scholarly journals Managing Fragmentation between International Trade and Investment Law and Global Priorities for Noncommunicable Disease Prevention in Food and Alcohol

2018 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 169 ◽  
Author(s):  
Suzanne You Zhou

This article examines three ways in which instruments developed by international health organizations might be used to manage fragmentation between health and international trade and investment law in the context of regulating food and alcohol as noncommunicable disease risk factors. These are: by modifying or overriding trade and investment obligations, affecting interpretation and fact finding, and establishing cooperative inter-institutional processes. The article assesses the advantages and disadvantages of each of these approaches for managing fragmentation under the rules of treaty interpretation and dispute settlement. It argues that while much of the discussion of fragmentation between trade and health focuses on treaty interactions, many of the actual uses of health instruments are not necessarily dependent on their formal legal status. It then proposes several features of international instruments that might strengthen or support these uses, whether through binding or through non-binding instruments.  

2017 ◽  
Vol 33 (1) ◽  
pp. 123-136 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ashley Schram ◽  
Arne Ruckert ◽  
J Anthony VanDuzer ◽  
Sharon Friel ◽  
Deborah Gleeson ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Vol 22 (4) ◽  
pp. 655-676 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anthea Roberts ◽  
Henrique Choer Moraes ◽  
Victor Ferguson

Abstract Recent developments suggest that the international economic order is transitioning away from the Neoliberal Order that has flourished for much of the post-Cold War period toward a new Geoeconomic Order. The shift to this new order, which is characterized by a growing ‘securitisation of economic policy and economisation of strategic policy’, will likely see the rules, norms, and institutions of international trade and investment law undergoing significant change. We expose the differences in the underlying logic of these orders, explore how this shift is being driven by the emerging USA–China tech/trade war, and consider the consequences of this transition for global economic governance.


2020 ◽  
Vol 69 (3) ◽  
pp. 557-584
Author(s):  
Caroline Henckels

AbstractThe dyadic rule–exception structure common to many legal systems has posed particular interpretive difficulties in international trade and investment law. Adjudicators have interpreted general and security exceptions in GATT, GATS and cognate provisions of investment treaties in divergent ways, and the analytic character of these provisions is under-theorised in the literature. This article argues that we should understand exceptions from a deontological perspective as permissions that affirm governmental regulatory capacity and thus limit the scope of the commands set out in the treaty. This characterisation of exceptions has both symbolic and practical implications, of which this article discusses two: determining the exception's applicability as a preliminary matter rather than as a defence, which would in turn permit consideration of regulatory purpose at the point of obligation; and whether the applicability of an exception is properly a question of merits or jurisdiction.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document