-regional structure through five Multinational Programming and Operational Centres (MULPOCs). See: Adedeji, Adebayo, Statement at the opening of the 5th Meeting of the Conference of Ministers in Rabat, 20th March, 1979, UNECA, Addis Ababa, 1979; See also below, n. 74 and n. 75Google Scholar.

³¹ Virally, 1965 and Flory, 1977, above, n. 14.

³² M'Baye, Keba, Le droit au developpement comme un droit de I'homme, Inaugural lecture at the International Institute for Human Rights, Strasbourg, 1972Google Scholar.

³³ See in particular the final report of UNESCO: Expert Meeting on Human Rights, Human Needs and the Establishment of a N.I.E.O., Paris, 19–2306, 1978Google Scholar, UNESCO-Doc. SS78/Conf.630/12; “The International Dimensions of the Right to Development as a Human Right” (short title), Report of the Secretary-General, Commission on Human Rights, 35th session, 2 01, 1979Google Scholar, E/CN.4/1334; “The Right to Development at the International Level”, Hague Academy of International Law/United Nations University Workshop, The Hague, 16–1810, 1979Google Scholar, Alphen aan den Rijn, 1980; Seminar on the effect of the existing unjust international economic order on the economies of the developing countries and the obstacle that this represents for the implementation of human rights and fundamental freedoms, Geneva, 30 06 to 11 07, 1980Google Scholar, U.N.-Doc. ST/HR/SER.A/8. At the 37th session of the U.N. Commission on Human Rights, a Working Group was established in March, 1981, which is preparing proposals for an international instrument on the right to development.

³⁴ Report of O.A.U. Ministerial Meeting on African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights, 7–19 January, 1981, Banjul, The Gambia, O.A.U. Doc. CAB/LEG/67/3/Rev. 5, art. 22Google Scholar; this draft charter was adopted by the O.A.U. Assembly of Heads of State and Government at Nairobi in June, 1981.

³⁵ Important examples are the International Development Strategies adopted for the second and third development decade of the United Nations, G.A.-Res. 2626 (XXV) of 24 October, 1970, and G.A.-Res. 35/36 of 5 December, 1980. See M. Flory, above.

³⁶ On 1 June, 1982, it comprises all African developing states South of Sahara, except Angola, Mozambique and Namibia; the Caribbean countries Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Dominica, Grenada, Guyana, Jamaica, St. Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Surinam, Trinidad and Tobago and the Pacific islands Fiji, Kiribati, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu, Western Samoa, Vanuatu.

³⁷ The Lomé I Convention is reproduced in The Courier, No. 31, Special issue, 03, 1975Google Scholar. See for a general analysis: Simmonds, K. R., “The Lomé Convention: Implementation and Renegotiation”, (1979) 16 Common Market Law Review 3, 425Google Scholar.

³⁸ When this protocol was negotiated E.E.C. prices were below prices on the world market. ater, when world market prices fell, A.C.P. producers earned considerable profits. A.C.P. roducers Kenya, Uganda, Congo and Surinam were unable to meet their responsibilities. When he Community, according to article 7 of Protocol No. 3, sought to reduce the agreed quotas of hose states a dispute arose as to whether the non-delivery could be subsumed under force majeure. The A.C.P.–E.E.C. Council of Ministers decided to solve the dispute, in accordance with art. 81 (2) of the Lomé I Convention, by means of a “good offices procedure”. In case of failure of this rocedure the dispute would have to be settled by arbitration as provided for by art. 81 (3) of Lomé I.

³⁹ For the details of the negotiations of Lomé II see: Ravenhill, John, “Asymmetrical interdependence: renegotiating the Lomé Convention”, (1979–1980) 35International Journal, Canadian Institute of International AffairsGoogle Scholar; Sharp, Robin, “The A.C.P. Countries and Renewal of Lomé: Is Anything Better Than Nothing?”, (1979) Afrika Spectrum87–94Google Scholar.

⁴⁰ Protocol no. 1, concerning the definition of the concept of “originating products” and ethods of administrative co-operation, deals with the operating expenditure of the institutions, rivileges and immunities, bananas, rum, the tax and customs arrangements applicable to the A.C.P. states to contracts financed by the Community; see also the text of the Protocol no. 3 on A.C.P. Sugar, Lomé I.

⁴¹ The famous “lettre de piscine”, an exchange of letters between the two heads of delegation at Lomé containing some interpretative statements on the controversial “joint declaration on investments” contained in Annex IX, was not included in the official text although the A.C.P. answer to the E.E.C. note had asked for its inclusion.

⁴² E.E.C. officials deplore this development, which raises considerable problems in the application of the convention; they would prefer clear division between legally binding provisions and non-binding declarations of intent.

