World Library  
Flag as Inappropriate
Email this Article

Aggressive legalism

Article Id: WHEBN0035247766
Reproduction Date:

Title: Aggressive legalism  
Author: World Heritage Encyclopedia
Language: English
Subject: Political philosophy, Philosophy of law, Sociology of law
Collection: Philosophy of Law, Political Philosophy, Sociology of Law, Theories of Law, Trade Blocs
Publisher: World Heritage Encyclopedia
Publication
Date:
 

Aggressive legalism

In the context of globalization and the subsequent proliferation of free trade agreements (FTAs), legal scholars generally refer to the political strategy used by a sovereign state to leverage a trade agreement’s substantive rules to counter behavior it deems unreasonable by its trading partners, as aggressive legalism.[1][2][3][4][5][6]

Contents

  • Development of aggressive legalism 1
  • Modern aggressive legalism 2
    • United States 2.1
    • Asia 2.2
  • References 3

Development of aggressive legalism

Following

  1. ^ a b c d Choi, Won-Mog (September 2009). "Aggressive Legalism In Korea". Journal of Economic Law: 595–615. 
  2. ^ a b c Jung, Youngjin (2002). "China's Aggressive Legalism". Journal of World Trade: 1037–1060. 
  3. ^ a b c Gao, Henry; David Lewis (November 2005). "Aggressive Legalism: The East Asian Experience". Cameron May Publishers. 
  4. ^ a b c Nagakawa, Junji. "No More Negotiated Deals?: Settlement of Trade and Investment Disputes in East Asia". No More Negotiated Deals?: Settlement of Trade and Investment Disputes in East Asia. Journal of International Economic Law. Retrieved 03/25/12. 
  5. ^ Feffer, John (03/12/09). "Japan's Grand Strategy". IP News Asia. Retrieved 03/27/12. 
  6. ^ Singh, Prabhakar (2007). "From Narcissistic Positive International Law to Universal Natural International Law: The Dialectics of Colonial Disputes". Sri Lanka Journal of International Law 19 (1). 
  7. ^ a b c Pekkanen, Saadia M. (2001). "Aggressive Legalism: The Rules of the WTO and Japan's Emerging Trade Strategy". World Economy: 707–738. 
  8. ^ a b c d e f Masaki, Hisane (08/21/05). "China and the Legacy of the Plaza Accord". The Asian Times. Retrieved 03/27/12. 
  9. ^ "The Policymaker's Library: Asia Policy". The National Bureau of Asian Research (7): 159–89. January 2009. 
  10. ^ Ahn, Dukgeun (September 2003). "Korea In The GATT/WTO Dispute Settlement System: Legal Battle For Economic Development". Journal of International Economic Law. 
  11. ^ Mercurcio, Bryan; Mitali Tyagi (2012). "China's Evolving Role in WTO Dispute Settlement: Acceptance, Consolidation and Activation". European Yearbook of International Economic Law 3 (1): 89–123.  
  12. ^ Verghese, Aditi (2010). "The Evolution of China as a WTO Disputant". Trade Law Brief: University of Bhopal, India. Retrieved 03/27/12. 
  13. ^ Manjiao, Chi (March 2012). "China's participation in WTO dispute settlement over the past decade: experiences and impacts". Journal of International Economic Law. 
  14. ^ Kobayashi, Jirokazu (2004). "http://www.rieti.go.jp/en/columns/a01_0154.html". Research Institute of Economy, Trade, and Industry. Retrieved 03/27/12. 
  15. ^ Inoguchi, Takashi. "Japan Desperately Needs a Grand Strategy". East Asia Forum. Retrieved 03/27/12. 
  16. ^ Masaki, Hisane. "Sunset for Japanese chip makers?". Sunset for Japanese chip makers?. The Asian Times. Retrieved 03/27/12. 

References

Following the succession of GATT with the WTO in the 1980s and 1990s, many Asian countries, including China,[11][12][13] Japan,[14] and South Korea,[1][2][3][4] shifted to a policy of aggressive legalism, evidenced by each's willingness to use the legal frameworks provided under both to directly engage bilateral trading disputes with their partners.[1][2][3][4][15][16]

Asia

The Korea–US Free Trade Agreement (KORUS), reflects a political strategy by both the United States and South Korea of aggressive legalism. That is, both countries agreed to envelope in the agreement binding legal rules to deal with lingering bilateral trade disputes.[1][10]

United States

In a policy primer for the United States Government, The Policymaker's Library wrote that the United States' influence with its Asian trading partners has waned and that an "emphasis on aggressive legalism" affords opportunities to reshape economic relationships going forward.[9]

Modern aggressive legalism

[8][7], Saadia M. Pekkanen described the increasing tendency of the Aggressive Legalism: The Rules of the WTO and Japan’s Emerging Trade Strategy In 2001, in

However, in the 1980s and 1990s, under both GATT and WTO, many Asian countries began to utilize their legal frameworks to settle disputes.[8]

Somewhat under GATT in the 1950s but specifically with the adoption of the WTO, these countries engaged increased trade with Asian countries, as they became signatories.[8] Initially, while the U.S. and the Allied Powers leveraged the agreement's respective legal frameworks and dispute-mechanisms including litigation to deal with disputes with their trading partners, many Asian countries choose not to.[8] Instead, they avoided legal confrontation, in favor of bilateral negotiations to arrive at a settlement. Social-cultural disparities between each, concerning an inclination to litigate, are likely indicative of why.[7][8]

[8][7]

This article was sourced from Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. World Heritage Encyclopedia content is assembled from numerous content providers, Open Access Publishing, and in compliance with The Fair Access to Science and Technology Research Act (FASTR), Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., Public Library of Science, The Encyclopedia of Life, Open Book Publishers (OBP), PubMed, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health (NIH), U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, and USA.gov, which sources content from all federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial government publication portals (.gov, .mil, .edu). Funding for USA.gov and content contributors is made possible from the U.S. Congress, E-Government Act of 2002.
 
Crowd sourced content that is contributed to World Heritage Encyclopedia is peer reviewed and edited by our editorial staff to ensure quality scholarly research articles.
 
By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. World Heritage Encyclopedia™ is a registered trademark of the World Public Library Association, a non-profit organization.
 



Copyright © World Library Foundation. All rights reserved. eBooks from World eBook Library are sponsored by the World Library Foundation,
a 501c(4) Member's Support Non-Profit Organization, and is NOT affiliated with any governmental agency or department.