Communication Flows in International Economic Law:

Chaos in the International Economic Order through Divergent Normative Frameworks

 

If International Economic Law (IEL) is associated with multilateralism and Public International Law (PIL); if Transnational Economic Law (TEL) is concerned with nationalism/regionalism and the exportation of foreign related law; and if the Americanisation of IEL (AIEL) involves unilateralism and ‘reciprocity’ – then contemporary foreign economic relations call for a re-examination of the IEL landscape. This configuration of forces and the questions they raise are of course not completely new. They have been simmering as far back as the failure of the Doha Round of trade negotiations. Indeed, further back to the original discourse on the very definition IEL. What brings this fundamental question back into the fore now is the lack of leadership, consensus and coherence as to the direction of IEL. The Bretton Woods institutions that were considered as the fundamental pillars were (and are) of course always ‘member driven,’ but nevertheless within the orbit of the recognised objectives of these organisations. Now the IMF and the World Bank Group are in competition with other institutions including China, whilst the integrity of the WTO has been severely jeopardised by the US. All this against a background wherein important spheres in foreign economic relations have involved normative developments of a unilateral/plurilateral and/or fragmented nature. Such unilateral developments are not only led by the US, EU and to some extent China – specially in the technology and national security spheres.