[FREE PDF sample] New voices and new perspectives in international economic law 1st ed. 2020 edition by Education Libraries

New Voices and

Perspectives in International Economic Law 1st ed. 2020 Edition John D. Haskell

Visit to download the full and correct content document: https://ebookmass.com/product/new-voices-and-new-perspectives-in-international-ec onomic-law-1st-ed-2020-edition-john-d-haskell/

More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant download maybe you interests ...

Exchange and Markets in Early Economic Development: Informal Economy in the Three New Guineas John D. Conroy

https://ebookmass.com/product/exchange-and-markets-in-earlyeconomic-development-informal-economy-in-the-three-new-guineasjohn-d-conroy/

International Relations in the Anthropocene: New Agendas, New Agencies and New Approaches David Chandler

https://ebookmass.com/product/international-relations-in-theanthropocene-new-agendas-new-agencies-and-new-approaches-davidchandler/

Italy in the New International Order, 1917–1922 1st ed. Edition Antonio Varsori

https://ebookmass.com/product/italy-in-the-new-internationalorder-1917-1922-1st-ed-edition-antonio-varsori/

The new histories of international criminal law : retrials First Edition Tallgren

https://ebookmass.com/product/the-new-histories-of-internationalcriminal-law-retrials-first-edition-tallgren/

Experimental and Expanded Animation: New Perspectives and Practices 1st ed. Edition Vicky Smith

https://ebookmass.com/product/experimental-and-expandedanimation-new-perspectives-and-practices-1st-ed-edition-vickysmith/

New Perspectives on Political Economy and Its History 1st ed. Edition Maria Cristina Marcuzzo

https://ebookmass.com/product/new-perspectives-on-politicaleconomy-and-its-history-1st-ed-edition-maria-cristina-marcuzzo/

The New Oxford Annotated Apocrypha: New Revised Standard Version 5th Edition Edition Michael D. Coogan (Ed.)

https://ebookmass.com/product/the-new-oxford-annotated-apocryphanew-revised-standard-version-5th-edition-edition-michael-dcoogan-ed/

The New Regional Order in the Middle East: Changes and Challenges 1st ed. 2020 Edition Sara Bazoobandi

https://ebookmass.com/product/the-new-regional-order-in-themiddle-east-changes-and-challenges-1st-ed-2020-edition-sarabazoobandi/ Shadows of Empire in West Africa: New Perspectives on European Fortifications 1st Edition John Kwadwo OseiTutu

https://ebookmass.com/product/shadows-of-empire-in-west-africanew-perspectives-on-european-fortifications-1st-edition-johnkwadwo-osei-tutu/

John D. Haskell Akbar Rasulov Editors

Special Issue: New Voices and New Perspectives in International Economic Law

EuropeanYearbookofInternationalEconomic Law

SpecialIssue

SeriesEditors

MarcBungenberg,FacultyofLaw,SaarlandUniversity,Saarbrücken,Germany

MarkusKrajewski,FacultyofLaw,UniversityofErlangen-Nuremberg,Erlangen, Bayern,Germany

ChristianJ.Tams,SchoolofLaw,UniversityofGlasgow,Glasgow,UK

JörgPhilippTerhechte,Competition&RegulationInstitute,LeuphanaUniversität Lüneburg,Lüneburg,Niedersachsen,Germany

AndreasR.Ziegler,CDCEI-Droit,InternefBuilding,Université deLausanne, Lausanne,Switzerland

TheEuropeanYearbookofInternationalEconomicLaw(EYIEL)isanannual publicationinInternationalEconomicLaw,a fieldincreasinglyemancipatingitself fromPublicInternationalLawscholarshipandevolvingintoafully-fledged academicdisciplineinitsownright.Withtheyearbook,theeditorsandpublisher intendtomakeasigni ficantcontributiontothedevelopmentofthis “new” discipline andprovideaninternationalreferencesourceofthehighestpossiblequality. TheEYIELcoversallareasofIEL,inparticularWTOLaw,ExternalTradeLawfor majortradingcountries,importantRegionalEconomicIntegrationagreements, InternationalCompetitionLaw,InternationalInvestmentRegulation,International MonetaryLaw,InternationalIntellectualPropertyProtectionandInternationalTax Law.Inadditiontotheregularannualvolumes,EYIELSpecialIssuesroutinely addressspeci ficcurrenttopicsinInternationalEconomicLaw.

Moreinformationaboutthissubseriesat http://www.springer.com/series/8848

JohnD.Haskell • AkbarRasulov

Editors

NewVoicesandNew PerspectivesinInternational EconomicLaw

Editors JohnD.Haskell SchoolofLaw

UniversityofManchester Manchester,UK

AkbarRasulov SchoolofLaw

UniversityofGlasgow Glasgow,UK

ISSN2364-8392ISSN2364-8406(electronic) EuropeanYearbookofInternationalEconomicLaw

ISSN2510-6880ISSN2510-6899(electronic) SpecialIssue

ISBN978-3-030-32511-4ISBN978-3-030-32512-1(eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-32512-1

Thisworkissubjecttocopyright.AllrightsarereservedbythePublisher,whetherthewholeorpart ofthematerialisconcerned,speciﬁcallytherightsoftranslation,reprinting,reuseofillustrations, recitation,broadcasting,reproductiononmicroﬁlmsorinanyotherphysicalway,andtransmission orinformationstorageandretrieval,electronicadaptation,computersoftware,orbysimilarordissimilar methodologynowknownorhereafterdeveloped.

Theuseofgeneraldescriptivenames,registerednames,trademarks,servicemarks,etc.inthis publicationdoesnotimply,evenintheabsenceofaspeciﬁcstatement,thatsuchnamesareexemptfrom therelevantprotectivelawsandregulationsandthereforefreeforgeneraluse.

Thepublisher,theauthorsandtheeditorsaresafetoassumethattheadviceandinformationinthis bookarebelievedtobetrueandaccurateatthedateofpublication.Neitherthepublishernorthe authorsortheeditorsgiveawarranty,expressedorimplied,withrespecttothematerialcontained hereinorforanyerrorsoromissionsthatmayhavebeenmade.Thepublisherremainsneutralwithregard tojurisdictionalclaimsinpublishedmapsandinstitutionalafﬁliations.

ThisSpringerimprintispublishedbytheregisteredcompanySpringerNatureSwitzerlandAG Theregisteredcompanyaddressis:Gewerbestrasse11,6330Cham,Switzerland

Introduction:TheDisciplineofInternationalEconomicLaw ataCrossroads 1

AkbarRasulov

TheOrdo-LiberalOriginsofModernInternationalInvestmentLaw: ConstructingCompetitiononaGlobalScale 37 NtinaTzouvala

AHistoryofFoodSecurityandAgricultureinInternationalTrade Law,1945–2017 ........................................... 55 MichaelFakhri

TheAuthorityofLanguageinInternationalLaw:FromSovereignty toEconomicCertainty ...................................... 91 AtheneRichford

TakingLocalExpectationsSeriously:AFreshStartforForeign InvestmentGovernance? 113

NicolásM.Perrone

HowDoHostStatesRespondtoInvestmentTreatyLaw? SomeEmpiricalObservations 133 MavludaSattorova,MustafaErkanandOhiocheoyaOmiunu MamatasandOthersv.Greece:HowtheEuropeanCourtofHuman RightsCouldChangeSovereignDebtRestructuration .............. 153 AlexandreBelle

DoingThingswithPoliticalEconomy(asaPublicInternational LawAcademic) ........................................... 173

JohnD.Haskell

SocialConsensusintheEMU:TheConstitutionalTenets ofaCurrencyUnion

MariaTzanakopoulou

Introduction:TheDiscipline ofInternationalEconomicLaw ataCrossroads

AkbarRasulov

Abstract Oldcertaintiesaremeltingaway.Anerahasdrawntoaclose.Thefoundationsoftheglobaleconomicsystemarerapidlychanging.Theopeningofintellectual horizonsthathascomeinthewakeoftheseepochalshiftscallsforafundamental rethinkingofthemainfunctionsandtasksofinternationaleconomiclaw(IEL)asa disciplinaryproject.Italsocallsforanewexplanationofinternationallaw’ssystemic potential,power,andeffectivityinthecontextofcontemporaryglobalgovernance. Howdoesinternationallawinﬂuencetheworkingsofinternationaleconomicgovernance?Whatarethemainwaysinwhichitcanimpactonthecourseofglobal economicaffairs?Drawingonthetraditionsoflegalrealism,Marxism,andclassicallaw-and-economics,thisessayoutlinesafour-foldtheoryofIEL’sregulatory effectivity:IELasaprice-settingmechanism,IELasamechanismforthestructuringofopportunities,IELasamechanismofideologicallegitimation,andIELasa mechanismofdiscipliningandinterpellation.Thegoalofthistheoreticalprojectis topromoteanintellectualrecalibrationofIEL’sdisciplinaryambitalongfundamentallyfunctionalistlines:thedisciplineofIELshouldstudyeverythingthatpertainsto howtheeffectivelegalrealitiesofglobaleconomicgovernancearesetup,howthey operate,andhowtheyareproduced.Thedrearinessofthedéjàvuonefeelswhen lookingatthetraditionalIELscholarshipwouldhaveprobablyfeltalotmoretolerablehadwesomehowbeenabletomusterthesensethattheendlessreproduction oftheestablishedparadigmmighteventuallyleadtosomethingtangiblygoodand positiveintheexternalworldoutsideourdebates.Butbyandlarge,weknow,that issimplynottrue.Andsothequestioninevitablyarises:ifallofthatwhichwehave gotusedtopractisingasascholarlycommunityisstillgettingusnowherebetterthan wherewehavebeenbefore,whynottrysomethingdifferent?

1 See,e.g.,Authers(2018),Sandbu(2017),Beattie(2009),BeffaandRagot(2008),Wolf(2008).

A.Rasulov(B)

SchoolofLaw,UniversityofGlasgow,Glasgow,UK

e-mail: akbar.rasulov@glasgow.ac.uk

©SpringerNatureSwitzerlandAG2020

J.D.HaskellandA.Rasulov(eds.), NewVoicesandNewPerspectivesinInternational EconomicLaw,EuropeanYearbookofInternationalEconomicLaw, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-32512-1_1

1TheEndofanEra:IdeologyandHysteria

intheEuropeanPublicDiscourse

Anerahascometoanend.Thefoundationsoftheglobaleconomicsystemhave shifted.Thereignofneoliberaleconomics,wearetold,hasdrawntoaclose.The mindlessworshipofthemarketshasstopped,andtheoldThatcheritemantrathat thereisnoalternativenolongerseemslikeaself-fulfillingprophecy.Withmostofthe world’sadvancedeconomiesrepeatedlyslidinginandoutofrecessionandBiblicalscalefaminesonceagainbecomingarealisticprospectacrossvariouspartsofthe globalSouth,theoldcertaintiesofNewFinanceCapitalism—theHardt-and-Negrian worldofborderlesspolitics,omniscientmarkets,postnationalglobalefficiencies, andtheendlesscycleoffluidself-reinvention—arequicklymeltingaway.Eventhe FinancialTimes commentariathavestartedtoacknowledgeasmuch.1

Duskhasdescendedovertheglobaleconomicorder,andMinerva’sowlonce againhastakentoﬂight.Andwhataviewopensbeforeitseyesasitrisesnow overEurope.WhichevercorneroftheEuropeanUnionitmayturnto,awaveof unstoppablemoralpanicseemstobespreadingacrossthecontinent’spublicspaces andthe‘thinkingclasses’thatpopulatethem.Ascentofhysteriahangsheavyinthe air:thenewEuropeanorderthatwassopainstakinglyforgedintheaftermathofthe 2003TreatyofAccessionisfallingapart.

