When contemplating the transnational futures of international labor law, it is worthwhile pausing to reflect on the origins of that body of law and its relationship to the idea of transnationalism itself. Seeking to establish the universality of human problems, Philip Jessup famously defined transnational law as “all law which regulates actions or events that transcend national frontiers,” including both public and private international law as well as “other rules which do not fully fit into such standard categories.” This concept has proven extraordinarily durable, impacting legal theory in a variety of fields, not least transnational labor law. It is noteworthy, however, that Jessup's foundational text makes only a handful of references to the International Labour Organization (ILO) and instead focusses to a much greater extent on problems involving other aspects of international economic relations. This short essay connects and compares Jessup's concept of transnationalism to another conceptual framework in international law, devised at around the same time, which has a more direct lineage in the practice of the ILO and, perhaps, a place in its future development.

Since the 2007 global financial crisis, many have questioned the predominant form of neoliberal capitalism that has underpinned a U.S.-led global economic order since the 1980s. Meanwhile, China's state capitalism, led by the Chinese Communist Party, has been ascendant. Some have even posited a “Beijing Consensus” as an alternative to the “Washington Consensus.” This essay advances the concept of State Capitalism 4.0, which is premised on the Chinese party-state's control over state-owned enterprises (SOEs) and private firms, mediated through regulatory and institutional arrangements and the strategic exploitation of technology. I apply this concept to analyse China's approach to transnational labor issues as Chinese enterprises expand their activities abroad and mobilize a growing number of Chinese workers transnationally, especially under the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). Reflecting on the implications of State Capitalism 4.0 for transnational labor law, I argue that the strategic exercise of state regulatory powers can strengthen labor standards through domestic laws and institutions but is antithetical to a core international labor right: freedom of association.