A defence of traditional approaches to the Structure-Agency Problem with agents being reduced from those actively shaping their society to being passively shaped by the social order. Their possession of personal causal powers is unconvincingly downplayed.

Chapter 6 observes that the dominant interpretation of luck egalitarianism fails to fully satisfy the moral tyranny constraint. To resolve this problem, it offers an alternative interpretation that both eliminates the possibility of moral tyranny and rescues luck egalitarianism from two other prominent objections that have been raised against the position. Specifically, it argues that agents forfeit a claim to an equal share of advantage when they make sanctionable choices, where an agent makes such a choice when she fails to act in the way that her evidence suggests will maximize the expected (appropriately distributed) advantage that her action would produce under conditions of full compliance. The chapter, first, explicates what this means and, next, argues that the proposed account of sanctionable choice resolves both Richard Arneson’s costly rescues objection and Susan Hurley’s boring problem.

In this chapter we review how social media affect body image and eating behaviour. In asking how visual images, text messages and the like alter attitudes to the body, we review evidence from experiments and observational studies. We consider whether social media produce clinically severe eating disorders or exacerbate existing ones, and whether social media can be a positive resource for people suffering from eating disorders. We discuss the options for prevention or treatment of eating disorders and body image concerns using social media or other digital resources.

The International Criminal Court seeks to end impunity for the world’s worst crimes, in order to contribute to their prevention. But what is its impact to date? This book takes an in-depth look at four countries under scrutiny of the ICC: Afghanistan, Colombia, Libya and Uganda. It puts forward an analytical framework to assess the impact of the ICC on four levels: on the domestic legal systems (systemic effect); on peace negotiations and agreements (transformative effect); on victims (reparative effect); and on the perceptions of affected populations (demonstration effect). It concludes that the ICC, through its expressive function, is having a normative impact on domestic legal systems and peace agreements, but it has brought little reparative justice for victims and it does not necessarily correspond with affected populations view justice priorities. The book concludes that justice for the world’s worst crimes has no “universal formula” that can easily be captured in law.

The International Criminal Court seeks to end impunity for the world’s worst crimes, in order to contribute to their prevention. But what is its impact to date? This book takes an in-depth look at four countries under scrutiny of the ICC: Afghanistan, Colombia, Libya and Uganda. It puts forward an analytical framework to assess the impact of the ICC on four levels: on the domestic legal systems (systemic effect); on peace negotiations and agreements (transformative effect); on victims (reparative effect); and on the perceptions of affected populations (demonstration effect). It concludes that the ICC, through its expressive function, is having a normative impact on domestic legal systems and peace agreements, but it has brought little reparative justice for victims and it does not necessarily correspond with affected populations view justice priorities. The book concludes that justice for the world’s worst crimes has no “universal formula” that can easily be captured in law.

Chapter 3 further expands on systemic effect and argues that impact of the Rome Statute on domestic legal systems is better described as “internalization.” Internalization is the process whereby states demonstrate compliance with international law. The chapter examines internalization in Afghanistan, Colombia, Libya, and Uganda. Indicators of systemic effect, in the form of internalization, include implementation of domestic laws covering the Rome Statute crimes; the establishment of new or specialized investigative units or chambers to investigate or prosecute Rome Statute crime; or (genuine) national proceedings for Rome Statute crimes. The chapter concludes that “internalization” is taking place in all the countries under study. Laws have been amended, and new institutions established. National proceedings took place in all four countries. However, domestic proceedings in Colombia and Uganda demonstrate that it can be complex to assess for “genuineness.” In fact, most domestic proceedings are taking place in Colombia, a country with a robust legal system. This may mean that the Court has the most impact where it is needed the least.

