Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorPETERSMANN, Ernst-Ulrich
dc.date.accessioned2014-04-14T13:54:54Z
dc.date.available2014-04-14T13:54:54Z
dc.date.issued2012
dc.identifier.citationJournal of International Economic Law, 2012, Vol. 15, No. 4, pp. 921-970en
dc.identifier.issn1369-3034
dc.identifier.issn1464-3758
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/1814/31180
dc.description.abstractSection II discusses six different conceptions of justifying international economic law (IEL). Section III argues that the ‘dual nature’ of modern IEL requires limiting ‘Westphalian conceptions’ of ‘international law among states’ through protection of ‘cosmopolitan rights’ and judicial remedies of citizens in IEL. Section IV explains why past doctrinal disputes among legal positivists, natural law advocates, and social conceptions of law have lost much of their relevance for interpreting IEL. Section V suggests that protecting transnational ‘aggregate public goods' requires constitutional approaches to IEL. Section VI explains the need for comparative institutional research so as to improve the functioning of horizontally and vertically interdependent public goods regimes. Section VII discusses why ‘cosmopolitan public goods regimes' have protected rights and transnational rule of law more effectively for the benefit of citizens than the prevailing ‘Westphalian conceptions’. Section VIII argues that the inadequate parliamentary and civil society control of multilevel economic regulation must be compensated by multilevel judicial protection of cosmopolitan rights protecting ‘participatory’ and ‘deliberative democracy’, ‘access to justice’, ‘active liberty’, and human rights in IEL. Section IX concludes that the permanent fact of ‘reasonable disagreement’ requires respect for ‘constitutional pluralism’ in IEL in accordance with the ‘subsidiarity principle’. The legitimate diversity and competing conceptions of ‘principles of justice’ justify judicial deference via-à-vis diverse conceptions of human rights, economic cosmopolitan rights, corresponding ‘duties to protect’ and ‘corporate responsibilities’ as relevant context for interpreting IEL.en
dc.language.isoenen
dc.relation.ispartofJournal of International Economic Lawen
dc.relation.isversionofhttp://hdl.handle.net/1814/22798
dc.titleJIEL debate: methodological pluralism and its critics in international economic law researchen
dc.typeArticleen
dc.identifier.doi10.1093/jiel/jgs040
dc.identifier.volume15en
dc.identifier.startpage921en
dc.identifier.endpage970en
eui.subscribe.skiptrue
dc.identifier.issue4en
dc.description.versionPublished version of EUI LAW WP 2012/18en


Files associated with this item

FilesSizeFormatView

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record