⁴³ This fall may also be due to accidents, serious technical mishaps or “grave political events, whether internal or external” (art. 52).

⁴⁴ Compare Annex X: Joint declaration on complementary financing of industrial co-operation.

⁴⁵ See the interpretative qualification of art. 9, paragraph 2, in the Community declaration in Annex XXVIII to the effect that this obligation does not apply if non-E.E.C. states do grant A.C.P. states greater preferences than the Community.

⁴⁶ See above, n. 34.

⁴⁷ The Community itself has promoted this notion by the distribution of a detailed private study of the “irrevocable interdependence” between Europe and the Third World. See Noelke, Michael, “Europe—Third World: Mutual Dependence”, Commission of the European Communities, Development Series No. 2, Brussels 1979Google Scholar, in particular the prescript of Claude Cheysson; see also: Noelke, Wolfgang, “Europa—Dritte Welt: Interdependenz als Herausforderung”, (“Europe—Third World: Interdependence as Challenge”), dokuentations bulletin A, Sondernummer, 2 Aufl., Brüssels, 1980Google Scholar.

⁴⁸ In 1978 38·2 per cent, of the Community's exports went to the countries of the Third World.

⁴⁹ Cheysson, Claude, “Our development aid policy must be integrated with all our other policies”, The Courier, No. 60, 03/04, 1980Google Scholar; cf. article 66 (h) of Lomé II; The European Economic Community and changes in the international division of labour, report prepared by an independent group of experts on the reciprocal implications of the internal and external policies of the Community, Commission of the European Communities, Brussels 1979Google Scholar.

⁵⁰ This argument is also to be found in: “European security and African problems”, Report to the Assembly of Western European Union, Document 772 of 16 05, 1978Google Scholar

⁵¹ Information P-92, Commission of the European Communities 10, 1979, 1Google Scholar.

⁵² Cf. The Courier, No. 58, special issue, 11, 1979, 27Google Scholar.

⁵³ Helldorff, Klaus von, “Die Abkommen von Lomé: Immer noch Wegweiser?” Entwicklung und Zusammenarbeit, No. 10/81, at 10:In 1979 it was 6 per centGoogle Scholar. of total official aid of E.E.C. states. According to new figures this ratio in 1980 sank below 5 per cent. The Courier, No. 69, 09/10 1981Google Scholar.

⁵⁴ The text of the Lomé II Convention together with the protocols and 44 annexed declarations are to be found in The Courier, Africa—Caribbean—Pacific—European Community, No. 58, special issue, 11, 1979Google Scholar. However the declarations which form part of the signing protocol of Lomé are not reproduced.

⁵⁵ Cf., e.g., art. 76 (1), where the Community and the A.C.P states recognise the mutual benefits of co-operation in the field of energy.

⁵⁶ The Rules of Procedure of the Lomé institutions, the decisions of the A.C.P.–E.E.C. Council of Ministers, relevant regulations of the E.E.C. Council, agreements, accessions and other acts are to be found in “Compilation of Texts”, (E.E.C. Brussels) which cover each about one year of operations.

⁵⁷ A comprehensive evaluation of the A.C.P–E.E.C. Council of Ministers of the whole period of Lomé I is contained in the Annual Report, 25 07 1980Google Scholar.

⁵⁸ “From Lomé I to Lomé II,” texts of the report and the resolution adopted by the A.C.P.–E.E.C. Consultative Assembly on 26 09, 1980Google Scholar: Report by European Member of Parliament Katharina Focke, Official Publications Office, Luxembourg, 1980, no. AX-31-80-166;Google ScholarFocke, Katharina, “A critical assessment for the A.C.P.–E.E.C. Consultative Assembly”, Development & Co-operation, no. 3/1981, 19Google Scholar.

⁵⁹ See for example: Becker, Jürgen, Die Partnerschaft von Lomé, Baden-Baden, 1979Google Scholar; Geusau, Frans A. M. Alting von (ed.), The Lomé Convention and a new international economic order, Leyden, 1977Google Scholar; Workshop on A.C.P.–E.E.C. Convention of Lomé (1976) XIII University of Ghana Law Journal; Cosgrove-Twitchett, Carol, Europe and Africa: from association to partnership, London, 1978Google Scholar.

⁶⁰ The example of Lomé was not followed by other industrialised countries, although other approaches containing similar elements have been developed as, e.g., the Austrian proposal for a “massive transfer of resources” inspired by the experience of the Marshall Plan after World War II. This was presented by the Austrian Chancellor Kreisky, Bruno, to the Third General Conference of UNIDO in New Delhi on 31 01, 1980Google Scholar.

⁶¹ See above, n. 53.

