Most ICC commentators are enthusiastic about the promise of management as a way to optimise the court’s performance. Yet few are as eager to historicise the practices they advocate. Chapter 2 seeks to read the court’s managerial present through its past deployments, journeys, and consequences for other institutional projects long predating the contemporary Rome Statute system. The chapter begins by tracing the uses of management in such institutions as the plantation, war, and the nineteenth-century factory before following them as they entered the practice of early international institutions. Beyond these spaces, a major part of management’s pre-history lies in its invocation at the United Nations after decolonisation. The chapter demonstrates that two of management’s key assumptions – regarding its lack of history and its claim to political neutrality – are only the ‘truth effects’ of protracted expert and political struggle within various institutional spaces. The most important of these for the ICC has been the United Nations, where management formed part of a counter-strategy against the democratisation efforts of newly decolonised states. Whilst purportedly neutral today, the management practices taken up at the ICC continue to bear the scars of these earlier political wins and losses.

This chapter considers the concept of permanent sovereignty over natural resources as articulated in the New International Economic Order (NIEO) project. At the NIEO’s core was the push to consolidate the legal status of ‘permanent sovereignty’ over natural resources. This idea’s champions argued that ownership and control of resources is an essential and necessary element of statehood, one that involves the right to nationalize foreign-held property. By contrast, its critics contended that no state could lawfully seize assets of foreign investors without compensation. They also insisted that the quantity of such compensation should be determined by international law, or through international arbitration, in the event of disagreement. While most aspects of the NIEO, including resource sovereignty, had been debated for some time, partly during broader discussions of neocolonialism and uneven development within the UN Conference on Trade and Development, it was only in 1974 that the project was formalized in a set of General Assembly resolutions. This project was largely the expression of a desire on the part of political and legal elites in the global South to renegotiate their roles in the world capitalist system, reforming rather than repudiating the existing international order.

Helmut Schmidt’s Germany helped to found several multilateral institutions in the mid-1970s. Chapter 14 opens with the European Council, a thrice-annual gathering of EC-9 leaders that reasserted the primacy of European nation-states over supranational governance. Schmidt reconciled with Britain, acceding to the Regional Fund in hopes of swaying a British referendum on EC membership. The CSCE summit, held in Helsinki, was a milestone for East-West détente – though Bonn’s relations with the USSR remained strained, even as improvements with Poland were achieved. The Federal Republic fell into recession, and Schmidt fretted about Global South proposals for a New International Economic Order. Bonn’s response was to court major countries individually, highlighting Germany’s interest in positive trade relations while loosening controls on weapons exports and nuclear commerce. Economic anxiety also animated Schmidt’s urgent demands on allies to cooperate in staving off protectionism. Informal coordination with Britain, France, and the United States became commonplace, a more structured grouping, the G-7 (adding Japan, Italy, and soon Canada), reestablished confidence in Western leadership.

This chapter looks at the direction the debates on social and economic human rights took after the adoption of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in 1966 and until the late 1980s. The focus is on the United Nations as the debates here reflected larger political questions about the meaning and relevance of social and economic rights as obligations in the unfolding post-colonial world. With decolonisation, the former colonial powers had been ‘liberated’ from the obligations of empire while many rulers in newly independent states used the new-found sovereignty to avoid scrutiny of the broad range of human rights. Decolonisation proved to be the perfect storm for social and economic rights denial. This would be further entrenched by expanding neo-liberal reforms and debt management leading to the ‘lost decade’ for development during the 1980s. Despite social and economic rights being continually neglected, the chapter argues that they always remained central to the problem of human rights.

This chapter uses a single case study – the NGO response to calls for a new imternational economic order (NIEO) – to analyse the mechanics of the global justice movement in the 1970s and the future it created for non-governmental aid. This NIEO ‘imaginary’ had a long history, rooted in the ethical consumerism of the anti-slavery movement, nineteenth century consumer ‘buycotts’, and the rise of alternative trading organisations in the aftermath of the Second World War. But it was also the product of the very specific ideological environment from which the NGO sector emerged. As this chapter shows, the debate surrounding the NIEO produced a conflict between welfarists and economic liberals about the kind of world they wished to build. Along the way, however, it also revealed much about the moral foundations on which non-governmental aid was constructed: its hierarchical nature, its politics and its ideological base. The chapter ends with a reflection on the NGO sector that this commitment to fair trade made. Put simply, it rooted its success in a commitment to reform rather than revolution – and an approach that was fundamentally incompatible with the radicalisation of aid.