Living morally is not just a matter of fulfilling one’s obligations, important though that is. It requires a stable pattern of moral conduct, which should not only meet the standards expressed by the commonsense principles described in Chapter 4 but also meet the two higher-level standards proposed in Chapter 5. Living morally does not require that everything we do be morally motivated, but it does require appropriate conduct. This is the three-dimensional kind of behavior identifiable by asking thick moral questions. These concern not just what we should do but also the other two dimensions of conduct: first, what our motivation would be and second, the manner in which we would act. How, in practice, we are to frame and sustain intentions to achieve good conduct is a difficult matter, and it calls for descriptions of the different kinds of guiding intentions that put moral conduct on life’s itinerary.

This chapter opens the “black box” of the Lion City and looks at the extent to which its government has internalised its investment obligations. With its highly efficient bureaucracy, manageable size and strong commitment to the respect of international law, the Singapore experience highlights the challenges that investment treaties can pose, even in the best of rule of law and governance conditions. Although Singapore offers a “most likely” case study for testing the plausibility of claims regarding the effects of investment treaties on the rule of law, aspects of the Singaporean experience cast doubt over the extent to which these measures are well-calibrated to the situations that commonly give rise to investment disputes. Moreover, analysis of the development of these measures casts doubt on the actual role that investment treaties – as opposed to other factors – have played in instituting them.

This chapter examines the impact of investment treaties on the rule of law in Indonesia. The chapter looks at the question over time, focusing first on the evolution of the domestic regulatory regime governing foreign investment and the progression of investment treaties signed by Indonesia. Even though Indonesia has been faced with a number of investment treaty claims, there has been minimal internalisation of investment treaties in Indonesia. Informational internalisation measures have been implemented from time-to-time, but only in an ad hoc manner. Preventative and remedial measures have been virtually non-existent. Thus, investment treaty commitments continue to appear not to be taken into account in governmental decision making in Indonesia. Further, the chapter explores the reasons for this weak internalization.

We conclude on the basis of the case studies contained in this volume that there is little evidence in most of the low- and middle-income countries surveyed that investment treaties and/or investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) have brought about sustained or systemic internalisation of investment treaty disciplines. Rather, the evidence from the case studies suggests that the conclusion of investment treaties has led generally to little or no internalisation, while ISDS seems at most to have triggered some ad hoc, sporadically implemented “informational” measures of internalisation. Given the limited evidence of internalisation that we find in these case studies, we conclude that there is insufficient evidence to support the central predicate of the rule of law thesis’ spill-over claim. Further, out of the eight case studies contained in this volume, we identify seven factors which appear to have significantly impacted internalisation in these countries.

This chapter looks at the internalisation of investment treaties over time in India. Despite having a massive investment treaty programme, investment treaties have only recently come to occupy an important place in discussions of national governance in India. This chapter examines whether this increased attention to investment treaties has led to increased internalisation. This chapter finds a disconnect between an increase in the political salience of investment treaties and a general lack of internalisation in government decision making. While awareness about investment treaties and investment treaty arbitration in India has increased following its loss of a number of cases brought by foreign investors, India has still not been able to internalise the impact and ramifications of investment treaties. That said, there is evidence of some, limited spill-over effect within government, as a number of specialised government bodies, such as the Law Commission of India and several other expert committees, have identified the importance and need to internalise investment treaties in their various reports.

The chapter assesses the level of internalisation of investment treaty obligations in Sri Lanka as well as their impact on the rule of law. The findings of this paper reveal that though there is some awareness of Sri Lanka’s investment treaty obligations at the level of some of the higher level state organs considered, there are no processes in place to systematically consider those obligations, particularly at the lower levels of government in interactions with investors. The legislative process is a significant exception to this observation due to the unique protection given to investment treaty obligations under Article 157 of the Constitution. Furthermore, despite the awareness of at least the existence of investment treaty obligations at some levels of government, the impact of such obligations on domestic decision- making appears minimal, with political considerations playing a large part in such decisions, sometimes in spite of the state’s investment treaty obligations. Given that there is minimal internalisation of investment treaty obligations, the chapter concludes that there has been minimal spill-over effect of such obligations on the rule of law in general.

