What is “International Economic Law?” Like many contributors to this blog, I have pronounced myself as someone who works in this area but I am a little embarrassed when my colleagues ask me to explain the big problems or major issues in the field. Especially when they ask “what is included other than trade?” I wonder if, as a scholarly community, our focus on trade almost to the exclusion of other areas of international economic law is healthy.
Consider the objective evidence. Casebooks with the words “international economic law” (or variations on them) are usually thinly disguised books on international trade. The Journal of International Economic Law is overwhelmingly about trade; and this blog is too – look at the last several postings and it is clear that the line between a “trade” blog and an “international economic law blog” is thin indeed. Perhaps one reason why we have failed to make international economic law (other than trade) a major course in many law schools is that we don’t have a vigorous and high profile dialog on the subject.
To be clear, this is not a complaint about international trade or the fact that we talk about it. I write and teach in trade too, and consider it one of my major interests. The question is instead why there is so little focus on the rest of international economic law.
We can all recite a list of topics that fall under the heading of international economic law: foreign investment, jurisdictional issues, international arbitration, international contract law, and so on. I doubt that I am the only law professor who has pulled this list out when explaining to a colleague that there really is a field here. But why are these topic given so little attention? Quick, name the five best legal academics working on international contracts? How about arbitration? Foreign investment? Hard to do, isn't it? How about trade? Piece of cake. In fact, off the top of my head I could list many more than 5 people writing sensibly about trade.
Why is there such a discrepancy? Is it because the law in these areas is less institutionalized? Or perhaps less enforceable? That may be right in some areas, but clearly not others (e.g., international arbitration normally yields enforceable decisions). It can’t be about importance – trade represents only a fraction of all international economic activity. Are other areas less interesting? Less accessible to us?
There are, of course, books and courses on international business transactions (IBT), but ask a law school colleague what is in those books and they will stare at you blankly. Even among those of us who embrace the international economic law label there is no consensus view of what belongs is an IBT course. Might this be because we have not been talking about the potential issues enough?
I guess my question is: Have we fallen down of the job by focusing too much on trade and too little on everything else that falls under the international economic law label?