Proudlyliberalinitsself-declaredidentity,unabashedlysupranationalinitspoliticalaspirations,thenewEuropeoftheearly2000s—theEuropeof‘freedom,security, andjusticewithoutinternalfrontiers’,of‘pluralism,non-discrimination,tolerance’, anda‘socialmarketeconomy’—hascomeunderattack,viciouslyambushedbythe forcesofreactionaryanti-internationalismandthefarright.

Brexit,2 Salvini’sLeague,3 the AlternativefürDeutschland, 4 thePolishjudiciary crisis5 —whereveronelooks,oneseesthesamedisturbingsigns.Virulentnationalism,far-rightpopulism,nativism,andxenophobiaareontheriseeverywhere.The basicpatternisnothardtomakeout:thetargetoftheattackisnotlimitedtothe ideaofasupranationalEurope.Brexitandthe FrontNational mayhavebeenthe harbingersofthisnewminidarkage,butthe‘MakeAmericaGreatAgain’crowds andtheUS-ChinatariffwararehardlyasymptomofapurelyEuropeanmalady. Thetrendwearewitnessinghasamuchwidergeopoliticalandideologicalfootprint. Whatiscomingunderattackhere,basically,weareinformed,isthe veryideaofthe LiberalWorldOrder andtheaccompanyingpromiseofanon-partisanpoliticsofthe universalprogressforall:humanrights,multiculturalism,afreeglobaleconomy,an opensociety.6

2 SeeO’Rourke(2019),RamiroTroitiñoetal.(2018),Sampson(2017,p.163).

3 SeeSchumacher(2018),Stille(2018).

4 SeeAmannetal.(2018);Schumacher(2017).

5 SeeHegedüs(2019),Byrneetal(2018),Zalan(2018),Robins-Early(2018).

6 SeeSzewczyk(2019,p.33),Barber(2019),Jones(2018),El-Erian(2018).

Thenarrativetropesarefamiliar,evenifthetonesometimesisnot.7 Dystopianism isthegenre dujour.BetweenTrump’stravelban8 andOrban’s‘borderfence’,9 betweentheriseofScottMorrisoninAustraliaandJairBolsonaroinBrazil,the returnintogovernmentoftheAustrianFreedomParty,10 andthegrowingfrenzy surroundingtheUSattacksontheWorldTradeOrganization,11 thepicturepainted bythisnewlyemergentdiscourseofhysteriaisthatofanall-encompassing,marchof-history-interruptingglobalcrisis.Globalisationhasbeensuspended.Theproject ofEnlightenmentandmodernityitselfhavebeenputonhold.Lessthanageneration ago,in2000,theelectoralsuccessoftheFreedomPartyanditssubsequententryinto theAustriangovernmentcoalitiontriggeredawaveofloudinternationalprotests.12 In2018,therewasbarelyablip:thenotionofaright-wingpartygainingsigniﬁcant governmentpresenceinaEuropeanstateseemstohavebeenutterlynormalised. MatteoSalviniisnowthedeputyprimeministerofItaly.MarineLePenreached thesecondroundofpresidentialelectionsinFrance.GeertWilders’s Partijvoor deVrijheid isthesecondlargestpartyintheDutchparliament.Theconclusionis impossibletomiss:‘[t]hedominoesaretoppling,oneafteranother’,13 fascismand nativismaregoinginternational.14

Tobesure,thisspreadingpatternof‘backlashagainstthesilentrevolution’15 ofliberalglobalizationineachcaseappearstohaveawholeraftoflocaldriving factors.Buttheideologicalformsthroughwhichitisexpressedclearlyseemto enjoyauniversalappeal.Xenophobiaandnationalismtodayareunquestionably globaltrends;thesamealsogoesforautocraticpopulism.16 Thehistoricalprocess whoseapparentcrestingwearewitnessing,wearetold,inshort,isoneofatruly epochalandworld-historicsigniﬁcance.Onceagain,theinternationalcommunity— humanity,theworldatlarge—isapproachingaglobalinﬂectionpoint.And,once again,likesomanytimesbefore,thefutureoftheworld—‘obviously’—willbe decidedbywhathappensin‘Europe’.

Seenfromthisangle,thelogicofthisnewlyemergingnarrativecomplexseems asoldastheliberalpoliticaltraditionitself.Ifmoralhysteriaiswhatitlookslike fromthefront,knee-jerkEurocentricitycertainlyseemstobeitsmostimportant deﬁningthemefromtheback.Ratherthanbeingdiagnosedastheproductof,say,

7 Cf.MoynandPriestland(2017):‘SinceDonaldTrump’selection,theUnitedStateshasbeen grippedbytyrannophobia.Conspiraciesagainstdemocracyareeverywhere;truthisundersiege; totalitarianismismakingacomeback;“resistance”isthelastrefugeofcitizens.’.

8 SeeLiptak(2017).

9 SeeSaeed(2017).

10 SeeAtkinsandKhan(2017),Riegert(2017).

11 SeePayosovaetal.(2018);Baynes(2018).

12 SeeBurchill(2001,p.79).

13 SeeRiegert(2017).

14 SeeShafak(2019).

15 SeeNorrisandInglehart(2019).

16 SeeMounkandFoa(2018).

interrupteddecolonization,anaftershockoftheendoftheColdWar,orahistoricallyunparalleledcombinationofbadlymanagedpost-industrialeconomictransition,heavilyneoliberalizedstatecraft,andsupranationaltechnocratismuniqueto thewestEuropeancontext,thesteadyslidingofEuropeansocietiesintothedark vortexofreactionarynativism,xenophobia,andright-wingpopulismisconsistently presentedasHistory’sgraveﬁnalwarningfortheworldasawhole:asignofthe impendingarrivaloftheFascistInternational.Itisnotjustthe‘newEurope’project thathascomeunderthreat,buttheideaofProgressitself.Theimplicationsseem unmistakable.Thestakescouldnotbehigher,thedangercouldnotbemoreobvious. Thedividinglinesare—anddeﬁnitelyoughttobeiftheyaren’t—hardening,and everyone,especiallythe‘thinkingclasses’,mustchoosenowtheirside.Thedaysof self-indulgentcontrarianismareover.

Everythinghangstogethernow:democracy,humanrights,theruleoflaw,thesinglemarket,dueprocess,greeneconomics,freetrade,propertyrights,labourrights, the‘evercloserunion’.TosavetheEnlightenmentvaluesoffreedom,equality,and justice,wemustdefendeachandalloftheseideologicalmonumentsoftheliberal worldorderasonesinglepackage.Toprotecthumanrights,onemustdefendthesinglemarket.Toprotecttheenvironment,onemuststrengthenthe‘evercloserunion’. Tariffwarsareathreattomulticulturalismanddemocracy.Economicnationalism isthegatewaytoauthoritarianism.Fascistnativismalwayswalkshandinhandwith tradeprotectionism.Attacksoninternationaljudicialinstitutionsareanassaulton theveryideaoffreedomandthedueprocessoflaw.

Andthus,withoutanyfussorunnecessaryhaste,aremarkablefeatofgrandiose ideologicalprogrammingisperformedrightinfrontofoureyes.Aneatsleight-ofhandbyanystandardofappreciation.Evenifitisnotveryoriginalintermsofits design—itsbasicformulaiscloselymodelledonthatofRolandBarthes’s‘Operation Margarine’17 —itistrulyefﬁcientinitsexecution.

Rememberhow‘OperationMargarine’works:

Itisakindofhomeopathy:onecuresdoubtsaboutthe[EstablishedOrder]bytheveryillsof the[EstablishedOrder].Oneinoculatesthepublicwithacontingenteviltopreventorcure anessentialone.…Alittle‘confessed’evilsavesonefromacknowledgingalotofhidden evil.

Onecantraceinadvertisinganarrativepatternwhichclearlyshowstheworkingofthis newvaccine.ItisfoundinthepublicityofAstramagazine.Theepisodealwaysbeginswith acryofindignationagainstmargarine:‘Amousse?Madewithmargarine?Unthinkable!’ ‘Margarine?Yourunclewillbefurious!’Andthenone’seyesareopened,one’sconscience becomesmorepliable,andmargarineisadeliciousfood,tasty,digestible,economical,useful inallcircumstances.Themoralattheendiswellknown:‘Hereyouare,ridofaprejudice whichcostyoudearly!’

ItisinthesamewaythattheEstablishedOrderrelievesyouofyourprogressiveprejudices. TheArmyandabsolutevalues?Itisunthinkable:lookatitsvexations,itsstrictness,[the] blindnessofitschiefs.TheChurch,infallible?Alas,itisverydoubtful:lookatitsbigots,its powerlesspriests,itsmurderousconformism.Andthen‘commonsense’makesitsreckoning: whatisthistriﬂingdrossofOrder,comparedwithitsadvantages? …Whatdoesitmatter, 17 SeeBarthes(2000,p.41).

afterall,ifmargarineisjustfat,whenitgoesfurtherthanbutter,andcostsless? Whatdoesit matter,afterall,ifOrderisalittlebrutaloralittleblind,whenitallowsustolivecheaply?18

Thenarrativeofideologicalhysteriafollowsthesamebroadpattern.Thisproject ofthe‘newEurope’,ittellsus—itsunderlyingpoliticaleconomy,itsinstitutional architectureandself-servingbureaucraticelites—iscertainlynotbeyondreproach.It hasmanyfaultsandshortcomings,nodoubt.Butnowisnotreallythetimetogettoo loudcriticizingit:justlookatwhoiswaitinginthewings,whomyouwillbeaiding andabettingifyoupressonwithunderminingthelegitimacyofthe‘newEurope’. Woulditnotbepreferableifalltheprogressiveforcesunitedandclosedtheirranks, atleasttemporarily,untiltheydefeatedthecommonenemy?(Whatdoesitmatter, afterall,iftherulebydirecteffectisnotexactlyaparagonofdemocracyandthe institutionalmechanicsofSchengeniscompatiblewithsomuchbrutalitytowards therefugeescrossingtheMediterranean—whatdoesitmatter,‘whenitallowsusto livecheaply’?)

