scholarly journals Globalising Security Law for a Globalised Arms Trade

Author(s):  
Shavana Musa

The constant evolution of the ever-globalising arms trade has posed complex questions as to its regulation. This article attempts to address the question of whether globalising law and regulation of the arms trade is the answer, particularly given the rapid rate at which all aspects of this industry are evolving, its pluralistic character and the increasing authority that diverse involved actors have. It is the case that in the last few years, the global community has managed to agree to the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT). This shows a significant step in the global governance of an inherently global industry. In questioning whether and how global law for the arms trade can be shaped, this article also assesses the eventual ATT provisions and whether they adequately deal with the globalising elements of the arms industry.

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-7
Author(s):  
Oliver Westerwinter

Abstract Friedrich Kratochwil engages critically with the emergence of a global administrative law and its consequences for the democratic legitimacy of global governance. While he makes important contributions to our understanding of global governance, he does not sufficiently discuss the differences in the institutional design of new forms of global law-making and their consequences for the effectiveness and legitimacy of global governance. I elaborate on these limitations and outline a comparative research agenda on the emergence, design, and effectiveness of the diverse arrangements that constitute the complex institutional architecture of contemporary global governance.


2019 ◽  
Vol 6 (4) ◽  
pp. 6-33
Author(s):  
R. Neuwirth

In the global arena, the cooperation between the BRICS countries – Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa – covers around 42% of the world’s population and some of the world’s most dynamic emerging economies. Initially, the BRICS cooperation was suggested as an idea, and it was later welcomed as a new addition to the global governance debate about the future. The BRICS countries have already held ten consecutive summits of heads of state plus a large number of meetings at the ministerial level. The cooperation describes itself as a “cooperation and dialogue” platform, but it has nonetheless signed a number of binding treaties and, notably, established the New Development Bank (NDB) as a permanent institution headquartered in Shanghai (China).The cooperation has also met with resistance, criticism and problems caused by the overall complexity of global affairs in a rapidly changing world. The diversity and remote locations of the BRICS countries have also been thought of as an obstacle to their successful cooperation and their ability to play an active part in global governance in the twentyfirst century. The main challenge thus lies in their ability to overcome their differences and to make a difference in designing the future global political and economic world order. Against the backdrop of the global governance debate, the present paper therefore asks whether the BRICS cooperation constitutes a novel model of regionalism with multilateral aspirations, and what role law and, notably, the “rule of law” can play in this important task. The paper includes a discussion of the extent to which the BRICS cooperation needs to be upgraded in legal and institutional terms, and possibly to proceed from cooperation via consolidation to the codification of its most important sources of global law.


2014 ◽  
Vol 31 (2/3) ◽  
pp. 108-120 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexander Nikolayevich Chumakov

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to include the following items: to show the absolute necessity of managing the international community, to explore the fundamental possibility of managing the global world, to prove or disprove such a possibility, to determine the real background of global governance in modern conditions and to show the methods of transition toward global governance. Design/methodology/approach – The main methodological principles used in writing the paper are: the principle of the integrity of the world; the understanding of globalization as an objective historical process; the principle of historical sequence of the considered event; the principle of priority of the general over the particular, as well as of the global over the regional and the local. Findings – As a result of the proposed research, it is shown that the global world needs to be managed. Prerequisites for the management of the global world are identified, among which the most important are morality and rights. It is shown that for management of the global world there should not only be global government, but also other branches of government, such as a World Parliament and a judicial system based on global law. Research limitations/implications – A clear distinction between the management and regulation of social relations is made. The need to further explore the concepts of international law and global right is stated. Practical implications – National sovereignty increasingly must give place to global governance structures. Social implications – The need to build a global civil society is evident. Originality/value – The absolute necessity and possibility of regulating the world community are shown. New approaches to solving this problem are proposed. They are based on existing assumptions in the field of executive and legislative power and also involve the creation of new structures, primarily in the area of the judiciary.


Author(s):  
Chrystie Swiney

This article examines the rising influence of cities in global governance and on international law, despite the existing international legal and political framework, which is designed to exclude them. It explores the various strategies and tools utilized by city leaders to leapfrog over their national counterparts in order to autonomously access the international policymaking and law-making world. These include (1) coalescing together to form large networks, which engage in city or “glocal” diplomacy; (2) allying with well-connected and well-resourced international organizations; (3) gaining inclusion in UN multilateral agendas; (4) mirroring state-based coalitions and their high-profile events; (5) harnessing the language of international law (especially international human rights and environmental law) to advance agendas at odds with their national counterparts; and (6) adopting resolutions, declarations, and voluntarily self-policed commitments––what I refer to as “global law.” The paper argues that the existing concepts and frameworks that we use to explain the international political and legal world order––concepts that inhere in international legal literature and in international relations theory––are ill-equipped to conceptualize the changing status of cities, as well as other sub-national actors, in global politics. The article concludes by offering a new framework, with new concepts and updated verbiage, for understanding the changing relationship of cities to both international law and international relations, a framework I refer to as the “Urbanization of Global Relations.”


