Transnational Legal Processes in Globalization

Introduction

Globalisation transcends nation states and its core features is transnational interaction between various social, economic and political actors. This new pattern of global communication, exchange and interaction is a result of numerous private and individual wills in the transnational social landscape and has diluted nation-state borders. Julieta Lemaitre, who has written a chapter called “Law and Globalism: Law without the State as Law without Violence” in the book The Handbook of Law and Society (2015), analyses this trend and assess the lack of theoretical engagement with respect to the issue of violence in the area of law beyond the state boundaries. She focuses on a globalisation perspective where globalised legal field is wrapped in struggle of political and economic powers between global players and between global players and private actors. It transcends boundaries and creates the environment of the use of violence in advancing and promoting self interests. She states that “Law beyond the state is law unfettered by the constraints or aspirations of a liberal understanding of justice”. This current essay will critically evaluate this statement by examining the role of law in global sphere situations. This essay will determine the efficiency of law, both national and international and their contributions to social change in the context of globalisation. Normative analysis of global governance is not possible without referring to principles of democracy. In the application of democratic principles, each actor holds an actual stake in decision making processes. In this respect, this essay will examine the applicability of the principles of proportionality in meeting the goals of democratic principles. In doing so, the essay will analyse the characteristic of transnational legal process in legal globalisation by reviewing roles of public and private actors to that effect vis-a-vis norms across nations in the field of social justice. Lemaitre observed that the global legal process comprises sets of activities occurring, one operates at the international level and the other operates at the local level. Lemaitre laments that absence of the element of consent at the international level in environment involving state and non-state actors. This essay will cite the framework of EU laws and its dynamic interjection with member states to that effect.

Lemaitre argues that private players opt for alternative arrangement instead of state established laws. At the same time, Lemaitre states that the position of global rules of engagement is associated with powerful self-interest driven actors. They have developed a peculiar social form and have created conflicts falling in the area not governed by political institutions and classical legal doctrine. This essay will examine the ability of the law beyond and without the state to promote or protect human rights concerns beyond borders without the intervention of state actors. In this regard, Lamaitre states that violence is central to the globalisation of law. This essay will present an alternative argument citing roles of International Chamber of Commerce, ICC Rules and the like. This essay will close the discussion by examining social justice concept and discussing the moral and the enforcement roles of the state and the individuals.

Globalisation shapes laws beyond states

Globalisation moves beyond nation states. There is transnational interaction between various social, economic and political actors. Nations have transformed and globalisation occupies a number of prominent features in this regard. National containment has opened up to new patterns of global communication, exchange and interaction. Such dilution of state border is due to the global process of economic, social and cultural internationalisation. Globalisation is a form of convergence of different phenomena, such as the creation of the world markets, global and communicative networking, exchange and flow of information and global distribution of goods. Nation borders have taken a global characteristic. The concept of transnationalism explains the political, economic and social processes and focuses on the social actions and transactions, which renders state borders porous and permeable. This characteristic of nation-state border is resulted from numerous individual wills in the transnational social landscape. There may be a level of general trust between these actors, which extends beyond social or status groups and it functions between total strangers. In this time of globalisation where nation-state borders are transcended, this kind of generalised trust has taken significant importance in the time of societal heterogeneity. This is a representation of the increased level of interaction, relationships and transactions between the strangers, which is a result of transnationalisation. The statement “Law beyond the state is law unfettered by the constraints or aspirations of a liberal understanding of justice” is the conclusive remark by Julieta Lemaitre, who has written a chapter called “Law and Globalism: Law without the State as Law without Violence” in the book The Handbook of Law and Society (2015). In this chapter she describes law as without boundaries citing globalisation as the testimony to this fact. She states that the life cycle of law moves beyond state boundaries and travels in the form of norms, statutes, practices and interpretation and also as justice claims, which are framed as rights and entitlement. In that chapter, she analyses this trend determining the lack of theoretical engagement with respect to the issue of violence in the area of law beyond the state boundaries. Her main focus is on a globalisation perspective where globalised legal field is wrapped in struggle of political and economic powers between global players and between global players and private actors. The existence of law beyond state where law is globalised comprising many global and private players transcending boundaries creates the environment of the use of violence in advancing and promoting self interests. Violence differs from power, which signifies set of rules or economic and political influence that limit use of violence. In the global arena, not a single institute or player has the power to limit use of violence and as such, violence fills this vacuum. This current essay will critically evaluate the role of law in global sphere situations and determine the efficiency of law, both national and international and their contributions to social change in the context of globalisation.