⁶² Indeed the A.C.P. states criticise the erosion of “their” preferences whereas non-A.C.P. developing states complain about the privileged treatment of the A.C.P.

⁶³ See above, n. 4.

⁶⁴ This happened in the case of Mauritius. In response, the A.C.P. invoked art. 12 (2) of the Convention which states that “the Community and its Member States undertake not to use safeguard measures or other means for protectionist purposes or to hamper structural development”.

⁶⁵ The Tanzanian Minister of Finance, Jamal, A. H., in his speech to the opening of the meeting of the A.C.P. –E.E.C. joint committee at Arusha on 25 01, 1980Google Scholar, observed: “As we in the A.C.P. countries strengthen ourselves through collective self-reliance, so also we develop the potential embodied in the Lomé Convention.”

⁶⁶ Cheysson, Claude, then the E.E.C. Commissioner for Development, at a U.N. conference on the interest of Europe in the N.I.E.O. at Brussels on 2–3 06, 1980Google Scholar, see: Europe, No. 2920,4 06, 1980Google Scholar. At the signing ceremony of Lomé II on 31 10, 1979Google Scholar, Cheysson stated that Lomé had no real meaning unless the world order changed, noting a constantly widening gap between Lomé and the progress of negotiations at world level: The Courier, No. 58. 9.

⁶⁷ Asante, S. K. B., “Will Lomé II lead to more dependency?”, West Africa, 30 03, 1981, 688Google Scholar. Martin, Guy, “Les relations économiques Europe–Afrique dans le cadre de la Convention de Lomé: Neo-Colonialism ou Nouvel Ordre Economique International?”, (1979) 1 Africa Development 57Google Scholar.

⁶⁸ See above, n. 47.

⁶⁹ For a critical review on regional co-operation see Katharina Focke, above, n. 58; see also Krämer, Hans R., “Die Bedeutung der Abkommen von Yaounde und Lomé für die regionale Integration zwischen Entwicklungsländern”, in Recht im Dienst des Friedens, Festschrift für Eberhard Menzel, Berlin, 1975, 567Google Scholar.

⁷⁰ See Protocol No. 1, art. 1. The A.C.P. therefore are treated as a free trade area by the E.E.C.

⁷¹ The A.C.P. group held several meetings to strengthen intra-A.C.P. co-operation as for example the special session in Montego Bay, Jamaica in 1980. See, The Courier, No. 64, 11–12, 1980, 4Google Scholar.

⁷² Comments of Bolaji Akinyemi in his introduction to the lecture of the chief negotiator of the A.C.P. group for I, Lomé, Sanu, E. Olu, The Lomé Convention and the New International Economic Order, The Nigerian Institute of International Affairs, Lecture Series No. 18;Google Scholar Sanu's conclusion was that because of its economic position Africa was not prepared to take full advantage of a possible N.I.E.O. It had first to strengthen horizontal relations between African states which could not develop without becoming more self-reliant.

⁷³ See Annex, XVI: Joint declaration on representation of regional economic groupingsGoogle Scholar.

⁷⁴ Revised Framework of Principles for the Implementation of the New International Economic Order in Africa 1976–1981–1986, Economic Commission for Africa, E/CN.14/ECO/90/Rev.3.Google Scholar For a general account of African efforts see Cervenka, Zdenek, “Africa and the New International Economic Order.” (1976) 9 Law and Politics in Africa, Asia and Latin America (Verfassung und Recht in Ubersee), 187Google Scholar.

⁷⁵ Final Act, 29 04, 1980Google Scholar, EAHG/ECO/3 (II) Rev. 1.

⁷⁶ Cf. para. 39 of the resolution, above, n. 58.

⁷⁷ Southern Africa: Towards Economic Liberation, A Declaration by the Governments of the Independent States of Southern Africa, Lusaka, 1 04, 1980, S.A.D.C.C, London, 1980Google Scholar.

⁷⁸ Increasing awareness among developing countries of this fact can be seen from the various efforts to develop economic co-operation (E.C.D.C.) as well as technical co-operation between developing countries (T.C.D.C.), which are particularly aided by UNCTAD.

⁷⁹ Cf. for the E.E.C. position Reactivation of the North–South dialogue, Communication from the Commission to the European Council, COM (80) 302 of 29 05, 1980Google Scholar: “Dialogue at regional level is now an essential part of the Community's policy for the North–South dialogue”.

⁸⁰ See, for example, vanThemaat, P. Verloren, “Die Aufgabe der Rechtswissenschaft in der Diskussion um eine neue Weltwirtschaftsordnung,” (1979) 43 Rabels Zeitschrift für ausländisches und internales Privatrecht 632.Google Scholar

⁸¹ Ginther, Konrad, above, 66.Google Scholar