FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2243637628> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2243637628 abstract "When do the rules (and lack thereof) of the world trade order, and the consequences of this order for those affected by it, produce good, that is to say, reciprocally-generalisable grounds to accept the legal-political frame of world trade? What we are concerned with here is a normative question: How should the political-legal frames of world trade be fairly instituted? And we are not concerned with the normative legitimacy of a single institution (such as the World Trade Organisation “WTO”), but with the totality of both the institutions and the policies relevant to world trade, instead. The WTO, with its treaty and its dispute resolution mechanism, is of great significance, but it is not the whole story. The contract generating and modifying rounds of negotiations and their national authorisations and ratifications are also part of the picture, just like the specific fixed processes of routine politics and, not least, their connection to the complementary institutions of global politics. Two assumptions motivate this essay. First, there is a wide-ranging, but not terribly interactive, literature on the world trade order, which ranges from descriptive treatments in legal and political science, to diagnoses of contemporary politics, and to philosophical assessments. This, in principle, is a good thing, but what hardly exists, are efforts to combine these treatments and thus gain some additional or even competing insights. Normative theories, which complain about the “hunger in the world” or lament about a legitimacy deficit in the world trade order, but which ignore the actual functioning of the world trade order, and, on this basis, argue for “abstract” (because unencumbered by knowledge of the daily, practically difficult to change, functions of the various institutions) reforms, are, at best, little short of useless. Second, there is a growing feeling, when contemplating some empirical studies, that they would benefit from consideration of suitable standards of assessment, or, apropos normative problems, because researchers could build their enquiries around them. Here, we will try to weave together these perspectives in the titular normative perspective. In this normative context, the second preliminary assumption is created: in political debates, the question of whether the current world trade order is legitimate or not is hotly contested. And in the theories, widely-divergent thought constructions and normative stances jostle for position. If one simply ignores this normative pluralism, one should not expect to arrive at convincing normative conclusions. The plausible examination of the existing normative pluralism in the light of the various disciplines is the central task for the achievement of an acceptable conceptualisation of a legitimate world trade order. And it is to this end that this paper should make a contribution. First, we shall make a brief, but apt delimitation of our normative enquiry. On the one hand, a suggestion will be made as to the (normative) purpose of a world trade order. To this will be added two structural (empirical) problems which should be heeded by normative conceptions (Section II). Then, the variety of normative conceptions will be explained, and, dismissing two influential positions, we will try to show why a third, which we call divided, procedural constitutionalism, is preferable (Section III). Finally, we will apply the normative standards discussed to the routine politics of WTO law. In so doing, we are searching, above all, for “particles of reason” (Habermas), which already exist in WTO law. This paper does not systematically assess the extent to which the world trade order fulfils the conditions of normative legitimacy. However, the reflections of this conception of legitimacy in the existing WTO law nevertheless suggest that the world trade order not only has shortcomings of legitimacy but also strengths. Existing WTO law can be considered to be a deliberative extension of domestic democracy, which hinders populist and parochial protectionism. This concerns not only the sanctioning of quasi-constitutional acts, but also important areas of everyday political business, such as the setting of national protective measures and standards, which might become the subjects of WTO dispute resolutions." @default.
• W2243637628 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2243637628 creator A5058192370 @default.
• W2243637628 date "2008-07-01" @default.
• W2243637628 modified "2023-09-24" @default.
• W2243637628 title "Towards Normative Legitimacy of the World Trade Order" @default.
• W2243637628 hasPublicationYear "2008" @default.
• W2243637628 type Work @default.
• W2243637628 sameAs 2243637628 @default.
• W2243637628 citedByCount "1" @default.
• W2243637628 crossrefType "posted-content" @default.
• W2243637628 hasAuthorship W2243637628A5058192370 @default.
• W2243637628 hasConcept C10138342 @default.
• W2243637628 hasConcept C118084267 @default.
• W2243637628 hasConcept C138921699 @default.
• W2243637628 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W2243637628 hasConcept C162324750 @default.
• W2243637628 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W2243637628 hasConcept C182306322 @default.
• W2243637628 hasConcept C190253527 @default.
• W2243637628 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W2243637628 hasConcept C2779010840 @default.
• W2243637628 hasConcept C44725695 @default.
• W2243637628 hasConcept C46295352 @default.
• W2243637628 hasConcept C94625758 @default.
• W2243637628 hasConceptScore W2243637628C10138342 @default.
• W2243637628 hasConceptScore W2243637628C118084267 @default.
• W2243637628 hasConceptScore W2243637628C138921699 @default.
• W2243637628 hasConceptScore W2243637628C144024400 @default.
• W2243637628 hasConceptScore W2243637628C162324750 @default.
• W2243637628 hasConceptScore W2243637628C17744445 @default.
• W2243637628 hasConceptScore W2243637628C182306322 @default.
• W2243637628 hasConceptScore W2243637628C190253527 @default.
• W2243637628 hasConceptScore W2243637628C199539241 @default.
• W2243637628 hasConceptScore W2243637628C2779010840 @default.
• W2243637628 hasConceptScore W2243637628C44725695 @default.
• W2243637628 hasConceptScore W2243637628C46295352 @default.
• W2243637628 hasConceptScore W2243637628C94625758 @default.
• W2243637628 hasLocation W22436376281 @default.
• W2243637628 hasOpenAccess W2243637628 @default.
• W2243637628 hasPrimaryLocation W22436376281 @default.
• W2243637628 hasRelatedWork W1486530578 @default.
• W2243637628 hasRelatedWork W1553724378 @default.
• W2243637628 hasRelatedWork W2075785073 @default.
• W2243637628 hasRelatedWork W2102124851 @default.
• W2243637628 hasRelatedWork W2185088645 @default.
• W2243637628 hasRelatedWork W2204288491 @default.
• W2243637628 hasRelatedWork W2205775949 @default.
• W2243637628 hasRelatedWork W2215326954 @default.
• W2243637628 hasRelatedWork W2325151277 @default.
• W2243637628 hasRelatedWork W2543178490 @default.
• W2243637628 hasRelatedWork W2562267392 @default.
• W2243637628 hasRelatedWork W2768218533 @default.
• W2243637628 hasRelatedWork W2995606268 @default.
• W2243637628 hasRelatedWork W3022396140 @default.
• W2243637628 hasRelatedWork W3035293866 @default.
• W2243637628 hasRelatedWork W3122469792 @default.
• W2243637628 hasRelatedWork W3122754536 @default.
• W2243637628 hasRelatedWork W3125285267 @default.
• W2243637628 hasRelatedWork W59695793 @default.
• W2243637628 hasRelatedWork W2181622086 @default.
• W2243637628 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2243637628 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2243637628 magId "2243637628" @default.
• W2243637628 workType "article" @default.