The Concern with Non-concerns: For the End of Trade Dystopia



Today’s trade involves all aspects of human life and challenges States sovereignty as much as it offers opportunities for growth and development. It is governed by norms of quasi-universal nature largely adopted and furthered during the past 70 years of existence of the GATT and its institutionalised successor, the WTO.

But what trade rules are we talking about? The law “as it is”? Is a purely positivist approach to trade law relevant while there is much more to trade than trade? What sort of international society does this technical trade law contribute to create or maintain? Far from the United Nations utopia for peace, trade law is fuelling a dystopia of unequals as conducive to the development of conflicts as it is prone to solve their technicalities on the basis of a long celebrated and now moribund Appellate Body.

The Dystopia created under the pressure of financial globalisation and justifying the existence of parallel international law regimes is not yet to end if trade lawyers refuse to question the nature of trade law and keep referring to what is not “mainstream” as “Non-Trade Concerns” (NTC). Written against the backdrop of an interrogation on the utopian/dystopian nature of the WTO regime, this short piece proposes to critically address the concern with “non-trade concerns” (1) and sketches the basis lines for possible change in calling for a political approach to international trade law (2).


  1. Alessandrini D (2010) Developing countries and the multilateral trade regime: the failure and promise of the WTOs’ development mission. Hart Publishing, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  2. Boisson de Chazournes L (2016) WTO and non-trade issues: inside/outside WTO. J Int Econ Law 19(2):379–381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Boisson de Chazournes L (2017) Environmental protection and investment arbitration: Yin and Yang? ACDI - Anuario Colombiano de Derecho Internacional 10:371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chimni BS (2017) International law and world order, a critique of contemporary approaches. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Choukroune L (2016) Human rights in international investment disputes: global litigation as international law re-unifier. In: Choukroune L (ed) Judging the state in international trade and investment law. Springer, Singapore, pp 179–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Koskenniemi M (2007) The fate of public international law: between technique and politics. Mod Law Rev 70:1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Nedumpara J (2016) WTO, state, and legal capacity building: an Indian narrative. In: Choukroune L (ed) Judging the state in international trade and investment law. Springer, Singapore, pp 33–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Petersmann EU (2013) Methodological pluralism and its critics in international economic law research. J Int Econ 15(4):921–970Google Scholar
  9. Piketty T (2014) Capital in the twenty first century. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, p 696CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Piketty T (2020) Capital and ideology. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  11. Rodrik D (2011) The globalization paradox, why global markets, states and democracy can’t coexist. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  12. Shaffer GC, Melendez Ortiz R (eds) (2010) Dispute settlement at the WTO: the developing country experience. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  13. Stiglitz J (2007) Making globalization work, the next steps to global justice, p xivGoogle Scholar
  14. Trachtman J (2014) The WTO Seal Products Case: doctrinal and normative confusion. AJIL Unbound 108:323–327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Trachtman JP, Chantal T (eds) (2009) Developing countries in the WTO legal system. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Portsmouth Law School, University of PortsmouthPortsmouthUK

Personalised recommendations