This Article examines a previously overlooked policy interdependence between the International Monetary Fund (“IMF”) and the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (“Basel Committee”), which results from economic dynamics associated with the “banking- sovereign nexus.” The main finding of this Article is that interventions by the IMF and the Basel Committee function as regulatory complements by subtly reinforcing one another through a number of channels. In order to leverage that complementarity, the Article presents the following two-part policy proposal. First, that the Basel Committee enhance the stringency of its capital requirements with an increase in the risk-weights that are assigned to sovereign bonds that banks hold as assets. Second, that the IMF revise its lending criteria to allow countries that have effectively implemented the stricter version of the Basel Rules to prequalify for access to its credit facilities.
Foreign Agricultural Investments in Myanmar: Toward Successful and Sustainable Contract Farming Relationships
This Note examines how the Myanmar government can create an appropriate legal and regulatory framework to promote contract farming.
Access to Trade Secret Environmental Information: Are TRIPS and TRIPS-Plus Obligations a Hidden Landmine?
Freedom of Information laws (“FOI laws”) are fundamental to enabling access to environmental information. This Article argues that the specificity and strength of trade secret protections in TRIPS (article 39) and TRIPS-Plus regional and bilateral free trade agreements (“FTAs”) are hidden landmines that may unravel current access-to- information regimes (e.g. FOI laws). The aim of this Article is to delineate the nature and scope of the limits that TRIPS and TRIPS-Plus regimes place on domestic access-to-environmental-information regimes for information submitted to governments.
Rights-Protection Lawyers in China: A Behavioral and Rational Choice Analysis of Lawyers in an Authoritarian State
In the summer of 2015, the Chinese Communist Party (“CCP”) detained over 200 rights-protection lawyers, a human rights violation that many observers viewed as a retreat from prior commitments to the development of the rule of law. This Note uses two theoretical frameworks—rational choice theory and behavioral law & economics—in an attempt to explain why the CCP, an authoritarian regime, would allow this movement to develop in the first instance and why, after more than a decade, the CCP reversed course.
The bilateral investment treaties (“BITs”) signed between developed and developing countries are supposed to increase the flow of investment from the former to the latter. But the evidence indicates that the existing approach of guaranteeing special protections for foreign investors has only a modest impact on luring their dollars. This Article calls for a fundamental redesign of BITs based on empirically validated premises about how host States actually attract foreign investment. Political science and economic studies show that foreign investors place substantial weight on the quality of domestic institutions. Existing BITs fail to promote investment because they are not an adequate substitute for these institutions, nor are they effective in generating reform. The proposed model would make domestic institutional reform the organizing principle of BIT design, and the Article offers several specific provisions that would help achieve that goal.
Macedonia’s Ohrid Framework Agreement Reexamined in Response to Internal and External Crises: Reason for Cautious Optimism on Europe’s Southeastern BorderBy: Ari Ruffer
In recent years, a number of variables put Macedonia at an increased risk of instability. These factors include Macedonia’s tense relationship with Greece, the strain posed by the European migration crisis, the potential for domestic interethnic conflict, and Macedonia’s recent government scandals. Because of the security risks that an unstable Macedonia poses to the European Union, it is crucial for the EU to seek new ways to ensure Macedonia remains stable. This Note assesses the continued durability of the current set of legal tools – most importantly the framework established by the 2001 Ohrid Framework Agreement (“Ohrid”) – to cope with the increased strain posed by recent destabilizing crises in Macedonia.
The substantive law of judgments recognition in the United States has evolved from federal common law, found in a seminal Supreme Court opinion, to primary reliance on state law in both state and federal courts. While state law often is found in a local version of a uniform act, this has not brought about true uniformity, and significant discrepancies exist among the states. These discrepancies in judgments recognition law, combined with a common policy on the circulation of internal judgments under the United States Constitution’s Full Faith and Credit Clause, have created opportunities for forum shopping and litigation strategies that result in both inequity of result and inefficiency of judicial process. These inefficiencies are fueled by differences regarding (1) substantive rules regarding the recognition of judgments, (2) requirements for personal and quasi in rem jurisdiction when a judgment recognition action is brought (recognition jurisdiction) and (3) the application of the doctrine of forum non conveniens in judgments (and arbitral award) recognition cases. Recent cases demonstrate the need for a return to a single, federal legal framework for the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments.
The Outer Limits of Adequate Reparations for Breaches of Non-Expropriation Investment Treaty Provisions: Choice and Proportionality in ChorzòwBy: Diane A. Desierto
Is compensations always the appropriate form of reparations when States breach non-expropriation provisions of their investment treaties? If so, what is the authoritative methodology for determining the quantum of compensation, when the non-expropriation investment treaty standard breached is silent on the issue of compensation for these kinds of treaty breaches?
Beyond States and Non-State Actors: The Role of State-Empowered Entities in the Making and Shaping of International LawBy: Sandesh Sivakumaran
Traditionally, the actors in the international legal system are divided into States and non-state actors; and States are considered to be the ones that make and shape international law. By contrast, this Article argues that there is a third category of actors, namely state-empowered entities, which have been empowered by States to make and shape international law. These entities are not States, but due to their empowerment by States, they are also not non-state actors. Accordingly, they constitute a category in and of themselves.