This chapter uses a single case study – the NGO response to calls for a new imternational economic order (NIEO) – to analyse the mechanics of the global justice movement in the 1970s and the future it created for non-governmental aid. This NIEO ‘imaginary’ had a long history, rooted in the ethical consumerism of the anti-slavery movement, nineteenth century consumer ‘buycotts’, and the rise of alternative trading organisations in the aftermath of the Second World War. But it was also the product of the very specific ideological environment from which the NGO sector emerged. As this chapter shows, the debate surrounding the NIEO produced a conflict between welfarists and economic liberals about the kind of world they wished to build. Along the way, however, it also revealed much about the moral foundations on which non-governmental aid was constructed: its hierarchical nature, its politics and its ideological base. The chapter ends with a reflection on the NGO sector that this commitment to fair trade made. Put simply, it rooted its success in a commitment to reform rather than revolution – and an approach that was fundamentally incompatible with the radicalisation of aid.

In this chapter, the method of ‘frame-determination’ for IIA expropriation clauses is applied and three limits of the actus reus condition of typical IIA expropriation clauses are identified. (1) On the macro-structural level, concerning the interaction of IIA clauses with the rest of international law, facile references to customary international law are shown to be problematic: ‘’ in IIAs does not refer to a customary norm of certain validity and great specificity. (2) On the micro-structural level, the necessity of treating direct and indirect expropriation as fully equivalent is structurally inherent in typical IIAs. (3) All legality conditions are equal and cannot be doubled in the actus reus of indirect expropriation. The structure of typical IIA clauses does not support the majority of arguments based on ‘police powers’ or on a ‘right to regulate’.

International investment law and arbitration has a long history dating back to the nineteenth century. It has since developed and adapted following the political and societal forces at work both domestically and internationally. The balance between the interests of developing States and developed States and, more fundamentally, between public and private interests have played a key role in this process. It can be seen that the balance struck between these interests at different periods of time explains to a large extent the evolutive features of this field of law. This holds true with regards to the set of rules governing both the relations of foreign investors with the States in which they invest and the settlement of the disputes between them.

To make sense of this evolution and for the purpose of contextualising the analysis of international investment law and arbitration provided in the textbook, Chapter 1 distinguishes between three key stages in its history and analyses the respective societal context and legal features pertaining to each. These stages are: (1) the origin of international investment law and arbitration; (2) its emergence as a proper field of international law; and (3) the rise and then crisis this field of law has known since the 1990s.

This chapter inquires into the role of money, debt, and finance in colonial expansion, as well as practical attempts to decolonize financial and monetary regimes.

This chapter examines the law of extractive resources and money to clarify law’s constitutive role in political economy and, in particular, its implication in the expansion of exploitation. It also indicates how at various past junctures certain legal institutions have been chosen over possible alternatives. It, thus, draws attention to the “institutional toolbox” available for identifying ways in which law may re-configure and transform political economy. More specifically, the chapter explores the distributive effects that law generates - by allocating jurisdiction and exploitation rights, as well as by submitting distribution conflicts either to resolution through political procedures or market mechanisms. It explains how the principles of permanent sovereignty over natural resources and monetary sovereignty provide the basis not only for domestic, but also for international politics to be conducted in the legal framework of international organisations (international commodity agreements and the IMF). The chapter proceeds to trace how the assertion of government control over natural resources led to the expansion and proliferation of markets, not only because it prompted the emergence of a transnational economic law, but also as it contributed to the reverse integration of the industry and consequent changes in the structure of commodity trade. The chapter points to linkages between resource extraction and trade on the one hand and the demise of Bretton Woods and liberalisation of capital markets on the other hand with the effect of further reducing the scope for politics. Finally, it proposes to take a closer look at monetary design both as a driver of extraction and as a potential means to contain exploitation.

At the Havana conference of 1947–1948, development emerged as the top priority of the International Trade Organization (ITO). But the failure to establish the ITO meant that developing countries had to work with GATT to make trade serve development goals. This chapter examines key moments (including rounds of trade negotiations, the establishment of UNCTAD, the opening of the International Trade Centre, the addition of a development chapter to the General Agreement, and the campaign to establish a New International Economic Order) and issues (such as quantitative restrictions, preferential tariffs, textiles) to try to make GATT and trade support developing countries. Clashing conceptions of development, the pursuit of individual priorities, and disagreements and rivalry among developing countries undermined efforts to reform GATT. Although developing countries have been portrayed as ill-suited to GATT, this chapter argues that they were constructive members, sometimes leaders and ultimately champions of GATT and a rules-based trade system. The story of development displaces the Cold War as the dominant framework of postwar international relations, challenges the idea of American hegemony, and reveals how GATT perpetuated a racialized global order.