Thesub-surfacemessagingseemsasremarkableforitssimplicityasforitscynical opportunism.Astheverynotionofrejectingtheestablishedstatusquoismadede factosynonymouswithsupportingtheforcesofthefarright, classicalliberalideals suchasequality,workers’rights,anddueprocessaresurreptitiouslylumpedtogether withawholehostof neoliberalgovernancestructures,fromtheSchengencommon travelareatotheStabilityandGrowthPact,sothatthelong-establishedideological credentialsoftheformercanhelpcross-subsidizethelegitimacydeficitsofthelatter. Asthedifferencesbetweenthetwoordersofphenomenaarethusrepeatedlyflattened outanderased, theactofdefendingthepoliticaleconomyoftheEuropeanintegrationproject somehowinevitablybecomesthe practicalstand-inforthebroader programmeof‘fightingfascism’,‘resistingautocracy’,and‘stoppingxenophobia’.

Theresultsareunmistakable.Ontheonehand,thecriticismofanyoneaspectof theestablishedEuropeanpoliticalordercannowbeeffortlesslydeﬂectedbypointing towardstheunquestionableanti-parochialismofitsinstitutionsandtheiranimating ethos.Ontheotherhand,anylegitimacydeﬁcitsperceivedinitsunderlyingpolitical economycanaseasilynowbecross-subsidizedbytheformulaicinvocationofits loftycommitmentstothevaluesofhumanrights,justice,equality,andsolidarity. Thecreationofafakemonolithaesthetics—thenotionthatonecanenjoythe‘good’ partsofthenewEuropeprojectonlyifoneacceptstheexisting‘package’inits entirety—helpsinduceanenduringsenseofloyaltythatappearstobeatthesame timeperfectlycynicalandentirelyeffective.19

Inanintellectualframeworkwhereavocaloppositiontotheideologyofliberal globalisationcanonlycomefromtheforcesofthefarright,thecentre-rightlonger needstofearanychallengesfromtheleft,sinceitnowcarriesthebriefforthevery ideaofFreedomitself:tofailtomarchindefenceoftheever-closerunionisto markoneselfasanenemyofhistoryandprogress.Asthemoralhysteriafuelled bythispseudo-ManichaeanworldviewtransformsitselfintoastarkUsvs.Themstylementality,theideologicaltollonthescholarlycommunitiesengagedinthe

18 SeeBarthes(2000,pp.41–42).

19 SeeSloterdijk(1987,pp.3–8).

discussionoftherelatedissuesinevitablygrows.Ittakesanincreasingmeasureof boldnessandrecklessnesstoattempttobreakfreefromthetermsofthedominant discoursebyinsistingonone’s rightnottoacceptthefakemonolithnarrative.And yetitispreciselythisrightthatsomanygenerationsoflegalscholarsbeforeushave foughtsohardtosecure.

Theprocessoflucidlegalthoughtalwaysstartswithanactofresistance:acommitmenttobracketingoutofmoralpanicsandtherejectionoflazygeneralities. Theremaynotbesuchathingastheroyalroadtotruth,buttheadvancementof knowledge,inlaw,(still)alwaysbeginswiththeunqualiﬁedinsistenceontheright toscepticismandthedutyofanalyticalclarity.

Theacceptanceoffakemonolithsisabadhabitinanylineofscholarlyinquiry, allthemoresointheﬁeldofinternationallaw.Thecultureofintellectualhysteria inducedintheEuropeanpublicdiscoursebytheriseoffar-rightpopulistforces andtheirdeclaredaversiontowardsvariousinternationalstructuresshouldnotbe allowedtocloudoursenseofjudgementastotheself-evidentautomaticity,letalone structuralirreversibility,oftheapparentcausalconnectionbetweenthem.Aswe transitionfromtheplaneofpoliticaljournalismandthink-tankspinnarrativesinto thatofcriticallyconsciouslegalanalysis,theﬁrstquestionweshouldbeaskingisnot howmuchofourloyaltytheestablishedliberalworldorderanditsclassstructures deservenowtheyhavecomeundersuchasustainedattack,butwhatexactlythe economic,political,andhistoricallegitimacyofthisorderisotherwiseandwhat exactly,therefore,wemaybemissingtheopportunitytochallengeanddiscussifwe agree,outofpanicandfear,nottoraisethissortofquestionsanymore.

TheendoftheEuropeanliberalmodelandits‘socialmarketeconomy’,likethat ofnewﬁnancecapitalism,mayormaynotbecomingsoon,anditmayormaynotbe comingatthehandsofright-wingpopulism.Butevenifitishappening,itcertainly doesnotmeanthatasinternationallawscholarsweshouldnowautomaticallyjoin inidealizingitandromanticizingitsbrutalandcynicalrealities.Lesttheintellectual statusofourdisciplineisthusirreversiblycompromised,neithertheestablished Europeanorder,northebroaderliberalglobalistparadigmofwhichithasbecome suchaprominentrepresentation,shouldbegettinganykindofhallpassinthespace ofourcriticalreﬂections.

2BetweentheThreatandthePromise:TheOpening oftheIntellectualHorizonsandtheInevitability oftheHistoricalTurn

Thegreatestlucidityintheoreticalthought,asHegelhasargued,comesusuallyafter therespectivehistoricalperiodhasreacheditslogicalendpointandthedominant worldviewoftheepochcannolongerstiﬂethespiritofcriticalinquiry.20 Nomoment

20 SeeHegel[2008,p.85(89)].

canbeasrewarding—butalsofraughtwithperil—forthecriticalmindasthatwhich comesattheendofanera.

TheEstablishedOrder’sattempttoinduceloyaltybycultivatingapoliticsof ‘enlightenedfalseconsciousness’21 isnotanaccident.Itisasignofacertainkind ofhistoricaltransformation.Thepushfortheconsolidationoffakemonolith-style theoreticalaestheticsintheplaneofpublicdiscoursetodayisproceedingsoﬁercely preciselybecauseintheplaneofsustainedscholarlyinquirythiscause,toalarge extent,haslongbeenlost.

Acrossanever-broadeningrangeofdisciplinaryfields,thetermsofintellectual debatenolongerseemaccountabletotheideologicalneedsanddemandsofthe post-ColdWarliberalinternationalorder.Thoughhardlylinearinitsprogression, thistrendoftheoreticallooseningoftheestablishedparadigmhascertainlyreached thefieldofinternationallegalstudies.Oldbarriersthatfornearlyacenturyhad internationallegalthoughtcorralledinthenarrowquartersofthevoluntaristpositivisttraditionhavebeenprogressivelydisintegratingoverthecourseofthelast thirtyyears.22 Wherepreviouslyonewouldhavefoundonlyahandfulofstaleideas repeatedmechanicallyfromonecontexttoanother,dozensofnewapproachesand theorieshavenowemerged,blossomingboldly,dazzlingtheincredulousonlooker withtheirbright,freshcolours.Havingfirstariseninotherfieldsofinternationallegal studies,thiscultureofintellectualpluralisminrecentyearshasalsoarrivedonthe shoresofinternationaleconomiclaw(IEL).FromanalyticalMarxismtoPolanyian institutionalism,frompostcolonialcriticismtoempiricaljurisprudence,globalvalue chainanalysistoFoucauldianhistoriography,countlessnewschoolsandsourcesof inspirationarenowforcingtheirentryintoIELstudies.23

Howshouldonereacttothistrend?Itisapopularconventionofliberalhistoricism toapproachsuchkindofdevelopmentswithacertainsenseofenthusiasm.After all,whatcouldbemoredeservingofapprovalandcelebrationthanthelongoverdue openingofintellectualhorizons?Thedissolutionofastaleorthodoxyisthearchetypal exampleofwhatintheliberalworldviewwouldcountasamomentofemancipation andredemption.Themostelementarylogicofliberaldramaturgymakesitinevitable thattheonlyadmissiblereactiontosuchaprocessshouldbeoneofexcitementand enthusiasm.But,asEricHobsbawmremindsus,thedemandsofdramaandreality rarelyarethesame.24 Noteverythingthathappensfollowingthedissolutionofan orthodoxyorthefallofadogmawillbeexperiencedbytherespectivecommunity asanunquestionablegood.

Foreveryscholar,livingattheendofanerainevitablycomesataprice.The looseningofthedisciplinarycanoncanbringintellectualexhilaration.Butitcanalso

21 SeeSloterdijk(1987,p.5).

22 Forfurtherbackground,seeRasulov(2012,p.151).

23 Forfurtherdiscussion,seeHaskellandRasulov(2018,p.243).Forillustrations,seeVandenMeersche(2018),Rasulov(2018),Brabazon(2017),Krever(2011),andMieville(2005).Animportant elementofthisprocessoftheoreticalopeningisreﬂectedinthefactthatagrowingbodyofscholarshipaboutIELisnowproducedbynon-lawyersandscholarswhoseprimarydisciplinarytraining isinanotherﬁeld.See,e.g.,Slobodian(2018),Moudud(2018,p.289).

24 SeeHobsbawm(1997,p.354).

behighlydisorientating.Theawakeningofthecriticalspiritwhichtheweakening oftheorthodoxyinvitesoftenbringsinitswakeanethicsofrelentlessiconoclasm, aculturethatvalorisesintellectualcontrarianismandinsistsonchallengingevery establishedidea,everyreceivedwisdom,everycommonassumptionasamatterof principle.Butastheprocessofquestioningacceleratesandspreads,theprogrammeof ruthlessself-reﬂectioncaneasilymorphintoanideologyofradicaldoubt,andinthe ﬁeldofacademicknowledge-productiondoubtingeverythingcanbeaveryexpensive luxury.Ifacommunityofscholarsstartsdoubtingeverybeliefandassumptionithas inheritedfromitspredecessors,howfarwillitbeabletogetoninformulatingits ownresearchagenda?

Howmuchwillitslowusdownintermsofourabilitytoadvancedourinquiries, toreasonandcommunicatewithoneanother,totesthypothesesandformulateconclusionsifwecannolongertakeforgrantedanyofthesharedframesofreference thatpassedontousfromourdisciplinarypredecessors?Ifwecannolongerrely onanypreviouslyestablishedtruthtests,howconﬁdentcanwebeinourability todistinguishknowledgefromdelusion,realityfromfantasy,sensefromnon-sense, valuableinsightandsoundpolicyfromrawprejudice?Whenoldcertaintiesnolonger apply,onealwaysrunstheriskofdiscoveringthatfartoomanynewtruthsseemtobe correctallatonce.25 Confusion,cacophony,disorientation,deafeningwhitenoise, theinevitabilityofhavingtoputupwithcountlesspotentialcharlatansandimpostors—thetheoreticalandpsychologicalpriceoflivingthroughaperiodofrapidly cascadingparadigmbreakdownsiscertainlynotinsigniﬁcant.

