Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-25wd4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T06:56:42.488Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Collective Decision-Making in International Governance

Part of: Agora: The End of Treaties?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Timothy Meyer
Timothy Meyer*
Affiliation:
University of Georgia School of Law
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The traditional treaty, conceived of as a contract between states, is in decline. Recent climate change negotiations have produced nonbinding instruments such as the Copenhagen and Cancun Accords; the financial crisis prompted governments to negotiate Basel III, a nonbinding framework for global banking regulation; the nonbinding Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development’s Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises are developed countries’ primary rules governing the conduct of transnational businesses. Clouds loom on the horizon even in those areas in which the treaty’s prominence continues, such as investment and trade law. The World Trade Organization (WTO) has not reached a major agreement among its members since its founding twenty years ago, and some states have withdrawn from bilateral investment treaties or the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes Between States and National of Other States (better known as the ICSID Convention).

Type
Agora: The End of Treaties?
Information
AJIL Unbound , Volume 108 , 2014 , pp. 30 - 36
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 2014

References

1 d’Aspremont, Jean, Softness in International Law: A Self-Serving Quest for New Legal Materials, 19 Eur. J. Int’l L. 1075 (2008)Google Scholar.

2 Meyer, Timothy, From Contract to Legislation: The Logic of Modern International Lawmaking, 14 Chi. J. Int’l L. 559 (2014)Google Scholar.

3 Guzman, Andrew T., Against Consent, 52 Va. J. Int’l L. 747 (2011)Google Scholar.

4 Helfer, Laurence R., Nonconsensual International Lawmaking, 2008 U. Ill. L. Rev. 71.Google Scholar

5 Krisch, Nico, The Decay of Consent: International Law in an Age of Global Public Goods, 108 AJIL 1 (2014)Google Scholar.

6 Trachtman, Joel P., The Future of International Law, Global Government (Cambridge Univ. Press 2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

7 Brunnée, Jutta, COPing with Consent: Law-making Under Multilateral Environmental Agreements, 15 Leiden J. Int’l L. 1 (2002)Google Scholar.

8 Schaack, Beth Van, Negotiating at the Interface of Power & Law: The Crime of Aggression, 49 Colum. J. Transnat’l L. 507 (2011)Google Scholar.

9 Benvenisti, Eyal & Downs, George W., The Empire’s New Clothes: Political Economy and the Fragmentation of International Law, 60 Stan. L. Rev. 595 (2007)Google Scholar.

10 Heifer, Laurence R., Regime Shirting: The TRIPs Agreement and New Dynamics of International Intellectual Property Lawmaking, 29 Yale J. Int’l L. 1 (2004)Google Scholar.

11 Cohen, Harlan Grant, Finding International Law, Part II: Our Fragmenting Legal Community, 44 N.Y.U. J. Int’l L. & Pol. 1049 (2011)Google Scholar.

12 Meyer, Timothy, Codifying Custom, 160 U. PA. L. Rev. 995 (2012)Google Scholar.

13 Wiersema, Annecoos, The New International Law-Makers? Conferences of the Parties to Multilateral Environmental Agreements, 31 Mich. J. Int’l L. 231 (2009)Google Scholar.

14 Meyer, Timothy, Power, Exit Costs, and Renegotiation in International Law, 51 Harv. Int’l L.J. 379 (2010)Google Scholar.

15 Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, Dec. 19, 2001, 2515 UNTS 3.