Abstract
Trade liberalization has featured international economic relations since the conclusion of the GATT in 1947. The club it established served as a platform for a series of trade rounds, which have been remarkably successful in diminishing tariffs, and became a truly universal system with the creation of the World Trade Organization in 1994 and the extension of its membership (currently WTO members account for 97% of world GDP).
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
Nagy (2019), p. 88.
- 2.
For an analysis on the TTIP’s controversial issues, see Martonyi (2018).
- 3.
- 4.
For a comparison of treaty provisions, see Bourgeois et al. (2007).
- 5.
- 6.
- 7.
See e.g. Duns et al. (2015).
- 8.
For a counterexample, see e.g. Castlemaine Tooheys Ltd v South Australia (1990) 169 CLR 436 (7 February 1990), para 37. As a further example, the treaty rules on the EU internal market, in particular the provisions on the free movement of goods, were modeled after GATT. For instance, both the chapeau of Article XX GATT and the last sentence of Article 36 TFEU refer to arbitrary discrimination and disguised restriction on trade.
- 9.
Treaty for the Promotion and Protection of Investments (with Protocol and exchange of notes), Germany and Pakistan, 25 November 1959, 457 U.N.T.S. 24 (entered into force 28 November 1962), available at https://treaties.un.org/Pages/showDetails.aspx?objid=0800000280132bef.
- 10.
Nagy (2018), p. 206.
- 11.
It was not until the mid-1970s that BITs started making provision for investor-state dispute settlement. Lim et al. (2018), pp. 59 and 61.
- 12.
Cf. Islam (2018), p. 188.
- 13.
Cf. Weiler (2014) (“[T]he Bar that adjudicates them [investment disputes] is of a limited range (…), and dominated by arbitrators from private practice rather than public interest backgrounds (…); and most damning of all, the substantive provisions of the investment treaties, when it comes to protecting societal interests, are woefully defective and inferior when compared with similar public interest provisions in trade agreements such as the WTO itself.”).
References
Barnard C (2009) Restricting restrictions: lessons for the EU from the US? Camb Law J 68(3):575–606
Bourgeois J, Dawar K, Evenett SJ (2007) A comparative analysis of selected provisions in free trade agreements (2007). http://www.kamaladawar.com/userfiles/file/downloads/A%20Comparative%20Analysis%20of%20Selected%20FTAs.pdf
Dorsen N, Rosenfeld M, Sajó A, Baer S (2010) Comparative constitutionalism: cases and materials, 2nd edn. West Academic Publishing
Duns J, Duke A, Sweeney B (2015) Comparative competition law. Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham
Graziano TK (2019) Comparative contract law, 2nd edn. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham
Islam R (2018) The Fair and Equitable Treatment (FET) standard in international investment arbitration: developing countries in context. Springer, Singapore
Kiefel S (2010) Section 92: markets, protectionism and proportionality – Australian and European perspectives. Monash Univ Law Rev 36(2):1–15
Lim CL, Ho J, Paparinskis M (2018) International investment law and arbitration. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Martonyi J (2018) Clash of ideologies: is transatlantic trade the right battlefield? In: Martonyi J (ed) Nyitás és identitás: Geopolitika, világkereskedelem, Európa. Pólay Elemér Alapítvány
McNaughton A (2011) Integrating services markets: a comparison of European Union and Australian experiences. Aust J Int Aff 65(4):454–468
Nagy CI (2018) Free trade, public interest and reality: new generation free trade agreements and national regulatory sovereignty. Czech Yearb Int Law 9:197–216
Nagy CI (2019) World trade, imperial fantasies and protectionism: can you really have your cake and eat it too? Indiana J Global Leg Stud 26(1):87–132
Puig GV (2008) A European saving test for section 92 of the Australian Constitution. Deakin Law Rev 13(1):99–129
Reimann M, Zimmermann R (eds) (2006) Comparative contract law. The Oxford handbook of comparative law. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Rosenfeld M, Sajó A (eds) (2012) The Oxford handbook of comparative constitutional law. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Sørensen KE (2011) Removing non-discriminatory barriers to trade in the EU and the WTO: can one system benefit from the experiences of the other? Conference: Globalization: strategies and effects. http://pure.au.dk/portal/en/activities/removing-nondiscriminatory-barriers-to-trade-in-the-eu-and-the-wto(74593c79-573a-4641-a3ac-f6f7b1e81759).html
Staker C (1990) Section 92 of the Constitution and the European Court of Justice. Fed Law Rev 19:322–351
Weiler JHH (2014) European hypocrisy: TTIP and ISDS. Eur J Int Law 25(4):961–975
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Nagy, C.I. (2020). World Trade, Regional Economic Integrations and Local Public Interest: Comparative Perspectives. In: Nagy, C. (eds) World Trade and Local Public Interest. Studies in European Economic Law and Regulation, vol 19. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-41920-2_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-41920-2_1
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-41919-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-41920-2
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)