Onewayinwhichinternationallawscholarshavebeenabletodealwiththissort ofchallengesinrecenttimeshasbeenbyexecutingwhathascometobeknown asthe‘turntohistory’.Themoreconfused,disorientated,andanxiousaboutits traditionaltruths,values,andassumptionsthegivensub-ﬁeldorsegmentofthe internationallegaldisciplinewouldbecome,themoreitsmembershavetendedto turntheirattentiontothestudyofitspast.26

Thoughitmayseemotherwiseatthefirstglance,thereisnothingsimpleor trivialaboutthisparticulartheoreticalstrategy,ofcourse.Thekindofhistorywhich internationallawyershavetendedtowritediffersverysignificantlyfromthekind ofhistorythatistypicallyproducedbyprofessionalhistorians.Thescaleofthe differencesnotinfrequentlyhasledtoconflict:thelattertypicallydisparagethe formerasarrogantimpostorswholackeventhebasicgraspofthe‘historicalmethod’, theformerinturnfrequentlydismissthelatterforbeinglegalfetishistswhohaveno cluewhatthelawreallyisandhowthelegaluniverseactuallyworks.27 Whichside onechoosestosupportinthisstruggle,intheend,isprobablyirrelevant.Though itcanhavethemostimmediateimplicationsforone’scareerprospects,inthemore abstractsense,neithersidecanreallywin.Inthepostmodernage,therecanbeno winnersorlosersinthebattleforthe‘truth’.Nosinglewayofinteractingwith

25 SeeBall(2007,p.7).

26 SeeLesaffer[2007,p.27(29)].

27 Forfurtherdiscussion,seeVadi(2017,p.311),Koskenniemi(2013,p.215),Lesaffer(2007, p.27).

thepastcananymorebeconsideredsuperior.Everydisciplinegetsthe‘method’it deserves.Neitherthelawyers,northehistoriansgettohavetheﬁnalsayoverhowthe enterpriseofinternationallegalhistoriographyoughttobeconstructed.‘Lawyers’ legalhistory’hasasmuchofarighttoourattentionasthelegalhistoryproducedby trainedhistorians.28

Whatismore,evenwithineachdisciplinaryfield,itseemsimpossiblenowtofind anygroundsonwhichtoestablishasystemoftheoreticalhierarchy:everyschool andtradition—thepositivistsasmuchasthecrits,thereactionariesasmuchasthe progressives,thepostcolonialsasmuchastheliberals—hasasmuchofarightto developitsownsenseofhistoriographyanditsowncultureofhistory-writingasits rivalsandcompetitors.Inthis,internationallawhardlyseemsallthatdifferentfrom academichistory.Whatdoesseparatethetwofields,however,arethepracticalconsequencesthatattachtothisregimeofmethodologicalrelativism.Unlikeinacademic history,ininternationallawtheriseofthiscultureofepistemologicalentitlementto datehasalmostinvariablyresultedinthestrategicdeploymentofhistory(asagenre ofscholarlyinquiry)forthepurposeof intra-disciplinaryideologicalprogramming, thatistosay,fortheproductionof‘coded’rhetoricalinterventionsaimedforthemost partatovercomingthelossofwhateversenseofnormativecertaintytheinternational legaldisciplinemayhavepreviouslyhadorseemedtoworktowardsacquiring.

Historyasthecontinuationofideologybyothermeans:thereisacertainparallel herewithGrantGilmore’sportrayalofthefirstwaveofhistoricalturnsinmodern legalacademia,theonethat,ashesawit,beganinthelate1950s,roughlyaroundthe sametimethatthe‘ageofanxiety’startedreachingitsapogee.‘Duringperiodsof apparentsocialdissolution’,writesGilmore,‘thetraditionalists,thetruebelievers, thedefendersofthestatusquo,turntothepastwithaninterestquiteasobsessiveas thatoftheradicals,thereformers,andtherevolutionaries.’29 Butwhilebothmostly looktohistoryonlyinthe‘attempttofindoutwhatwentwrong’,theformermostly justwantto‘pro[ve]that,onceuponatime,thingswereasweshouldlikethemto be’,‘[t]heirmessageis:turnbackandallwillbewell’,whilethelatteraremainly preoccupiedwithfindingsomethingthatwouldequipthembetterfortheirupcoming struggles,aninsightthat‘mayhelpuscopewithourobscurepast[aswellasour] unknownfuture’.30

Noteverygenerationdevelopsthesamestructureofdisciplinarypolitics.The worldofAmericanlegalthoughtoftheearly1970sthatGilmorewroteaboutisfar removedfromtheworldofinternationallegalscholarshipofthelate2010s.Andyet onecancertainlymakeoutapatternverysimilartotheoneGilmoretracedforming acrossdifferentﬁeldsofinternationallegalscholarshiptoday:frominternational

28 Notallhistoriansdisagreewiththisview,ofcourse.See,forexample,Kalman[1997,p.87 (114–117)].

29 Gilmore(1977,p.102).

30 Ibid.

humanitarianlaw31 andthelawofinternationalhumanrights32 tothelawoftreaties33 andthelawofinternationalorganisations34 andtribunals.35 Therecentexplosionof interestinthehistoryofIELandthevarietyofcompetingIELhistoriesthisexplosion hasproduced,36 inthiscontext,onlygoestoshowhowfartheﬁeldofIELscholarship hasnowbeenintegratedintothewidercomplexofthecontemporaryinternational lawdiscourse.

History-as-the-continuation-of-ideologyandtheturn-to-history-as-an-extensionof-intra-disciplinary-politicsofferaverypowerfulanalyticalframeworkthrough whichtoapproachthequestionofhistoricalturns.Butitiscertainlynottheonly interpretativehypothesisonecanproposeinthiscontext.Likeeveryhistoricalevent, theturntohistoryinmoderninternationallawcanbegivenmorethanonepossibleexplanation.Ratherthanfocusingontheinternalconditionofthediscipline,a differentwayofunderstandingitsappearance,forexample,wouldbetoviewitas aslightlydelayedsymptomoftheradicalculturaldisenchantmentsufferedbythe transnationalideologicalintelligentsiasintheaftermathoftheendoftheColdWar. Theincreasingawarenessofthewholesalebreaktowardsthepastthathadbeen effectedatthelevelofworld-historicprocesses,onthisreadingofthings,would havetriggeredacorrespondingsenseofgeneralculturaldisorientationandthusa greateropeningatthelevelofcommontheoreticalpracticesandtheassociatedprotocolsofdisciplinaryknowledge-production.Theemergenceofaconsiderablebody ofwritingdedicatedtoquestionsofinternationallegalhistory,inthiscontext,would onlybeanaturalconsequenceofthisprocess.Lookingfromthisperspective,37 it wouldbetheinevitablebreakdownoftheearlypost-Cold-Warliberal-modernist culturebuiltaroundthenarrativesofuniversalcosmopolitanismanduninterrupted historicalprogressthatultimatelycompelledthenewgenerationofinternational legalscholarsto have tostartthinking,writing,andspeakinginwaysthatwerefundamentallydifferentfromthoseoftheirpredecessors.Itwouldbethateventalso whichwouldhaveputonthemthepressuretoexecutetheturntohistoryandtostart tryingtoﬁndoutmoreabouttheirdiscipline’srootsandorigins.For,ifthecourse ofhumanhistorycannolongerbeassumedtoproceedalongasingleuninterrupted lineleadingsteadilyfromsavagerytocivilization,prejudicetoreason,conﬂictto cooperation,nationalismtocosmopolitanism—thenwhat else mightthediscipline havegotwrongaboutitspast?

31 See,e.g.,Mantilla(2017,p.483),Alexander(2015,p.109),Megret(2006,p.265).

32 See,e.g.,Martinez(2012),Moyn(2010).

33 See,e.g.,BowmanandKritsiotis(2018),Craven(2007).

34 See,e.g.,Sinclair(2018,p.841),VanDenMeersche(2018,p.168).

35 See,e.g.,FitzmauriceandTams(2013).

36 See,amongothers,St.John(2018),Howse(2016,p.9),Miles(2013),Clavin(2013);Lang(2011).

37 SeeKoskenniemi(2004,p.61).

3NewVoices,NewPerspectives

Asimportantashistoricallyorientedmodesofinquiryhavebecomeinrecentyears, theideaofthehistoricalturncertainlydoesnotexhaustthefullpotentialofwhat theoreticalheterodoxycanbecome,especiallynotincontemporaryIEL.Apowerful counterbalancingtendencyhasstartedtodevelopinrecentyearsacrossdifferent segmentsofIELscholarship.DrivenlessbythedesiretoreclaimIEL’shidden legaciesandforgottenoriginsthanbythehopeofuncoveringitscurrentcomplexities andmappingoutitsfuturepotentialities,whatliesatitscorearethe questionsof criticalimaginationandalternativefutures.Whatshape,whatcontent,whatkindof politicalorientationshouldtheIELregimeanditsinstitutionalbasisbegiven?As theoldframeworksgivewaytonewstructures,whatsortofnewquestions,concerns, andinterdisciplinaryinﬂuencesshouldbebroughttothetableinIELscholarship?

Theessayscollectedinthisvolumespeak,withvariousdegreesofdirectness,to bothofthesetendencies:thehistoricalturnaswellasthenewprogrammatic-thought project.Eachofthem,inacertainsense,canbeunderstoodasaproductofbothof thesegenresofinquiry.Intellectually,thisvolumefindsitsoriginsinaseriesofconversationsthathadfirststartedinthesummerof2009,attheBrownInternational AdvancedResearchInstitute(BIARI),inProvidence,RhodeIsland,andcontinued subsequently,withbriefintermissions,acrossdifferentcountries,conferencesettings,andjointwritingprojects.TheinstitutionalcircuitacrosswhichtheseconversationshavetravelledatdifferenttimeshasincludedtheHarvardInstituteofGlobal LawandPolicy(IGLP),theUniversityofGlasgow,ManchesterUniversity,andthe UniversityofDurham.Eachofthesesettingsandtheencountersthattookplacein themandontheirmarginshasleftitsimpactonthevolume.ThereisalargecontingentofIGLPalumniamongthevolume’scontributors,andboththeGlasgowand theDurhamclustershaveleftavisibletraceonthisproject’scompositionaswell.Of the11contributingauthors,three—KonstantinaTzouvala,NicolasPerrone,andJohn Haskell—atvariouspointshavestudiedortaughtatDurham;anotherthree—Athene Richford,AlexandreBelle,andAkbarRasulov—havetaughtorstudiedatGlasgow; five—MichaelFakhri,Tzouvala,Perrone,Haskell,andRasulov—areIGLPalumni; three—Fakhri,Haskell,andRasulov—havealsobeenpartoftheBIARIprogramme. Everycollectiveproject,ultimately,canbeseenasaproductofitsparticipants’ personalambitionsandaspirations.Butitisalsoareflectionoftheirrespectivelifetrajectories.Thescholarsincludedinthisvolumecomefromawidevarietyofnational, educational,ideological,andtheoreticalbackgrounds.Thisisnotjustagroupof EuropeanandNorthAmericanacademics,interdisciplinarianlegalhistorians,or Harvard-trainedpostmodernistssettingouttodeliverthe‘crit’takeonIEL.What thereaderwillfindinthesepages,rather,isacollectiveenterprisethatisalotmore ambitiousandcomplexthananyoftheseconcepts.Ournationalbackgroundsspan Greece,Canada,Colombia,Lebanon,Benin,theUK,Turkey,Belgium,theUS,and Uzbekistan.Ourtheoreticalaffiliationsanddisciplinarysensibilitiesincludeinstitutionaleconomics,doctrinalpositivism,empiricallegalstudies,Marxism,modern moneytheory,legalrealism,postcolonialhistoriography,anddiscoursetheory.Some

ofushavebeeneducatedinWesternEuropeandtheUnitedStates,othersreceived theiracademicandprofessionaltrainingprimarilyintheGlobalSouth.Someof ushavestudiedmostlyundertraditional,black-letter-lawteachers,othersunderthe leading‘crit’scholars.Someofushavereceivedalltheirtraininginlaw,othersalso holddegreesinﬁeldsasfarremovedfromlawasbiologyandanthropology.Allof us,indifferentways,havebeeninvolvedinacademia,yetmanyofusalsodrawon ourexperienceintheworldsofpractice,activism,andpolicyconsultancyacross numerousdifferentcontextsandjurisdictions.

