SRR · Sovereignty and the Right to Regulate
„Хоризонт 2020“ — Действия „Мария Склодовска-Кюри“
- Период
- 2017-02-01 → 2020-01-31
- Финансиране от ЕС
- 228 422 €
- Участници
- 2
- Схема
- MSCA-IF-GF
Линиите свързват координатора с партньорите.
Накратко на български
Международното икономическо право анализира баланса между защитата на инвеститорите и правото на държавите да въвеждат закони за опазване на околната среда или работническите права. Това е важно, защото сегашният език на споровете може да изкривява обществените критики и да пречи на демокрацията.
Кратко обяснение, генерирано от езиков модел по текста на CORDIS. Оригиналът е по-долу.
Резултати накратко
Sovereignty and the Right to Regulate
The overall aim of the project is to fill an important gap in the scholarship on international economic law by subjecting to analytical and empirical scrutiny a central notion in this field: the idea that, in order to preserve the possibility of meaningful democratic choice, we need to find an appropriate balance between the conflicting values of investment protection or free trade, on the one hand, and the states’ ability to regulate in the public interest, on the other. The rhetoric of balance is particularly prevalent in the scholarship on investment law. However, it is far from obvious that the notion of balancing enables us to capture the multiplicity of claims and arguments that have been advanced about the constraining effects of investment treaties. My aim is not simply to pave the way to a more nuanced description of the underlying issues. I also explore the framing effects of the balancing language. This issue has great importance for the society at large. Investment protection has been subjected to fierce criticism in recent years. It is claimed that it puts excessive emphasis on the rights of investors at the expense of democracy, the environment, worker rights, etc. In the specialist literature, all these concerns have been filtered through the balancing language and cast as 'non-economic considerations' to be weighed against 'economic considerations' (such as the value of increased investment). Yet if, as I claim, the notion of balancing distorts in many ways the criticism that different societal groups have addressed to the investment regime, it is unlikely that this criticism will even receive a fair hearing. In other words, the shortcomings of the balancing language can stand in the way of achieving highly important objectives (such as safeguarding the possibility of pursuing public policies which may harm investment). The overall objective of the project is to bring to light the distorting effects accompanying the balancing rhetoric and to render the scholarship on international economic law more receptive to the concerns of the public.
Текст от CORDIS, на английски · Данни: CORDIS, © Европейски съюз
Цел на проекта
The overall aim of the project is to fill an important gap in the scholarship on international economic law (IEL) by subjecting to analytical and empirical scrutiny a central notion in this field: the idea that, in order to safeguard the possibility of meaningful democratic choice, IEL needs to find an appropriate balance between the conflicting values of investment protection or free trade, on the one hand, and the states’ ability to regulate in the public interest, on the other. Employing tools from legal research, political philosophy, international relations and economics, the project unravels this notion of a fundamental trade-off and assesses the extent to which the image of balance is able to capture the substance of the criticism levelled at the international trade regime and the present system of investment arbitration. The project has three parts. The first part will be concerned with necessary theoretical preliminaries and, in particular, with the question of whether the two opposing considerations are really unrelated (as the image of balance suggests). The second part will go into the nitty-gritty of the contemporary debate about rebalancing IEL by examining the numerous legal techniques recently proposed by scholars/policy makers for moving towards the desired point. The third part of the project addresses the question of whether an adjustment in substantive rules can be expected to make any difference at all if the present institutional set-up does not change. It studies the relationship between balanced outcomes and institutional balance, seeking to answer the question of whether the conditions for a balanced interpretation (however defined) of trade and investment treaties can be produced only by a system of checks and balances at the level of institutions.
Оригинален текст от CORDIS (на английски).
Участници
- TARTU ULIKOOL · TartuКоординаторЕстония
- PRESIDENT AND FELLOWS OF HARVARD COLLEGE · CambridgeСъединени щати
Връзки
Данни: CORDIS, © Европейски съюз
