The global trading system has reached an inflection point. The future of the liberalized, rules-based global world order is in doubt as countries that have for decades preached and practiced policies, which can loosely be defined as embodying the ‘Washington Consensus’, have started to backtrack. Free and fair trade is no longer the mantra as governments embrace industrial policy, protectionism, national security, risk management, and managed trade. Perhaps the most surprising adherent of the reversal is the US, whose embrace of what has been termed a ‘modern American industrial strategy’ runs counter to traditional American views and norms. While David Ricardo's theory of comparative advantage still holds true, it has certainly fallen out of fashion. Where it leads remains unknown – caveat emptor. This article analyses President Joe Biden's industrial policy and its implications as well as shifts that have occurred as a result of the pandemic, geopolitical competition, and other recent global events.

In the currently volatile global economic environment, China’s perspectives on the rule of law in international economic law are of significance. In principle, China shares developing countries’ attitudes towards international economic law. China also seeks to play a constructive role in the development of international economic law, endorsing a flexible and pragmatic approach. China has concluded international trade and investment treaties designed to constrain its policy space and is an active supporter of the World Trade Organization’s dispute settlement and investor-state dispute settlement mechanisms, with a good record of compliance. Recent trade tensions demonstrate challenges for the international rule of law but also emphasise the role of law in overcoming political challenges.

One of the most significant recent trends in global trade governance has been the increasing use of regulatory “reliance” arrangements as a significant element of trade alliances. Against this backdrop, an important set of questions are raised about how existing institutions of global trade governance – especially the World Trade Organization and international regulatory standards organisations – should respond. To what extent, and how, should such institutions facilitate reliance arrangements? And what role can they usefully play in overseeing and guiding their use? This paper begins to answer these questions through a focused case study of regulatory reliance in the agrifood sector. Four challenges are identified regarding the implementation of such arrangements: the high costs of establishment and maintenance; the lack of agreed and reliable assessment methodologies; the potential for arbitrary discrimination between trade partners; and the difficulties of dealing with regulatory change over time. In light of these challenges, the paper assesses the work of existing international organisations in governing reliance arrangements in the agrifood sector. The paper concludes with a number of preliminary suggestions as to how this architecture of global governance might be supplemented or harnessed to address some of the challenges posed by reliance arrangements.

Through symptomatic reading, we analyze the visible and the invisible – the explicit and the implicit – in the works of Filipino international legal scholar Merlin Magallona (1934–2022). We argue that Magallona's international legal thought was rooted in Marxist theory and practice and honed through the mode of production debates in the Philippine communist movement during the 1960s. Specifically, he developed a critique of the neocolonial division of labour and produced a materialist reading of international legal doctrines through “Postcolonial Self-Determination” – a synthesis of the antinomy of positivism and self-determination. In practice, his Third World Marxism led him to support the NIEO and resist UNCLOS through constitutional litigation based on the imperialist Treaty of Paris of 1898. Magallona's critique and praxis suggest new forms of resistance to the new imperialisms and underscore the imperative of a practice turn in Marxist international legal theory.

A principle that prohibits States from weakening their domestic levels of environmental protection continues to emerge at varying speeds within international trade, investment and environmental law. This article explores the principle's diverse history, rationale and legal expression in each of these domains and finds that its various articulations in different international treaties suffer the same shortfalls and deficiencies. Non-regression clauses may leave the complexities and nuances of implementing environmental protections unaddressed, including identifying and measuring when a regression has occurred and balancing these environmental protections with other legitimate policy and environmental measures. As these clauses are increasingly subject to investor–State and State–State dispute procedures, States expose themselves to heightened liability for changes to their environmental laws, even where those changes might be legitimate and reasonable. The particular emergence of this principle in environmental law offers treaty-makers an opportunity to clarify the rights of States to derogate from otherwise narrowly drafted clauses that require them to maintain their level of environmental protection strictly.

This is an article about two things. First, the bifurcation of public international law (PIL) into two distinct forms: The material and the narrative. And second, the methodological fragmentation of international lawyers into discrete communities. After setting the substantive fragmentation of PIL as the context of analysis, I deploy Susan Marks’ concept of “false contingency” to distinguish material and narrative PIL. I briefly examine each, and their interactions, before turning to a specific manifestation of material PIL that I call the Global Legal Order (GLO).

I then sketch the radical indeterminacy of narrative PIL, its manifestations in the ontological indeterminacy of the commonly accepted sources of PIL, and its source in PIL’s lack of authority and institutionalization. This contrasts with the determinacy and authority of the GLO. Next, I turn to the “fragmentation” of international lawyers into distinct “communities of practice.” In fact, this process turns out to be one of agglomeration, international lawyers are constructed within communities of practice, which glom together to create the appearance of PIL.

Finally, I turn to how these communities function by pitting “performances of legality” in “vicarious litigation,” using the Chagos Islands case as an illustration. This is contrasted with the functioning of the operative legal system that is the GLO. I examine the constituent institutions of this system, and how they operate together to produce direct and indirect governance in under-developed states. In practice, this policy imposition immiserates states and antagonizes local populations. It necessitates oppressive governance which entails what narrative PIL determines to be “human rights abuses.”