Thereisnotasinglemouldthatallofuscanbeeasilyﬁttedinto,andthat,ina certainsense,isalsoanintegralpartofthisproject’sbasicdesignandmethodological wager.Whentheoldtruthsnolongerringtrueandthenewtruthshavenotyet establishedthemselves,morethanonevisiondeservestobeexplored,morethanone theorydeservestobetriedout.

4IEL’sImpactontheGlobalEconomicArena: InternationalLawandtheProductionofGlobal Governance

Howdothedifferentessayscollectedinthesepagesrelatetooneanotherandtothe widerﬁeldofcontemporaryIELscholarship?Onewaytogoaboutansweringthis questionwouldbebydrawingontheideaof legalstudiesasthestudyofregulatory effectivities

WhenwesaythatIELregulatesacertainissueorsubject,whatexactlydowehave inmindbythat?WhataretheactualfunctionsthatIELperformsfromthestandpoint ofitsrelationshipwithglobalgovernance?Theanswersgiventothesequestionsin thecriticallegaltraditioncangenerallybedividedintofourparts.38 Tounderstand bettertheunderlyingobjectivesandtheoreticalaspirationsofthenineessaysthat follow,itmaybeusefultorevieweachofthem.But,ﬁrst,whatexactlyshouldone understandbytheconceptofregulatoryeffectivity?

4.1TheTheoryofRegulatoryEffectivity:AFunctionalist RecalibrationofIEL’sDisciplinaryAmbit

Thegeneralideahere,toalargeextent,canbeseenasanextensionofthebroader traditionofLaw-and-Society.39 Thetheorybehindithastwomainparts.Theﬁrst partfocusesontheconceptofthe regulatoryeffect deﬁnedbroadlyasthatstateof affairswhichoccursintherespectivesegmentofthesocio-economicintercourse—in thiscase,whatonemightcallinternationaleconomicrelations(IER)—asaresult

38 Forfurtherdiscussion,seeRasulov[2008,pp.243(290–294)].

39 ForageneralbackgroundtotheLaw-and-Societytradition,seeFeenan(2013);Cotterrell(2002, p.632).

ofitbeingsubjectedtosustainednormativeandinstitutionalordering.Theideathat theprocessoforderingissupposedtobe‘sustained’signalsherethenotionthat theorderlypatternwhichthusemergesismeanttobebotheffectiveandrelatively lasting.Whatwearelookingatisacontinuousprocess,notaone-offmomentary act.Thesecondpartofthetheoryisadirectcorollaryofthefirst:thetaskofIELas afieldofstudyistostudyeverythingthatcontributestothis‘processofordering’, i.e.totheachievementoftheregulatoryeffectinthefieldofIER.40

Notethetwosoftspotsintheproposeddefinition:(i)whatconstitutes‘effective’ ordering,ultimately,isalwaysamatterofempiricaljudgement,i.e.aproductof some kindof social convention;and(ii)whatcountsasthefieldofIERislefthere essentiallyundefined—onceagain,atleastattheinitialstageoftheinquiry,one willhavetodoherewithsomekindofsocialconvention,ratherthanadeductively establishedmentalconstruct.41 Adifferentwayofputtingthiswouldbetosaythat, comparedto,say,legalformalismorvoluntaristpositivism,thebasicmethodology impliedunderthismodelofinquirycannotbeconsidered‘scientificallyrigorous’. Itstheoreticalmatrix,inotherwords,doesnothavethesamedegreeofanalytical clarityorformalself-sufficiencythatonewouldtypicallyexpectfroma scientificallyinclinedinvestigativeproject.

Inmostofmodernsciences,astheFrenchphilosopherLouisAlthusserremarks, oneofthemain‘constitutionalrules’ofknowledge-productionistheideaofselfvalidatingtheoreticalprotocols:

sciences…havenoneedforverificationfrom[any] external practicestodeclaretheknowledgestheyproducetobe‘true’…Nomathematicianintheworldwaitsuntilphysicshas verified atheoremtodeclareitproved…:thetruthofhistheoremisahundredpercent providedbycriteriapurely internal tothepracticeofmathematicalproof,…i.e.bythe formsrequiredbyexistingmathematicalscientificity.42

Bycontrast,thewholeoftheLaw-and-Societytraditionispremisedratherexplicitlyonadistinctlyopen-endedapproachtotheveriﬁcationofknowledge:thetruth andfalsehoodofallourideasaboutthelaw—therightandwronginlegalpolicy,the correctandincorrectinlegalreform—canonlybeassessedinreferencetocriteria outside theimmediateplaneofthelegaldoctrineandinstitutions.

Onewayofgraspingtheimplicationsthisfacthashadonthedevelopmentofthe Law-and-Societymethodologywouldtorecalltheargumentproposedbysomeofits earliestandmosteffectiveexpositors,theso-calledlegalrealists.Epistemologically, themostimportantdifferencebetweenlegalformalismandlegalrealism,therealists argued,liesinthefactthatthelatterbyandlargesubscribestoa functionalistepistemology.Whenlaw’sinternalstoryofitselfcannolongerbetakenatitsfacevalue,

40 OnecanalsothinkofthiswayofapproachingthestudyofIELasanextensionofamucholder socio-legaltradition,theso-called‘socialcontroltheory’.SeeGurvitch(1942,pp.23–30).

41 Wordlike‘empirical’and‘conventional’doalotofworkhere.Oneperson’s‘conventional judgment’,ofcourse,isanotherperson’s‘entirelyarbitraryopinion’.Logically,ithastobeaccepted, thereisnotmuchwecandoaboutthat.Noamountofanalyticalrigourortheoreticalprecisioncan protectusagainstthefundamentalarbitrarinessofourstartingdeﬁnitions.Themostwecandois acknowledgethisfactandacceptitsimplicationspragmatically.

42 Althusser[1970,p.11(59)](emphasisintheoriginal).

wenttheargument,theonlywayinwhichwecouldstabiliseourframeofreference whenstudyinglegalevents,discourses,andconceptswouldbetoanchoritinsome formoffunctionalevaluation:the‘truereality’ofeveryinvestigatedobjectcanbe judgedfromthewayitfunctionsinthegivenrespectivecontext.‘Athingiswhat itdoes’.43 Themeaningofanygivenlegalconstructcanbeascertainedinthelight ofitspracticalconsequences.Acourtisastandinginstitutionthatsettlesdisputes bymeansofjudgments,whilefollowingstrictlydeﬁnedproceduresandobserving precedent:whateveritsofﬁcialdesignationmaybeotherwise,ifaninstitutionmeets thesecriteria,itisacourt.44 Alegalrightisanentitlementenforceablebyaneffective remedy:arightthatcannotbevindicatedinthecaseofitsbreachisnotarealright.45

Alegaldutyisasocialencumbrancetheobservanceofwhichisbackedupbyan effectivepenalty:adutythenon-performanceofwhichdoesnotattractanysanctions fortheduty-bearerisnotarealduty.46 Apenaltyiswhatevercausesdisagreeable materialconsequences:anylegalmeasurethatresultsinthematerialdeterioration ofasubject’spurchasingpower,regardlessofwhetherornotitsimpositionwasofficiallyjustifiedinreferencetosomekindoftransgressionormoralshortcomingon thepartofthesaidsubject,istantamounttoalegalsanction:subjectiontoataxora no-faultdutytocompensatecanproducetheexactsame‘experienceofpunishment’ assubjectiontoacriminalfine,exposuretocivilliability,ortheextinguishmentof thelegalcapacitytoalienate.47

Takingcuefromtherealistdemystiﬁcationofthestandarddoctrinalcategories, thebasicstartingassumptionofthetheoryofregulatoryeffectivitycan,thus,be deﬁnedasaformof conceptualfunctionalism.Themeaningofeveryconcept— includingthatoflaw—hastobesoughtinthebasicsocialconsequencesassociated withit.Themainsocialconsequencewhichistraditionallyassociatedwiththeidea of‘lawness’inmodernusageistheabilityofthegivensystemofnormativeand institutionalstructurestoinduceastateof regulation withinthegivensegmentofthe socialintercourse.48

Proceedingfromthisangle,itdoesnotthenverymuchmatterwhetherornot thoseparticularnormativeandinstitutionalstructuresoneislookingatwouldmeet thestandardlegalpositivistorformalistcriteria.Whatmattersiswhetherthepractical consequenceswhichthesestructuresgiveriseto,empirically,includetheproduction ofregulatoryeffectintherespectivesegmentoneisinterestedinunderstanding.It doesnotmatterwhichparticularstructures,mechanisms,orregimesarebeingputto work:solongasthestateofregulatoryeffectisbeingcreated,thatisallthatmatters.

43 SeeCohen[1935,pp.809(826)].

44 SeeArnold[1932,pp.617(624–631)].

45 See,e.g.,Llewellyn(1930,pp.82–83).

46 See,e.g.,Holmes[1897,p.457(458)],Corbin[1924,pp.501(515–516)].

47 See,e.g.,Hale[1935,pp.149(159–163,168–170,176–179)].

48 Cf.Timasheff(1939,pp.23–24):‘Lawisasocialforce.Itssocialfunctionisthatofimposing normsofconductorpatternsofsocialbehaviourontheindividualwill,andtheaimofjurisprudence istostudythesenorms’.

