Investment Wars: Contestation and Confusion in Debate About Investment Liberalization

2019 ◽  
Vol 22 (4) ◽  
pp. 629-654 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonathan Bonnitcha
Keyword(s):  
Political Economy ◽  
Technology Transfer ◽  
National Security ◽  
Investment Policy ◽  
Explanatory Framework ◽  
Investment Liberalization ◽  
The Usa ◽  
Policy Objectives ◽  
Trade Wars ◽  
Trump Administration

ABSTRACT Questions of investment governance are central to current trade wars. The USA complains of China’s use of restrictions on US investment as a lever to force technology transfer, while China complains of the review of investment in the USA on national security grounds. This article examines the place of these debates about investment liberalization within the trade wars. The focus is on US conduct, as the instigator of the trade wars. I argue that the USA is pursuing diverse and partially inconsistent in relation to investment liberalization. In some contexts, the USA is continuing to pursue the objective of removing impediments to outward investment, which was the principal objective of US investment policy for the decades prior to the Trump administration. In other contexts, the USA is seeking to encourage the repatriation of US outward investment and to regulate inward and outward investment according to ill-defined security rationales. I argue that prevailing materialist accounts of the trade wars struggle to explain these inconsistencies. Instead, I suggest that constructivist political economy provides a more promising explanatory framework. According to this view, inconsistency in policy objectives stems from foundational uncertainty about the nature of the ‘problem’ of investment liberalization.

At the Vanishing Point of Law: Rebalancing, Non-Violation Claims, and the Role of the Multilateral Trade Regime in the Trade Wars

2019 ◽  
Vol 22 (4) ◽  
pp. 721-742
Author(s):  
Nicolas Lamp
Keyword(s):  
National Security ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Security Measures ◽  
Trade Regime ◽  
Multilateral Trade ◽  
Legal Structure ◽  
Course Of Action ◽  
The Usa ◽  
Trade Retaliation ◽  
Trade Wars

ABSTRACT What role can the multilateral trade regime play in the trade wars triggered by the USA under the Trump administration? This article argues that the traditional goal of dispute settlement in the WTO—the positive resolution of disputes—has become largely unattainable in the circumstances of the trade wars, but that the regime can still play a valuable role by providing a framework for the rebalancing of obligations among the participants. Using the regime in this way would defuse tensions among the participants, would ensure that any new equilibrium that they achieve is integrated into the legal structure of the trade regime, and would provide the participants the opportunity to use the trade regime’s tools for solving disagreements at the margins, thereby lowering the risk that trade retaliation will spiral out of control. The article uses the example of non-violation claims in the context of national security measures to illustrate the potential for and benefits of re-integrating the trade wars into the multilateral trade regime. The article provides a detailed discussion of the legal justification for non-violation complaints in response to national security measures and argues that such claims provide an alternative course of action that is less confrontational than unilateral retaliation or violation claims, and faster to adjudicate than violation claims.

scholarly journals Nations and Markets

2020 ◽  
Vol 23 (4) ◽  
pp. 793-815
Author(s):  
Harlan Grant Cohen
Keyword(s):  
Saudi Arabia ◽  
National Security ◽  
United Arab Emirates ◽  
Foreign Investments ◽  
The Usa ◽  
Automotive Parts ◽  
Global Welfare ◽  
Trade Wars ◽  
The Relationship

ABSTRACT Economics and security seem increasingly intertwined. Citing national security, states subject foreign investments to new scrutiny, even unwinding mergers. The provision of 5G has become a diplomatic battleground—Huawei at its center. Meanwhile, states invoke national security to excuse trade wars. The USA invoked the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade national security exception to impose steel and aluminum tariffs, threatening more on automotive parts. Russia invoked that provision to justify its blockade of Ukraine, as did Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates to excuse theirs of Qatar. And with the spread of COVID-19, states are invoking national security to scrutinize supply lines. Multiplying daily, such stories have led some observers to dub the era one of geoeconomics. Nonetheless, these developments remain difficult to judge, and the relationship between economics and national security remains confused and slippery. The essay seeks clarity in the deeper logic of these labels, revealing a fundamental choice between the logics of markets and the logics of state. Whether invoked to ‘secure’ borders, privacy, health, the environment, or jobs, ‘national security’ is a claim about the proper location of policymaking. Appeals to economics, with their emphasis on global welfare and global person-to-person relationships, are such claims as well. Resolving disputes, this essay argues, requires recognizing these root choices.

Sanctions of the USA and the Policy of Bank of Russia:double Blow to the National Economy

2014 ◽  
pp. 13-29 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. Glazyev
Keyword(s):  
National Security ◽  
Economic Sanctions ◽  
Capital Flight ◽  
Practical Advice ◽  
The Us ◽  
Monetary Authorities ◽  
The Usa ◽  
Simultaneous Adoption ◽  
The Eu

This article examines fundamental questions of monetary policy in the context of challenges to the national security of Russia in connection with the imposition of economic sanctions by the US and the EU. It is proved that the policy of the Russian monetary authorities, particularly the Central Bank, artificially limiting the money supply in the domestic market and pandering to the export of capital, compounds the effects of economic sanctions and plunges the economy into depression. The article presents practical advice on the transition from external to domestic sources of long-term credit with the simultaneous adoption of measures to prevent capital flight.

Russian Federation and the United States of America: geostrategic directions to manage the Ukrainian crisis

2019 ◽  
pp. 123
Author(s):  
Attarid Awadh Abdulhameed
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
European Union ◽  
National Security ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
United States Of America ◽  
The United States ◽  
The European Union ◽  
The Usa ◽  
Ukrainian Crisis ◽  
Zero Sum

Ukrainia Remains of huge importance to Russian Strategy because of its Strategic importance. For being a privileged Postion in new Eurasia, without its existence there would be no logical resons for eastward Expansion by European Powers.  As well as in Connection with the progress of Ukrainian is no less important for the USA (VSD, NDI, CIA, or pentagon) and the European Union with all organs, and this is announced by John Kerry. There has always ben Russian Fear and Fear of any move by NATO or USA in the area that it poses a threat to  Russians national Security and its independent role and in funence  on its forces especially the Navy Forces. There for, the Crisis manyement was not Zero sum game, there are gains and offset losses, but Russia does not accept this and want a Zero Sun game because the USA. And European exteance is a Foot hold in Regin Which Russian sees as a threat to its national security and want to monopolize control in the strategic Qirim.

Diverging incentives for reforming China’s restrictions on digital innovations

2017 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 259-280 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martina Francesca Ferracane ◽  
Hosuk Lee-Makiyama
Keyword(s):  
National Security ◽  
Industrial Policy ◽  
Design Methodology ◽  
Negative Impact ◽  
Public Order ◽  
Content Type ◽  
State Owned Enterprise ◽  
Policy Objectives ◽  
New Perspective

Purpose This paper aims to investigate China’s policy on digital trade with the objective to highlight the rationales behind such policy. Design/methodology/approach China’s policy on digital trade is assessed by analysing the main regulations imposed in the country in the period from 1985 to 2016 that have an impact on digital trade. Findings It was found that there are more than 70 measures imposed today that have a negative impact on digital trade. The measures are diverse and can be justified with several policy objectives, namely, industrial policy, public order and national security, and these support China’s fiscal and state-owned enterprise structure. Originality/value This paper analyses China’s policy on digital trade from a new perspective and provides insights on the rationales behind this policy.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document