2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. 437-461 ◽  
Author(s):  
Antonio Cardesa-Salzmann ◽  
Endrius Cocciolo

AbstractThis article begins by questioning the capacity of the concept of sustainable development to stabilize social reproduction and foster global justice. Based on interdisciplinary perspectives on global governance, it discusses the way in which global law fails to cope with the resonance of advanced capitalism in the world society and ecological systems. Our analysis focuses on the regulatory and institutional features of three interwoven functional regulatory regimes (global finance, energy, and environmental protection), which demonstrate structural governance dysfunction at the expense of ecological integrity and justice in the global realm. The article further examines the capacity of global law to foster a ‘compositive’ and ‘compensatory’ contribution to global justice and the stability of the Earth system through global constitutionalism. In this context, it concludes that Neil Walker's global law approach provides a fertile analytical framework for describing the patterns of interaction between different species of global law but proves to be particularly ‘slippery’ in its normative propositions regarding the gap between global law and justice. Drawing from the Earth system approach, we argue in favour of a global material constitutionalism, recognizant of ecosystemic boundaries and socio-environmental impacts of the global socio-economic metabolism. We consider that the gap between global law and global justice is best addressed by devising more deliberative patterns of transnational governance, as well as ecosystem and human rights approaches, in order to accommodate the fair and equitable internalization of material limits across global regulatory regimes that act as functionally differentiated economic constitutions of advanced capitalism.


Author(s):  
Elena V. Fomicheva ◽  
Marina S. Shikun

With the growing tension in the global community and the instability of the overall situation, problems with financial centers and regions have arisen, and as a result, the necessity of reforms have appeared in the global governance system and in the financial and economic system. BRICS countries are very interested in solving problems and developing relations within the bloc. Each country pursues its own interest, but the emerging dialogue of countries allows them to find a compromise in complex issues. The current economic situation in the world, where Western countries speak the language of sanctions, makes BRICS countries strengthen their interaction. It concerns the provision of financial and economic security. Increased financial risks in the capital market as well as the dominance of the dollar and the euro level, push BRICS countries to strengthen the financial mechanisms. BRICS countries support the creation of a global network of financial instruments.


The 2018 edition of The Global Community Yearbook of International Law and Jurisprudence both updates readers on the important work of long-standing international tribunals and introduces readers to more novel topics in international law. The Yearbook continues to provide expert coverage of the Court of Justice of the European Union and diverse tribunals from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to criminal tribunals such as the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, to economically based tribunals such as ICSID and the WTO Dispute settlement procedures. The contents of this part have been enriched with the inclusion of a new section devoted to the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA), the oldest global institution for the settlement of international disputes. This edition contains original research articles on the development and analysis of the concept of global law and the views of the global law theorists such as: whether the Paris Declaration of 2017 and the Oslo Recommendation of 2018 deals with enhancing their institutions’ legitimacy; how to reconcile human rights, trade law, intellectual property, investment and health law with the WTO dispute settlement panel upholding Australia’s tobacco plain packaging measure; Israel’s acceptance of Palestinian statehood contingent upon prior Palestinian “demilitarization” is potentially contrary to pertinent international law; and a proposal to strengthen cooperation between the ECJ and National Courts in light of the failure of the dialogue between the ECJ and the Italian Constitutional Court on the interpretation of Article 325 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European union. The Yearbook provides students, scholars, and practitioners alike a valuable combination of expert discussion and direct quotes from the court opinions to which that discussion relates, as well as an annual overview of the process of cross-fertilization between international courts and tribunals.


2004 ◽  
Vol 39 (3) ◽  
pp. 393-422 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher May

AbstractThe making of knowledge and information into property, through intellectual property rights (IPRs) has commonly been justified using a set of cosmopolitan norms. These norms of justification have been extensively deployed within the structures of global governance for IPRs. However, the political community that underpins such norms in national jurisdictions is lacking at the global level. Many of the political problems now recognized with the globalized protection of IPRs stem from this tension between cosmopolitan legalism and the contemporary ‘thin’ global community.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document