Putintheseterms,thegeneraltheoreticalframeworkunderpinningtheconcept ofregulatoryeffectivity,onemightsay,isstartingtolookverysimilartoLegal Pluralism.49 Bethatasitmay,thisfact,ultimately,isneitherherenorthere.Appeals toabstractlabelscanneverresolveaconcretecase.Onsomebasiclevel,every internationallawyer,evenHansKelsen,couldbedescribedasalegalpluralist.50 Onewouldneedtosayalotmoreaboutthetheoryofregulatoryeffectivitythanjust thatitisaspeciesoflegalpluralismtoexplainitsfullmethodologicalimplications. So,withaviewtoclarifyingpreciselythisissue,letusnotenowthefollowingthree points:(1)TosuggestthatweshouldapproachthestudyofIELbystudyingthe patternsofitsregulatoryeffectivityistoargue,firstofall,thatwemuststartour inquiryintoIELby mappingout allthedifferentwaysandmechanismsthrough whichastateofregulatoryeffect,i.e.aconditionofsustained,effective,andorderly patterning,canbecreatedinthefieldofIER,throughtheuseofnormativeand institutionalstructuresandmaterials.(2)Adifferentwayofputtingthiswouldbeto saythatallthose normativeandinstitutionalstructuresandmaterials (thestudies object)which empirically (thequestionofintellectualorientation)havebeenshown to triggerorcontribute (theextentofcausality)totheproductionofthestateof internationaleconomicregulation (theinvestigatedconsequence)should,ultimately, deserveourattentionasIELscholars.(3)Notethequalificationthatattachestothe word‘empirically’here.Thereferencetotheneedforanempiricaldetermination oftheproposedcausallinkagesbetweenthestudiedobjectsandtheinvestigated consequenceshouldnotbereadasanadvocacyoftheso-called‘empiricistapproach’ tolegalstudiesoranendorsementofwhatinrecentyearshascometobeknownas the‘empiricalturnininternationallawscholarship’.51 Itsaspirationtopopularisethe ideaofempiricallegalstudiesaside,thevastmajorityofthisbodyofscholarshipto datehasshownitselftobeasbackward-lookingandformalistinitsconstructionof internationallaw’snormativeandinstitutionalmaterialsasthevoluntaristpositivism oftheyesteryearandthushasnothingofvaluetocontributetothefunctionalist investigationofIEL’sregulatoryeffectivity.

Tostudyallnormativeandinstitutionalstructuresthathelpinduceandmaintain astateofregulationintheinternationalpoliticaleconomy—statedinsuchterms, themaintheoreticaltaskofIELasaﬁeldofdisciplinaryinquiryacquiresarather differentphilosophicalcomplexionfromanythingthatonewouldusuallyencounter inmainstreamIELtextbooks.52 Intheﬁrstplace,thereis,ofcourse,theobvious epistemologicalchangeinthestructureofthedisciplinaryenterprise.Inthesecond place,thereisalsotheradicalchangeintheontologicalstatusoftheinvestigated real-worldphenomenon.

49 Onlegalpluralism,see,generally,Merry(1988,p.869),Tamanaha(2000,p.296).

50 See,generally,Kelsen[1953,pp.1(13–32)](acknowledgingthesimultaneousco-existenceof multiplespeciesoflegalorders,withinternationallawidentiﬁedasa‘primitivelegalsystem’and nationallegalordersas‘moredeveloped’legalsystems).

51 SeeShafferandGinsburg(2012,p.1),Franck(2008,p.767).

52 See,e.g.,Ascensio(2018),Lowenfeld(2008).

WhatdoesIELasareal-worldphenomenontodaylooklikefromthestandpoint ofafunctionalisttheoreticalorientation?Asavarietyofrecentstudiesseemtoindicate,inthepresenthistoricalconjuncture,thestateofregulatoryeffectinIERtends tobeachievedandsustainedasmuchthroughthemobilisationofinstitutionallycentralised,formalnormativeprogrammingdynamicsasthroughtheuseofinstitutionallydiffuse,informalprocessesofspontaneousnorm-convergence;asmuch throughtheconclusionofinternationaltreatiesasthroughtheestablishmentof transnationalcertificationprogrammes;asmuchthroughtheworkofsupranational judicialbodiesasthroughtheimpositionoflendingconditionalities;‘hardlaw’ instrumentsasmuchas‘softgovernance’mechanisms;centralisedtop-downsystemscoordinatedbyinternationalintergovernmentalorganizations(IGOs)asmuch as‘transnationalprivateregulation’andtheimplementationalpracticesofnational bureaucracies.53 Whatismore,asanincreasingbodyofevidencesuggests,overthe lasthalf-centuryithas,infact,beenpreciselythelatterbunch—theostensibly‘soft’, informalmechanismsofcoordination,harmonization,andconvergence—thathave donemostoftheheavy-liftingintermsofsupplyingtheprojectofinternationaleconomicgovernancewithitsmostsignificantbreakthroughopportunities.54 AsErrol Meidingershows,forexample,oneonlyneedstotakethebriefestlookatafield suchasinternationalforestryregulationtoseethefullscaleofthisprocessofcontinuousdisplacementoftraditionalIGO-drivenmodelsofinternationalgovernance bynewhybridregulatorymechanismsthateclecticallycombinevariouselements ofindustryself-certificationandcivilsocietymonitoring.55 Boththeformerandthe latterseemtoplacetheexactsamekindofemphasisontheideaof producinggovernancethroughrules,notesMeidinger.Butwheretheformer,byandlarge,seemsto havefailedtodeliveranymeaningfulregulatoryimpact,thelatterhasproveditself aremarkablesuccess.56

Andyetoldhabitsdiehard.Wheneverinternationallawyerscometogetherand startthinkingaboutinternationallawanditsroleinthe productionofgovernance i.e.theprocessesofregulating,bringingorder,directingthecourseofinternational politicalandeconomicrelations—theﬁrstthingthattypicallycomestotheirmind hasnothingtodowiththesefunctionalist,quasi-sociologicalimagesofinstitutionally diffuse,hybrid,rhizomaticprocesses.ItistheclassicalAustinianideaofenforceableformalpermissionsandprohibitionsthatdominatestheircollectivetheoretical consciousness.Aboveandbeyondeverythingelse,inthecommonimaginaryofthe internationallegalprofession,theconceptoflawisstillverymuchunderstoodin termsofits licensingandprice-settingmechanics.Anditiswiththisidea,therefore, thatthetheoryofIEL’sregulatoryeffectivity,ifonlyforreasonsofintra-disciplinary culturalpolitics,oughttostart.

53 Forfurtherbackgroundonthestudiesoftransnationalprivateregulationandrelatedtopics,see Scottetal(2011,p.1).Ontheimportanceofstudyingtheimplementationalpracticesofnational bureaucracies,seealsoGreerandAlmagroIniesta(2014,p.361).

54 SeeTarullo[1999,pp.105(108–109)].

55 SeeMeidinger(2007),pp.121(122–126).

56 Ibid.,pp.122–123.

4.2IELasaPrice-SettingMechanism

Everylegalregimecanessentiallybeunderstoodasamechanismofsocialpricesetting:57 thisisaclassicallaw-and-economicsinsight,thoughinitsmaincontours itcanbetracedallthewaybacktoOliverWendellHolmesandhisAustinian-style commandtheoryoflawandtheresultantideaofthe‘badman’sviewofthelaw’.58

Theconceptoflawasaprice-settingmechanismsimpliesacertainsetofdeeper theoreticalpresumptions.Inanutshell,lawframesanddirectsthecourseofsocial events,but,ontologically,itremainsexternaltothem,justlikeprices,beingnumericalmanifestationsoftheexchange-value,remainatalltimesontologicallydistinct fromtherespectivecommoditiesthataretradedinthemarket.Whenthelegalsystem decidestosuppressorcurtailacertainactortypeofconduct—e.g.trespassingon otherpeople’spropertyorbreakingacontractualpromise—itimposesontherespectiveclassoflegalsubjectsa compulsorycharge thattheywillhavetopayiftheyintend toengageinthattypeofactivity.Thosewhocannotaffordthecostofthischargewill ceaseengaginginthatkindofconduct.Thosewhocan,maycontinue.Eventhen, however,mostofthemwillstilllikelytrytodecreasethevolumeandfrequencyofthe respectiveactivities:deterrence,fundamentally,isarelativephenomenon—ittends toaffecteventhosewhomitdoesnotstopcompletely.59 Thestrictertheintended prohibition,theheavier,inprinciple,oughttobethecorrespondingpenaltythatthe legalsystemshouldattachtotherespectiveconduct.Theheavierthepenaltyandthe morelikelyitsenforcementinpractice,theheavierwillbethe‘priceburden’imposed onthegivencommunityofactors.Sincethepricingmechanismworksaccordingto thelawofsupplyanddemand,theheavieristhepriceburdenimposedonacertain typeofactivity,themorepowerfulwillbetheprohibitiveeffectproducedbythat particularpartofthelegalregime.60

Ifhigherpricesresultinloweractivity,lowerpricesideallyshouldleadtohigher activity.Toinducean‘expansion’inagiventypeofsocialactivityortoencourage moresubjectstotakeitup,thelegalsystemcaneasethepriceburdenimposedon therespectivecommunityofactorseitherbyeliminatingallpenaltiesattachingtoa particularactorkindofconductorbyguaranteeingalegalrewardforengagingin it.Oneofthemostcommonwaystoachievethelatterobjectiveisbyassigningthe respectivecategoryoflegalsubjectsadditional rights andbybackingtheserightswith practicallyeffective remedies.Ifprohibitions,duties,andliabilitiesarethefunctional equivalentofgovernment-chargedprices;permissions,rights,andremediesarethe equivalentofgovernmentsubsidies.Whenthelegalsystemgrantsusprotection againsttheconductofothers,itessentiallysignalstousitswillingnesstosubsidize ourexpensesinwhatconcerns(i)takingthenecessaryprecautionstoensurethat theparticularconductinquestionnevertakesplace;and(ii)ﬁghtingthenegative

57 SeefurtherMercuroandMedema(1997,pp.21–24).

58 SeeHolmes[1897,pp.457(459–461)].

59 Thisisaveryoldinsight,evenamonginternationallawyers.Foraclassicalillustrationofthis kindofargumentinaninternationallawcontext,seeHenkin[1971,pp.544(544)].

60 SeefurtherHale(1935,p.149).

consequencesofthatconductwhenthatconductdoesactuallytakeplace.Notethe distinctionbetweenthetwoscenarios.Intheﬁrstcase,thelawmakesiteasierfor ustodealwiththesituation exante.Ontheonehand—becausewhatconstitutes aprotectiongiventousalsoworksasaprohibitionissuedtoothers—thelaw’s engagementwithoursituationinthiswaylowersthelikelihoodofwhatforuswould beanundesirableturnofevents,byincentivizingourlegallydeﬁnedcounterpartsto helpuspreventthoseeventsfromoccurring.Ontheotherhand,thelaw’sengagement withoursituationinthiswayalsorelievesthepriceburdenimposedonusinour ordinarycourseofbusiness,sincenowwenolongerwillneedtodoasmuchaswe otherwisemighthavehadto,inordertopreventthedeleteriouseventsinquestion fromoccurringsoastoensuretheprotectionofourinterests.Metaphorically,one mightsay,everytimethelegalsystemgrantsusenforceablerights,itisasifthelaw hadagreedtocoverour insurancecosts againstacertainturnofeventswhilealso takingcareofalltherelatedadministrativecosts,sothatwewouldnotneedtoget distractedandcouldfocusinsteadonwhatisimportanttousotherwise.

