Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-dfsvx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T21:01:17.469Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

International Economic Law and National Autonomy edited by Meredith Kolsky Lewis and Susy Frankel Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 2010

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 October 2012

Tomer Broude
Tomer Broude*
Affiliation:
Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Book Review
Information
World Trade Review , Volume 11 , Issue 4 , October 2012 , pp. 648 - 651
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 See WTO, United States – Measures Affecting the Production and Sale of Clove Cigarettes, Panel Report, WT/DS406/R, 2 September 2011 (subject to appeal, at the time of writing); and Philip Morris Asia v. The Commonwealth of Australia, Notice of Arbitration under the Australia − Hong Kong Agreement for the Promotion and Protection of Investments, 21 November 2011, available at http://www.ag.gov.au/www/agd/agd.nsf/page/8F5B65DEBCAED226CA25796D006B4857 (last visited 7 January 2012).

2 See, e.g., Tariq Banuri and Juliet B. Schor (eds.), Financial Openness and National Autonomy − Opportunities and Constraints (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992); and Daniel K. Tarullo, Banking on Basel: The Future of International Financial Regulation (Washington, DC: Peterson Institute for International Economics, 2008), Chapter 6.

3 Hannum, Hurst and Lillich, Richard B., ‘The Concept of Autonomy in International Law’, American Journal of International Law, 74(4) (1980): 858CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 860 (emphasis added). See also Lapidoth, Ruth, Autonomy: Flexible Solutions to Ethnic Conflicts (Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace Press, 1996)Google Scholar.

4 See fn. 1supra.

5 But see Tracey Epps’ contribution, ‘Demanding Perfection: Private Food Standards and the SPS Agreement’, pp. 73 − 98. Epps notes that space limitations prevent her from analyzing the question of private food standards in terms of technical barriers to trade.

6 See the contributions by Rafael Leal-Arcas and Jane Kelsey.

7 See Mattoo, Aaditya and Sauvé, Pierre (eds.), Domestic Regulation and Service Trade Liberalization (Washington, DC: The World Bank, 2003)Google Scholar.

8 Howse, Aaditya Robert, ‘The End of the Globalization Debate: A Review Essay’, Harvard Law Review, 121 (2008): 1528.Google Scholar

9 International Economic Law and Policy Blog, Tomer Broude, ‘Live Blog: Reform, Regulation and the Stationary Bicycle Theory’, 30 November 2009, http://worldtradelaw.typepad.com/ielpblog/2009/11/live-blog-reform-regulation-and-the-stationary-bicycle-theory.html (last visited 1 December 2012).