340 Recht
Refine
Year of publication
- 2016 (2) (remove)
Document Type
- Working Paper (2)
Has Fulltext
- yes (2)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (2)
Keywords
Institute
Scholarship and practice
(2016)
How can I as an international lawyer, conscious that international law is deeply implicated in today’s global injustices and that the course of history will not be changed by any grand legal design, practice law responsibly? Taking as a point of departure my own desire not to seek comfort in the formulation of a critique of law, but to aspire to a responsible practice, I consult two quite different bodies of work: first, critical theory of law and second, recent scholarship on international law that argues a practice guided by ethics may enhance the legitimacy of international law. I turn then to my own practice of international economic law focusing on my occasional role as legal expert on the so-called megaregionals the EU aims to conclude with Canada and the United States. I propose that the debate on international economic law lacks an investigation into the role of law in shaping political economy; that this lack can be explained by the compartmentalization of expertise which leads to justification gaps with respect to projects such as the megaregionals. One way how lawyers can assume responsibility is to work on closing these gaps even if it means leaving the ‘inside’ of the legal discipline. Finally, I suggest that a responsible legal practice of social change might follow Roberto Unger’s call for institutional imagination. Maybe I can satisfy my wish for a transformative practice by joining forces with friends in experimenting with institutions, hoping to build an alternative political economy.
This text is an only slightly modified version of the Herbert Krüger Memorial Lecture that I held upon invitation of the Arbeitskreis Überseeische Verfassungsvergleichung on 4 July 2014 at Bucerius Law School in Hamburg. My point of departure is the observation that even though the economic exploitation of natural resources triggers a multitude of distribution conflicts, international and transnational law treat these conflicts inadequately. While the New International Economic Order had as one of its objectives distributional justice between resource exporting poor states (former colonies) and resource importing high income states (mostly former imperial powers) its demands were never fully realized. Instead a transnational economic law emerged which can be interpreted as itself establishing a distribution order -- albeit a distribution order that is not oriented towards distributional justice, but rather posits the market as the best distribution device. This distribution order has depoliticized and deterritorialized distribution conflicts between resource exporting and resource importing states and has secured – through the promotion of privatizations, protection of foreign investments and dismantling of trade barriers – access to resources for the resource importing states. At the same time it has freed importing states from responsibility for the harms that accrue from resource exploitation to the resource exporting states and their populations. I call in this text for a repoliticization of distribution conflicts at the international as well as the (trans)national level, a repoliticization that may be achieved not only through the reform of political, but also economic institutions.