International Economic Relations/International Development Institutions

Author(s):  
Grigore Pop-Eleches
Author(s):  
Asif Qureshi ◽  
Xuan Gao ◽  
Jeong Ah Lee

In general, international economic law (IEL) is concerned with the governance of international economic relations between states as they affect individuals in a state, including in particular their relations inter se across national boundaries. As such, the principal preoccupations of IEL involve international trade, international investment, international monetary and financial law, and international development law. A traditional drive for this normative framework has been the facilitation of the optimal allocation and use of national and international resources for the development of all the people of the world. Defining IEL is a complex process involving a bundle of questions that need to be understood at the outset before any firm definition is articulated. The process involves first and foremost the “is” question: What is IEL? This question involves a consideration of the legal sources of IEL, the subject matter that is the object of IEL disciplines, and the subjects that are subject to IEL. Second, the process involves the “ought” question: How should IEL be redefined? This can be in terms of its sources, its subjects, and subject matter, even in terms of its very objectives. Third, the process involves refocusing from a global perspective to a closer, microlevel scrutiny of the subject. At this level, the questions focus on defining the sets of regimes that make up the international economic system and configuring them in relation to each other and the international economic system as a whole, including the system of IEL in the wider international order. Fourth, another subtext of the process of defining IEL involves inquiring into how international economic governance should be allocated among the state, region, and multilateral levels. Finally, the process of defining IEL is a dynamic process and involves a constant appraisal of whether international economic relations are developing in such a manner that corresponding adjustments to the definition of IEL are called for. The process of defining IEL in this manner elevates the question from a mere academic discourse to one of the most profound inquiries in international economic relations, one that is highly relevant to informing our responses to contemporary international economic problems and that is ubiquitous in all manner of national, regional, and multilateral economic governance. The approach to IEL herein is from the perspective of public international law, with a focus on the traditional preoccupations with world trade, money and finance, investment and taxation, and international development law.


1995 ◽  
Vol 30 (4) ◽  
pp. 492-509 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicholas Bayne

IN MY GOVERNMENT AND OPPOSITION/LEONARD SCHAPIRO lecture in 1993 I attempted an incomplete analysis of international economic relations after the end of the cold war, in particular the unexpected tensions and difficulties. The end of superpower confrontation had not only removed one incentive for Western countries to settle their economic disputes. It had also lowered the priority given to security issues, where national governments were in control, and had exposed their dwindling ability to take economic decisions, because of the extent of the interdependence which was the price paid for their prosperity. I could not think of a single area of domestic policy immune from international influence. Professor Susan Strange has developed a more trenchant analysis of this trend in her Government and Opposition/Leonard Schapiro lecture this year.


2002 ◽  
Vol 96 (1) ◽  
pp. 118-125 ◽  
Author(s):  
John H. Jackson

The problem of linkage between “nontrade” subjects and the World Trade Organization is certainly one of the most pressing and challenging policy puzzles for international economic relations and institutions today. It is extensively and harshly debated by political leaders and diplomats, at both the national and the international levels of discourse, and is one of several issues that derailed the WTO Third Ministerial Conference in Seattle in late 1999. It also posed problems for the Fourth Ministerial Conference in Doha, Qatar, in November of 2001, and it threatens to derail the successful functions of the WTO itself.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document