In investment treaties, the self-judging security exception clause allows states to restrict the exercise of investors’ rights and protections provided for by such treaties during security emergencies. During the last decade, such a clause has been included in numerous investment treaties to support state positions vis-à-vis foreign investors. States consider that this provision gives them a very broad discretion to limit or derogate from obligations which arise under the treaty. In this article, after having identified the self-judging character of this clause, it will be demonstrated that such a clause does not affect the jurisdiction of the tribunal but requires the tribunal to apply the principle of good faith as the proper standard of review to interpret the elements of the clause, preventing states’ abuse of such a clause.

This article takes issue with the assumption the policy research literature, specifically that produced by the World Trade Organization (WTO), makes about the role of law as one which is mainly reactive to an exogenous economic reality, that of value chain trade. It argues instead that law has played a much more active role, shaping the so-called fragmentation and fractionalization of production that has led to the proliferation of Global Value Chains (GVCs). By tracing the evolution of post/colonial international economic law, the article shows how trade and investment provisions in particular have been (and still are) an important terrain over which the relationship between companies and states is articulated, with important consequences for all actors involved in GVCs. If this active role is acknowledged then law can be seen not only as contributing, together with other market-making mechanisms, to the making of those economic processes it is assumed to only respond, but also as a means through which these processes can be shaped otherwise.

The first two decades of the twenty-first century saw the rapid rise of China in the global stage. During this period, China acquired valuable knowledge and expertise in International Economic Law (IEL), and expanded its trade and investments across the globe. The emergence of China has benefitted many countries in Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) in terms of trade and investment; however, it is unclear whether IEL has contributed with the expansion of China's economic relations with LAC. This article aims to address this question by reviewing the strategies and mechanisms employed by China to promote trade, investment and development finance in the region. Its central argument is that China has opted to engage with LAC using an eclectic platform that combines hard law instruments and institutions as well as other soft law mechanisms.

Decision-making processes leading to governmental measures affecting international trade involve socio-cognitive processes, biases, and sociocultural factors. The legal prohibition of discrimination against imported products constitutes a fundamental principle of World Trade Organization (WTO) law, but discrimination against foreign products is widespread. This study explores the contribution of social cognitive and sociological literatures to international trade scholarship concerning the “national treatment” obligation. Ingroup favoritism bias, related cognitive biases, such as confirmation bias, and sociocultural processes, such as “loyalty norms”, facilitate and support discrimination against foreign products.

One of the most contested issues regarding the interpretation of GATT Article III concerns the role of regulators’ intention in establishing a violation of this provision. The approach undertaken by the WTO Appellate Body is characterized by a preference for the “objective” test of regulators’ intention (focusing on intention revealed in the regulatory measure itself), and a reluctance to take into account regulators’ “subjective” intentions, discerned from regulators’ statements and a variety of other sources. In contrast to the WTO Appellate Body’s approach, this contribution suggests that once presented with credible evidence regarding key-role regulators’ intentions, manifested in both the regulatory measure itself and in a variety of other items of evidence, it is desirable that WTO tribunals assign adequate probative weight to such intentions. In addition, where it is credibly proven that ingroup favoritism norms prevail in the key role regulator’s social environment, it is advisable to grant some probative weight to such social norms. Assigning a probative weight to regulators’ subjective intentions and relevant norms is justified by the significant influence of intentions and norms on the prospects of discriminatory behavior.

The article highlights three principal types of regulators’ mindsets: mindful, mindless, and bias-resisting. Mindful regulators deliberately intend to restrict internal sale of foreign goods through discriminatory measures. Mindless regulators do not aim to discriminate against imported goods, and the disparate impact influences of their regulations are relegated to the background. Bias-resisting regulators intend to grant equal treatment to domestic and imported products and resist ingroup biases.

International clean technology diffusion is essential to mitigate and adapt to climate change, while fast and optimal diffusion can be prevented by the paywall of patents. This article explores the deficiency in clean technology diffusion caused by the legal fragmentation and rule complex of international environmental law and intellectual property law. It systematically examines three pathways to foster international clean technology diffusion through: restriction of intellectual property, including imposing external restraints in environmental law; striking internal balancing in maximizing TRIPS flexibilities; and keeping the status quo. It argues that treaty pathways may not work, and an operable pathway to promote clean technology diffusion is to maximize and consolidate TRIPS flexibilities in national laws. This option challenges the popular proposal of a “Doha-like” declaration on TRIPS and climate change due to the paralyzed multilateral trade mechanism, asymmetrical negotiation power of developing countries, prolonged negotiation process, and categorization problem in treaty negotiations.

This article examines the implications for a change in framework from sustainable development to degrowth in the environmental and social discourse of International Economic Law (I.Econ.L.). It argues that the framework of sustainable development accommodates the Global North's inaction in assuaging environmental degradation and alleviating global inequality by remaining embedded in a capitalist, growth-oriented political economy. Degrowth would provide a strategy to move past such an impasse by encouraging actors to grapple with the role growth plays in the rationale behind I.Econ.L. Degrowth advocates a planned economic contraction to reconcile human's relationship with the environment. This project serves as the first effort to link ideas of degrowth with I.Econ.L. and seeks to identify some of the areas in I.Econ.L.'s scholarship where degrowth would serve as an alternative to sustainable development and what such an alternative would mean for the norms in the different areas of I.Econ.L.