This chapter looks at the impact of investment treaties on the rule of law in Thailand. The contention of this chapter is that it is difficult to ascertain clear evidence to support the conclusion that investment treaties have had wider effects on governance in Thailand – whether in terms of positively improving domestic institutions or negatively chilling government decision-making and the exercise of regulatory power. However, the evidence shows some efforts by relevant agencies in the Thai government to internalise the state’s investment treaty obligations. The chapter proceeds in three main parts. First, an overview of investment treaty policy in Thailand and the process for the conclusion of investment treaties are presented. Second, it appraises the internalisation process of investment treaty obligations and potential challenges to internalisation with reference to concrete examples. Third, it analyses the rule of law impact of investment treaties by considering the extent to which investment treaty obligations as well as the first treaty claim have “improved” or “constrained” the conduct of the government.

This paper examines the impact of investment treaties on the rule of law through a detailed case study of Myanmar. The paper draws on a series of semi-structured interviews with government officials, investment lawyers and foreign advisors to the Myanmar government, as well as an analysis of primary and secondary documents. The findings cast doubt on claims that investment treaties promote good governance and the rule of law. The overall finding is that investment treaties’ effects on domestic governance are primarily mediated through processes within the executive branch of government and that these effects are limited and often ad hoc. Investment treaties have no discernible impact on the judicial system in Myanmar, and little impact on legislation or regulatory rule-making processes.

Investment treaties are said to improve the rule of law in host states. Fearing claims, governments will internalise international investment obligations into their decision-making processes, resulting in positive spill-over effects on the rule of law. Such arguments have never been backed by empirical research. We develop a framework for thinking about the internalisation of international treaty obligations in governmental decision making that attempts to take account of the complexities of governance. We lay out a typology of processes whereby international investment treaty obligations may be internalised, and identify factors which may affect whether and to what extent international investment law is internalised in governmental decision making. This framework serves as the background for the main body of the book in which the empirical case studies address whether and how a select group of governments in Asia internalise international investment treaty obligations in their decision-making processes.

Viet Nam has entered into more than 80 investment treaties, including bilateral investment treaties and free trade agreements. In recent years, the country has also faced an increasing number of investor-state disputes, focusing the attention of government action. This paper examines the extent to which Viet Nam has internalised its investment treaty obligations, both before and after its experience with investment treaty claims. The chapter analyses the current investment law and policy landscape of Vietnam, against the backdrop of three decades of government policy addressing foreign investment. The chapter concludes that Vietnam has made significant efforts to internalise the provisions of investment treaties into national governance. It has done so through formal regulation, i.e. mechanisms for legislative screening, and informal coordination and education processes. Still, the paper reveals that the awareness and understanding of investment treaties by local governments remains limited, suggesting the existence of further factors affecting the internalisation process.

This chapter examins the internalisation of investment treaty obligations in Korean governmental decision making. The chapter describes how Korea’s approach to internalisation has evolved over time, beginning with largely informational measures and moving towards the development of monitoring and remedial measures following its experience with invetsment claims. Among others, the chapter addresses the role of the Ombudsman. The chapter identifies two principal factors that have posed challenges to internalisation in Korea.

This chapter provides an original inquiry into the use of General Assembly resolutions within domestic legal systems. The scholarly literature is silent on this, being entirely focused on the use of resolutions by international courts and tribunals. As a result, this chapter supplements the current academic debate by revealing a neglected aspect of the legal significance of resolutions. It evaluates the degree of legal significance that states attach to resolutions at the implementation stage by analysing the process of incorporation of resolutions into domestic law. It shows that the source of the legal significance of resolutions can be ultimately traced back to the will of individual states to rely on resolutions depending on context and circumstances. As a result, generalizations about the legal significance of resolutions within domestic legal systems appear to be neither convincing nor useful.