Shaffer, Nedumpara, & Sinha: Indian Trade Lawyers and the Building of State Trade-Related Legal Capacity
Gregory Shaffer (Univ. of Minnesota – Law), James J. Nedumpara (Jindal Global Law School), & Aseema Sinha (Claremont McKenna College – Government) have posted Indian Trade Lawyers and the Building of State Trade-Related Legal Capacity (in The Indian Legal Profession in the Age of Globalization, David Wilkins, Vikramaditya Khanna, & David Trubek eds., forthcoming).
Here’s the abstract: This paper examines the growing role of Indian lawyers in the transformation of Indian trade policy through the development of trade-related legal capacity. By trade-related legal capacity we mean, broadly, the ability of a country to use law to engage proactively in the development and defense of international and domestic policy. Such capacity is critical for the drafting and interpretation of international legal agreements, the adoption of domestic regulation within those agreements’ constraints in order to defend policy space, the monitoring of foreign commitments, and the development of legal arguments in formal international litigation and informal dispute settlement. Through developing legal capacity, public and private actors work together to open export opportunities abroad and defend domestic policy measures at home. While others have written of the legalization of international trade through the increased role of the WTO legal secretariat and the emergence of the WTO Appellate Body in international dispute settlement, this paper addresses the growing role of lawyers in the development of trade policy at home in one of the world’s rising powers, India. The paper builds from years of field research in India and Geneva, involving semi-structured interviews with over fifty Indian officials and stakeholders. The interviewees included former Ambassadors, members of the bureaucracy, private lawyers, private trade association and industry representatives, researchers in think tanks, academics, and news reporters. We complemented these interviews with participant observation in Geneva and in New Delhi, and reviewed our findings against primary and secondary documents.
Krisch: Capacity and Constraint: Governance Through International and Transnational Law
Nico Krisch (Institut Barcelona d’Estudis Internacionals) has posted Capacity and Constraint: Governance Through International and Transnational Law.
Here’s the abstract: Transboundary problems have provided serious challenges for states’ governance capacity for long. As a result, the modern state has not only begun to adapt its own administrative and regulatory structures; it has also come to rely increasingly on effective institutional structures for cooperation and governance on a regional and global scale. The classical instrument for international cooperation, international law, can only provide such structures under certain conditions and within strict limits. Governments have therefore turned to alternative forms of transnational ordering, which in some cases have indeed led to more effective decision-making – key among them formal international institutions, informal government networks, extraterritorial regulation, and links with private forms of regulation. However, all of these tools come with drawbacks – some are more effective than others, and the more they are effective, the more they tend to entail a loss of control for national governments, regulators and administrators. Domestic authorities have sought to readjust and develop new forms of influence in transnational regulatory contexts, some of them resulting in asymmetrical structures that increase the capacity of some countries’ institutions while constraining those of others. In this paper, I analyze the different forms of transnational law- and rule-making with respect to their varying impacts on, and links with, domestic governance institutions, and I place a particular focus on the most prominent example – the rise of informal institutions and transgovernmental networks in global regulation.