Inthesecondcase,bycontrast,thelaw’ssubsidizingeffectoperatesprimarilyin the expost dimension.Whatthelegalsystembasicallydoesforushereisitissues uswithapromisethatwewouldnotbeleftaloneifthekindofeventsitpromisedit wouldprotectusagainstdo,infact,takeplace.Again,theinsurancemetaphorcanbe veryhelpfulhere:whentheinsured-againstconductofothersdoeseventuallytake place,thelegalsystem,byvirtueofgrantingusappropriatelycalibratedrightsand asystemofremediestoenforcethem,willprovideuswiththenecessarymeansto acquirethe appropriatecompensation itpromiseditwouldgiveus.

Lookingfromthisangle,whatliesatthesourceofIEL’sregulatoryeffectivity accordingtothisunderstanding—theprimaryreasonwhyIELissousefulintheproductionofgovernance—comesdown,ultimately,tothefactthateverylegalregime operates,essentially,asasystemoflicensing,pricing,andsubsidisationofpolitically andeconomicallyrelevantconduct,thatisactualisedthroughtheinstrumentalityof rulesandtheaccompanyinginstitutionalformsandprocesses.61 Or,toputitslightly differently,thereasonwhyweoughttostudylegalrulesisthatbydoingsowecan findoutalltherespectivepricesandsubsidiesthatwillapplyineachspecificcontext inthatsub-fieldofIERthatinterestsus.Thereasonwhywestudythecorresponding institutionalformsandprocesses,accordingly,isinordertofindouthowtheseprices andsubsidiesarelikelygoingtobechargedandpaidoutinpracticebytherespective communitiesoflegalsubjects.

Rulescreaterightsandduties.Institutionsprovideremediesandensuretherealisationofliabilities.Bringthesetwoideastogetherandwhatemergesisthebasic theoryof IELasamechanismofIERpricing wheretheprocessofgovernanceis essentiallyequatedwiththeideaofregulatingtheglobalmarketplaceofIER-relevant activity.Byassigningrightsanddutiesanddistributingremediesandliabilities,IEL

61 Andviceversa:everyregimethatputsinplaceasystemoflicensing,pricing,andsubsidisation ofpoliticallyandeconomicallyrelevantconduct,fromthefunctionalistpointofview,deserves theattentionoflegalscholars.Everyregimethatputsinplacesuchasysteminthecontextofthe internationalpoliticaleconomydeservestheattentionofIELscholars.

inﬂuencestherelativecostlinessofdifferentIER-relevantactivitiesandtypesof behaviour.Presumingtherespectivecommunityoflegalsubjectstendstorespondto theseprice-manipulationsinamoreorlessrationalmanner,acrossasufﬁcientlylong timescalethisenablesIELtochangetherelativeprevalenceofthevariousformsand patternsofconductandthusreshapethestructureandsubstanceoftheinternational politicaleconomy.62

4.3IELasaMechanismfortheStructuringofOpportunities

Aslegalrealistshavetaughtus,sidebysidewithitsabilitytoincreaseorlowerthe relativecostsassociatedwithparticulartypesofconduct,thelegalsystemcanalso shapeitssubjects’conductby changingthestructureoftheirstrategicalternatives, thatistosay,bydelimitingthenumberof‘alternativelifesituations’theycanexplore iftheydecidetheydonotliketheonetheyarestuckinatthemoment.Forexample, whenthelawmadeitdifﬁcultforwomentoinherittheirparents’propertyorto obtainwell-paidemployment,itincreasedthepressureonthemtomarrywhilealso limitingtheirabilitytodivorcetheirhusbands.Whenthelawsoninheritanceand employmentdiscriminationchanged,lifeoutsidemarriagebecameamuchmore economicallyrealisticpropositionforagreaternumberofwomen.Bylimitingor expandingtherangeof‘exitopportunities’madeavailabletousunderthegiven scenario,thelawcan,thus,induceusto‘move’ourlivesindifferentdirectionsand toadoptdifferenttrajectoriesoflifechoices.

Thedifferencebetweentheprice-settingandtheopportunity-structuringfunctions maynotseemveryobviousatfirst,but,essentially,itallcomesdowntothefollowing point:inthefirstcase,thelegalsystemseekstoinfluencewhatsortofconductthe givenlegalsubjectislikelygoingtoresorttowhentheyfindthemselvesenteringa certainsocialrelationship—whatsortofthingstheymaydotootherpeopleinhabiting thatsocialcontext.Agoodillustrationherewouldbethelegalregimethatgoverns theconductofemploymentdisputes:byregulatingwhatsortofactivitiestheparties toanemploymentdisputemayengagein—strikes,picketing,blacklisting,summary dismissal,sabotage,etc.—andunderwhatproceduralandinstitutionalconditions— balloting,non-violentaction,policepresence,criminalprosecution,etc.—thelaw caninfluencehowtheemployersandtheworkersarelikelygoingtoacttowards anotheronewhenbargainingoverwages.Inthesecondcase,bycontrast,ratherthan addressingwhateachofthepartiescanactuallydototheotherpartiesunderthegiven socialscenario,thelegalsystem‘enterstheconversation’byinfluencingtherelative availabilityanddesirabilityofalternativesocialopportunities(exitopportunities) eachofthepartieswouldbeabletopursueifitdecidesthatitsprospectsunder thecurrentscenarioarenotsufficientlysatisfactoryanditdoesnotliketheideaof escalatingtheconflict.63 Goingbacktotheemploymentdisputeexample,thoughit

62 SeeKennedy(1997,p.59).

63 SeeKennedy(1993,p.87).

mayseemonthefaceofitthatitisonlythatpartofthelegalsystemwhichactually addressestheconductoflabourrelationsthatdirectlyinfluencestherelationship betweenworkersandtheiremployers,infact,manyothersegmentsofthelegal regimecanalsoexertaverysignificantimpact:fromsubstantivecriminallawand thelawofdelict(whichcanbecomeespeciallyrelevantincasesofsabotageaction, lying-in,andworkeroccupation)totherulesandinstitutionswhichaffecttherelative likelihoodandplausibilityofswitchingemployersorfindinganalternativecourse ofemployment(thiswouldcoverlawsrelatingtotheenforceabilityofnon-compete clausesandthestringencyofprofessionallicensingrequirementsintheso-called regulatedprofessions),totherulesandinstitutionsthataffecttherelativedangers andrisksofgoingself-employedorabandoninganyformofemploymentaltogether (thiswouldincludelawsandregimesregulatingaccesstounemploymentandhousing benefitsaswellashealthcare).And,ofcourse,asDuncanKennedyhasshown, whatholdstrueforemploymentdisputes, mutatismutandis,alsoholdstruefor all othertypesofcompetitive-cooperativesocialscenarios, 64 including,crucially,those coveredbyIEL:internationaltariffnegotiations,investmentprotection,foodsecurity, tradeembargoes,sovereigndebtrestructuration,loansurveillance,etc.

4.4IELasanIdeologicalMechanism

Inadditiontoitsprice-settingandopportunities-structuringfunctions,everylegal regimealsoproducesaregulatoryeffectby workingtheleversofideologicallegitimationandnormalisation.ThisisaclassicalLaw-and-Societyargument:thelaw canchangethesubjects’behaviouralpredispositionsnotonlybymodifyingthecosts associatedwithdifferenttypesofconducttheyarelikelytoengagein,butalsoby inﬂuencingtheirgeneralsenseofnormativeorientation,i.e.byshapingtheirideas aboutwhatisrightandwrong,legitimateandillegitimate,normalandabnormal.65

Seeninthislight,eventhoselegalregimesthatdonot,onthesurfaceofit,institute practicallyenforceablerights-and-dutiesstructures(frameworkconventions,model laws,UnitedNationsGeneralAssemblyresolutions,etc.)orthathaveattheircore hopelesslyvaguenormativeconstructs(e.g.mosttreatiesintheﬁeldofinternational environmentallaw)66 canstillproduceasigniﬁcantregulatoryimpact.Fromtheformallyirrelevantpreambularparagraphsand obiterdicta toutopianpolicyproposals thathaveneverbeenrealisedinpractice,to‘purelyacademic’scholarlydebatesand writings—thereisalotmoretoregulatorilyoperativematerialinmoderninternationallawthanwhatusuallymeetsthepositivistorthelegal-realisteye.Legitimation andnormalisationareprocessesthattakeplaceintheplaneof legalconsciousness, andthecontentsoflegalconsciousnessinmodernIELcanbeaffectedbymany differentformsoflegaldiscourse.

64 SeeKennedy(1993,p.100).

65 SeeKennedy(1997,p.59).SeealsoRasulov[2008,p.243(291)].

66 SeeSzekely(1997,p.234).

4.5IELasaMechanismofDiscipliningandInterpellation

Inadditiontohighlightingtheideologicalfunctionofthelaw,theLaw-and-Society traditionalsoteachesusthatthelegalsystemcanachievearegulatorilysigniﬁcant impactbyproducing ‘disciplining’and‘subjectivizing’effects.Byputtinginplacea speciﬁcsystemofinstitutionalisedprocessesandroutinesaswellasacorresponding systemofdiscursivemodes,protocolsofreasoning,andstructuresofknowledgeproduction,thelegalsystemcandiscipline,i.e.‘train’therespectiveclassoflegal subjectsthatarecompelledtotakepartintheseprocessesandroutines,discourses andknowledgestructures,toadoptacertainmodeofcomportment,acertainpattern ofself-expression,oracertainstyleofbeing-in-the-world.67 Bydoingthat,over alongenoughtimeline,thelawcaninducethatclassofsubjectstodrifttowards acertainrangeofsocialandpoliticalpositions,tolearntoinhabitcertainroles,to becomeaccustomedtoaparticularsetofpostures,habits,andbehaviouraltemplates, and,thus,ultimately,todevelopacertainpracticeofself-realisation.Putdifferently, notonlydoesthelawworkonallthosewhomitreaches didactically—byshaping theirsenseofwhatisrightandwrong,legitimateandillegitimate—italsoworkson them interpellatively —bymouldingtheirpsychologiesandtheiridentitiesassocial andpoliticalactors.68

