Abstract

Notwithstanding International Economic Law’s (IEL’s) inevitable distributional effects, IEL scholarship has had limited engagement with theoretical work on global distributive justice and fairness. In part this reflects the failure of global justice theorists to derive principles that can be readily applied to the concrete problems of IEL. This article bridges this gap, drawing on existing coercion-based accounts of global justice in political theory to propose a novel account of global distributive justice that both resolves problems within the existing theoretical literature and can be directly applied to both explain and critique concrete issues in IEL, including in particular WTO law. By complementing existing coercion-based accounts with a more nuanced typology of international coercion, it distinguishes two morally salient classes of economically relevant measures: External Trade Measures (ETMs), which pursue their goals specifically through the regulation of international economic activity; and Domestic Economic Measures (DEMs), which do not. The distinctive intentional relationship between ETMs and the outsiders they affect means such measures require more stringent justification, in terms of global equality or other goals those outsiders themselves share; whereas DEMs can be justified under the principle of self-determination. Non-Product Related Production Processes and Methods (NPRPPMs) provide a case study to show how this framework can illuminate recurring problems in IEL.

Highlights

  • International economic law (IEL) has globally distributive effects

  • Notwithstanding International Economic Law’s (IEL’s) inevitable distributional effects, IEL scholarship has had limited engagement with theoretical work on global distributive justice and fairness. In part this reflects the failure of global justice theorists to derive principles that can be readily applied to the concrete problems of IEL

  • This article bridges this gap, drawing on existing coercion-based accounts of global justice in political theory to propose a novel account of global distributive justice that both resolves problems within the existing theoretical literature and can be directly applied to both explain and critique concrete issues in IEL, including in particular WTO law

Read more

Summary

The Inevitability of Distributive Justice

International economic law (IEL) has globally distributive effects. Border measures affect terms of trade and restrict transactional opportunities for both insiders and outsiders. Building on existing coercion-based accounts of global justice, I distinguish two normatively salient categories of economic regulation, which I label external trade measures and domestic economic measures The former, I argue, establish a distinctive justificatory relationship between states and those outside their borders, evoking justification in globally egalitarian terms or in terms of values those outsiders are themselves committed to pursuing. Distributive justice means something quite different, depending on the kinds of measures considered By taking this distinction seriously we can make sense both of our varied intuitions about economic regulation and global justice, and of recurring problems in international trade law. It concludes by identifying a number of other problematic issues in WTO law that these principles can potentially illuminate

From Global Justice to Justice in Economic Regulation
The Coercion Approach and the Plurality of Global Institutions
Inclusive Coercion and the Fruits of Social Cooperation
External Coercion and the Interpersonal Test
From Coercion to Equality in Global Commerce
EGC and the Justice of NPRPPMs
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.