Abstract
This article focuses on the management of circumstances of calamity generally in IEL, as well as calamity as a necessity in international economic relations in the framework of State Responsibility. The focus on calamity as a necessity defence to State Responsibility is however from a ‘necessity paradigm’—i.e., from the view point of responding effectively to circumstances of calamity, which call for a necessary response, wherein the calamity is the centre of focus. This is in contrast to the stand-point of State Responsibility wherein honouring State Responsibility is central and informs the response to the necessity circumstance (the ‘State Responsibility paradigm’). The necessity paradigm of calamity is grounded mainly on justice and development imperatives, along with the conclusion that the State Responsibility paradigm can be incomplete in its response to the calamity; as well as incoherent from the perspective of the world economic order as a whole. The general focus on calamity in International Economic Law adopted here is with specific reference to its key spheres viz., international monetary and financial law within the framework of the IMF; international trade in the context of the WTO; International Development Law, particularly with reference to international investment practice; and finally with an examination of global economic crisis management.
A version of this paper was delivered as a Public Lecture at the Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia in January 2009; at a Workshop in April 2009 at the VU University, Amsterdam, Netherlands in April 2009; and at the Public International Law Discussion Group, University of Oxford, in January 2010.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Bjorklund AK (2008) Emergency exceptions to international obligations in the realm of foreign investment: the state of necessity and force majeure as circumstances precluding wrongfulness. In: Mutchlinski PT, Ortino F, Schreuer CH (eds) The Oxford handbook of international investment law. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 459–523
Bradlow DD (2005) Differing conceptions of development and the content of international development law. S Afr J Hum Rights 21:47–85
Dworkin R (1998) Law’s empire. Oxford, Hart
Emmerson A (2008) Conceptualizing security exceptions: legal doctrine or political excuse? JIEL 11:135–154
Garcia F (2007) Global justice and the Bretton Woods Institutions. J Int Econ Law 10:461–481
Killick T, Bird G (1984) The IMF and stabilisation. Heinemann Educational Books, London
Lastra RM (2006) Legal foundations of international monetary stability. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Lowe V (2007) International law. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Matushita M, Schoenbaum TJ, Mavroidis PC (2006) The World Trade Organization, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford
McCormick N (1978) Legal reasoning and legal theory. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Qureshi AH, Ziegler AR (2007) International economic law, 2nd edn. Sweet and Maxwell, London
Rawls J (1971) A theory of justice. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge
Roessler F (1998) Domestic policy objectives and the multilateral trade order: lessons from the past. In: Krueger AO, Aturupane C (eds) The WTO as an international organization. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 213–229
Schloeman HL, Ohlhoff S (1999) ‘Constitutionalization’ and dispute settlement in the WTO: national security as an issue of competence. AJIL 93:424–451
Sen AK (1999) Development as freedom. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Stiglitz J (2002) Globalization and its discontent. Norton, New York
Van Den Bossche P (2008) The law and policy of the World Trade Organization, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Acknowledgements
I am grateful to the organisers of the Workshop held at VU University for drawing my attention to this important subject and their contribution towards this work, in particular Professors E. Denter and T Gazzini. I am also grateful for the observations made by one anonymous referee.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2011 Stichting T.M.C. Asser Instituut, The Hague, and the authors
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Qureshi, A.H. (2011). A Necessity Paradigm of ‘Necessity’ in International Economic Law. In: Dekker, I., Hey, E. (eds) Netherlands Yearbook of International Law Volume 41, 2010. Netherlands Yearbook of International Law, vol 41. T.M.C. Asser Press. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-6704-737-1_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-6704-737-1_5
Published:
Publisher Name: T.M.C. Asser Press
Print ISBN: 978-90-6704-736-4
Online ISBN: 978-90-6704-737-1
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawLaw and Criminology (R0)