Take,forexample,thelawofforeigninvestmentprotection.Eventhebriefestlook atthisbodyoflawandthevariousbodiesofpracticesanddiscoursethathaveemerged arounditinrecentyearscanrevealthehighlypeculiarandfar-reachingdisciplining andsubjectivizingeffectsithashadonvariouscategoriesofactorsithascomeincontactwith:hoststates,cross-borderinvestors,investmentarbitrators,legalscholars. Thepatternsofinterpellationvaryfromcasetocase,butthebasiclogichasaclearly recognisableshape.Throughthevariouspracticesanddiscursiverituals—oftreaty drafting,ofdisputeresolution,evenofacademicscholarship—IELandthevarious discoursessurroundingithaveconsistentlyencouraged:(i)cross-borderinvestorsto understandthemselvesasfundamentallybenevolentandvulnerablesubjects;(ii)host statestoviewthemselvesasinherentlyexploitativeandtypicallyaggressiveentities; (iii)investmentarbitratorstoviewtheirprofessionalactivitiesasaformofpublicserviceandaninherentlyneutralpoliticalpractice.Furthermore,IELitsdiscourseshave alsotrainedthe internationallawprofession toregardallcross-borderinvestment asauniversallybeneﬁcialactivityandtotakeitasagiventhatthestrengtheningof theinvestor-statedisputesettlement(ISDS)systemformsanindispensablestructural preconditionofitspreservation;toimagineitsownroleinallofthisasbeingthatofa loyalguardianandawiseexpert;toexperienceitself,inotherwords,asacommunity ofneutralumpiresand‘privatedisputeresolvers’,‘theidentiﬁersandadvocatesofthe progressivedevelopmentoftheinternationalruleoflaw’andthe‘seekersofuniversalrules’.69 IELanditsdiscourseshavenevertrainedcross-borderinvestorstoview themselvesaspotentialtaxavoiders,viciousexploiters,orrapaciousasset-strippers;

67 SeeFoucault(1995).

68 Ontheconceptofinterpellation,seefurtherAlthusser(1971,pp.170–183).

69 SeeMills(2011,pp.101–104).

toexperiencethesweetheartdealstheydemandfromhostgovernmentsastheunderminingoftheirregulatorysovereigntyandacorruptionofdemocraticpolitics;to recognisetheinsistenceoftheirhomestatesontheconclusionofbilateralinvestmenttreatiesthatgivesuchdealsinternationalenforceabilityascynicalcomplicityin thereproductionofneo-colonialsubjugation.Evenlesssohavetheytaughttheinternationallawprofessiontothinkofitselfastheself-servingobfuscatorofpolitical realities;thewhite-washerandenableroftaxavoidance,exploitation,andassetstripping;thecorruptorofdemocracy;theassassinofeconomicself-determination; orthefacilitatorofneo-colonialsubjugation.Imaginehowthingswouldhavebeen differentifitwasthatkindofinterpellativedynamicsthatissuedfrommodern-day IELdiscourseandinstitutions.

4.6TheTheoryofRegulatoryEffectivityasanInstrument ofCriticalInquiry

HowdifferentwouldIEL’sgovernanceimpact—itsregulatoryeffectontheinternationalpoliticaleconomy—beifourattentionindiscussingwhatneedstoshift andchangeintheinternationalpoliticaleconomyinadditiontoIEL’sprice-setting functionalsofocusedonIEL’sideologicalsignalling,itsinterpellativepower,its discipliningandopportunity-structuringdynamics?

Take,again,thequestionofinterpellation.MostconversationsaboutIELreform eventodaytendtostartandendatthelevelofblack-letterlawanditscontents.Little attentionispaidtoIEL’spowertomouldandshapethepersonalitiesofthosewho workwithitastheirintellectualtoolbox,theirplatform,theirmedium.Asevery first-yearlawstudentknows,though,itisnotthelaw,ultimately,thatappliesitself inpracticebutthelegalprofessionalswhoworkwithit.Whatgooddoesitreally doifintalkingaboutthereformoftheIELregimeweneveraddressthispoint?A recentreportfromtheCorporateEuropeObservatoryandtheTransnationalInstitute entitled‘ProfitingfromInjustice’highlightsthefactthat,asof2012,agroupof fifteenindividualshadbeenresponsibleformorethan55%ofallknowninternational investmentarbitrationsever.70 Whatgoodwouldtheinfusionofagreaterhuman rightsawarenessintoinvestmentarbitration,orthetransitionfromthearbitration modelofISDStothepermanentcourtmodel,oraswitchfromapro-ISDSdefault toapro-Calvodoctrineapproachdoforinternationalinvestmentlaw’srelationship withdemocraticgovernanceifthepeoplewhoareleftinchargeofoperatingthe internationalinvestmentregimedonotchangeorifthenextgenerationof‘superarbitrators’stillgoontoviewthemselvesasnothingmorethanneutralumpires incapableofeverbeingcomplicitinexploitationandoppression?

SomeﬁfteenyearsagoDavidKennedyremarkedthat: [t]hecallformultilateralism,thecallforhumanrightstochasepoliticaloreconomicdecisions,thecallforinstitutionalreformandrenewalarecomponentsofwhat[international

70 SeeEberhardtandOlivet(2012,p.38).

lawyersposingas]experts…offer[]asthey[goonto]govern[righteously.Theyare]not alternativestothegovernanceofexperts.71

Andyet,ofcourse,internationallaw

neednotbeonthesideoftheconsolidationof[righteous,self-lionising]expertise.…We couldimagineaninternationallawwhichsoughttodisenchantitsspeakersfromtheirown expertauthorityratherthantoofferthemthepromisethattheirswasthelast,best,[most] humanitarianpositionavailable.72

Giventhefocusofhispublicationsatthetime,mostofKennedy’sinterlocutors atthatpointviewedhisappealasmostlytargetingtheinternationalhumanrights community.Butthereis,ofcourse,noreasontothinkitdoesnotapplytotheIEL professionaswell.

Thepositiontakenbytheauthorscollectedinthisvolumecertainlyleansinfavour ofthisargument.Thetheoryofthefourfoldstructureoflaw’sregulatoryeffectivity outlinedabovecanhelpstructureourunderstandingofthegeneralrangeoftheoretical possibilitiesthatareopenbeforecontemporaryIELscholarship.Itcanalsoshinea usefullightonhowexactlythebroadercollectiveprojectpursuedinthesepages differsfrommostofcontemporaryIELliterature.

5AgainsttheOrthodoxy:ALegal-TheoreticalSynopsis ofthePresentVolume

ThevastmajorityofIELscholarshiptodatehastendedtofocusitstheoretical attentiononthefirstofthefourmechanismsofproducingtheregulatoryeffect: IEL’spowertochangetherelative‘prices’ ofthedifferentformsofinternationallyrelevantconduct—typicallythatofstatesandpublicinternationalorganisations. TheresultingpatternhasbeentoconstructthebasicideaofIELasfieldofdisciplinaryinquiryintheformofaloosecombinationofblack-letter-lawsummaries andmodestlyconsequentialistreflectionsaboutthelaw’simpactonthemicro-level structuresofnationalincentives.73 Amuchlesssignificantsegmentoftheliterature,bycomparison,hasbeendedicatedtoinvestigatingthe ideologicaldimension ofIEL’sinstitutionalregimesanddiscursiveconventions. 74 Anevensmallerbodyof writingshavetakenupastheirobject therelationshipbetweenIELandthestructuringofnational,regional,andglobaleconomicalternatives.Mostofthesescholarly projectshavetendedtolimitthemselvestoexploringtherelativelynarrowsub-field ofdisputesettlementmechanicsandthecloselyconnecteddebatesaboutforum-and

71 Kennedy[2003,pp.915(916)].

72 Ibid.,pp.916–917.

73 Fortypicalillustrations,seeWilliamsandFoote(2011,p.42),DuMing(2010,p.1077),Mavroidis (2008).

74 Fortypicalillustrations,seeBrabazon(2017),Krever(2011,p.287),Santos(2006,p.253).

treaty-shopping,therisksoffragmentation,andthepurportedadvantagesanddisadvantagesofbilateralismandmultilateralism.75 Byfartheleastamountofprogress, bothintermsofthequalityofinsightandthegeneralvolumeofreﬂection,has beenmadewithregardtothe discipliningandinterpellatory functionsofIEL.Only veryrudimentarydiscussionshavebeenhadonthisfrontsofar.Virtually,theonly lineofserioussustainedinquirythathasemergedinthiscontextoverthelasttwo decadeshasbeenlimitedtotheissueoftheso-calledregulatorychillandthe‘good governance’-styleimpactofdiscreteinternationaltradeandinvestmentstandardsin thecontextofmunicipallegalreforms.76

Thesenseofimplicittheoreticalhierarchyisunmistakable.Soalsoistheunderlyingmessageastowhatsortof problématique thedisciplineofIELstudies,ideally, oughttoaddress,and,byextension,whoexactlyitisthusmeanttoappealtointerms ofitsultimatetargetaudience.

Lookingfromthisperspective,onewayofunderstandingthisvolumewouldbe tothinkofitasanattempttosubverttheestablisheddisciplinaryorthodoxyand thetheoreticalhierarchyofgenresthatunderpinsit.Ouraiminthesepagesisto produce,byexplicittheoreticalargumentaswellasbypracticalillustration,an entirelydifferentkindofinternaltheoreticalbalance,anewsenseofintellectual mission,ifyouwill,forthedisciplineofIELstudies.Againstthedominanttendency toforegroundtheprice-settingfunctionofIEL,theessayscollectedinthesepages havesoughttofocusthereader’sattentiononothermodalitiesofIEL’sregulatory effectivity.

Thevolumeopenswithtwocriticalessaysthatexplicitlyaimtocontestand displacethetraditionalnarrativesadoptedwithinthedisciplineaboutthehistorical originsofthecontemporaryIELuniverse.Thefirstessay,byKonstantinaTzouvala,focusesontheemergenceofthemodernlawofinternationalinvestment; thesecond,byMichaelFakhri,onthehistoryofinternationaltradelaw.Departingfromtheconventionalaccountsthatlinktheevolutionofthemodernlawof internationalinvestmenttotheriseoftheAnglo-Americantraditionofneoliberal economics,Tzouvalaproposestore-groundourunderstandingofthecontemporary globalinvestmentregime’sorganiccharacterintheideologicallegacyofneoliberalism’sfarlesserknownpredecessor,theGermantraditionofordo-liberalthought.For alltheundoubtedinfluenceoftheAnglo-Americanneoliberaltradition,intheend, Tzouvalaargues,itisstillthebasicordo-liberalmodelsoflaw’sidealrelationship withtheeconomythatgovernthecontemporaryinvestmentlawyers’collectiveimaginary,theirreflexiveassumptionsabouttheultimatelimitsofregulatorysovereignty andthe‘correct’waystostrikethebalancebetweenthenationalandtheinternational, thepoliticalandtheeconomic,thelegalandthedemocraticelementsinglobaleconomicgovernance.Recognisingthisfactisanimportantsteppingstoneinlayingthe foundationsforanyforward-lookingIELreform.

75 Fortypicalillustrations,seePaparinskis(2008,p.264),Binder(2013,p.71),Marboe(2013, p.229),Pauwelyn(2003).ButseealsoMaggio(2017).

76 SeeVanDenMeersche(2018,p.168),Tienhaara(2011,p.606),Vranes(2009,p.953), Schneiderman(2008),Chimni(2004,p.1).