Neoliberalism, state-capitalism and European Ordo-liberalism : why power politics and ‘constitutional failures’ undermine economic law and human rights
Loading...
License
Access Rights
Cadmus Permanent Link
Full-text via DOI
ISBN
ISSN
Issue Date
Type of Publication
Keyword(s)
LC Subject Heading
Other Topic(s)
EUI Research Cluster(s)
Initial version
Published version
Succeeding version
Preceding version
Published version part
Earlier different version
Initial format
Author(s)
Citation
Ilias BANTEKAS and Michael Ashley STEIN (eds), The Cambridge companion to business and human rights law, Cambridge ; New York : Cambridge University Press, 2021, pp. 41-64
Cite
PETERSMANN, Ernst-Ulrich, Neoliberalism, state-capitalism and European Ordo-liberalism : why power politics and ‘constitutional failures’ undermine economic law and human rights, in Ilias BANTEKAS and Michael Ashley STEIN (eds), The Cambridge companion to business and human rights law, Cambridge ; New York : Cambridge University Press, 2021, pp. 41-64 - https://hdl.handle.net/1814/73609
Abstract
This chapter describes the moral and psychological ‘dilemmas’ of politicians, legal practitioners (like WTO lawyers, investment arbitrators) and businesses, driven all too often by self-interested utility maximization rather than by ‘inclusive, public reason’ accepting moral responsibility for reconciling all public and private interests on the basis of mutually agreed ‘principles of justice’ and human rights. It further illustrates these dilemmas by the US Trump administration’s neo-liberal, business-driven assault on UN and WTO law. It argues that power-politics and interest-group-politics underlying both neo-liberal and state-capitalist regulatory approaches undermine protection of human rights in IEL. It further describes the pragmatic ‘judicial common law approaches’ in WTO jurisprudence and investment adjudication, which focus on governmental rights to protect PGs (like public health, indigenous peoples’ rights, public morality, public order) and on agreed ‘constitutional principles of justice’ rather than on human rights. It concludes that Europe’s multilevel constitutionalism has better succeeded in ‘constitutionalizing’ common market law, the European Union’s (EU) external relations law and economic adjudication by protecting civil, political, economic and social rights within a ‘social market economy’ (article 3 of the Treaty on European Union [TEU]) embedded into ‘multilevel democratic constitutionalism’ and multilevel human rights law and adjudication.
Table of Contents
Additional Information
Published online: 10 September 2021