Relevance of social confinement within the principles of democracy

International coordination and cooperation between nation states have played roles in global relations. The transnational nature of relationships between various private, national, and international actors has led to the establishment of global bodies and rules. All these come under the heading of global governance, which signifies institutional and rule based global networks that are independent and link between legal and political structures of sovereign states. The normative view of the global governance cannot be done without referring to principles of democracy. It the application of democratic principles, every player has an actual stake in decision making processes. Such stake is determined by the “pay-off difference between the better option from the individual’s perspective and the worse one”. This is a social proportionality concept that relies on the conception of social justice. It compares individual situations and further evaluates the general resource allocation and well being. For that matter, every individual will have a say in the collective decision making proportionate to the stake and power they have in the outcome of a decision. So, in a social democracy ideal, the stake will be defined in a manner of proportionality that provides more to the worst-off, for instance the poor has larger stakes in economic policy. Similarly, applying proportionality in the principle of subsidiary and geographical decentralisation, where those living close together will have a larger stake in the decisions that affected the smaller area. Extending it to the concept of negative liberty or protection of personal space or autonomy, a person has higher stake in a decision that directly applies to him and he should have higher proportionality say in those decisions. The principles of proportionality could be seen adopted in the implementation of the rules around the right to social security. Rules around this right have attained national, transnational, and international characteristics. This right is covered in the European Social Charter, Articles 12 and 13, where member states exercise a ‘margin of discretion’ to assess situations from economic and social aspects, and to adopt relevant measures. The right is also governed by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), Article 25 where member countries must undertake measures to optimal use of resources fulfil principle of economic and social rights, including right to social security. At the domestic level, the UK has adopted ICESCR provisions, European Social Charter, and ILO Convention relevant with the right to social security. Proportionality principles could be said to be reflected in domestic provisions as is found in the UK Social Security Administration Act 1992, which provides for social fund, child benefits, statutory sick pay, maternity pay, or emergency payment by local authorities. These provisions ensure economical, social and cultural rights, such as right to work, social security, or adequate standard of living. All these could be said to be governed by principles of proportionality like concept of negative liberty or principle of subsidiary and geographical decentralisation where proportionality provides more to the worst-off and to those directly affected. A case example could also be that of R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Q and other, where it was held that refusal to give support or permission to work to destitute asylum seekers could engage the European Social Charter rights such as Article 6, right to work and Article 11, right to adequate living. How far the principle of proportionality will meet the goals of democratic principles is an important question to be determined in the context of overreaching concept of globalisation. The concept of globalisation indicates a vast social field where there is a collision between dominant and subordinate states, social groups, ideologies and interests on a world scale. There is a basic consensus among its most dominant members, for example the G7. This consensus indicates the dominant characteristics of globalisation. Whereas, the subordinate group produces the insurgent cosmopolitanism, where there is a transnationally organised resistance against unequal exchanges produced, or such resistance is intensified by globalised localisms and globalisms. This characteristic of collision and resistance may be stated to be governed by the principles of democracy. Ideals of democracy protect the concerned stakeholders based on the principle of proportionality. These ideals of democracy represent the social refinement of those ideals and incorporate the relative power of people in the collective decision-making process. Any existing inequalities do not abandon the principles of equality, but instead justify proportionality based on stakes to more effective approximation of equal power. However, in practice, proportionality principles will define power formally and through its illegitimate sources, such as manipulation, threat, charisma, etc. These sources hamper functions of publicly exercised reason. They impose difficulties to people to ascertain the outcome best suited for them. The problem here is that the illegitimate forms of power are difficult to discern. Hence, formal power at best expressed proportionality. Thus, given the current configuration of competing political powers, a formal voting system could be called for. Within the global democratic framework, those with legible stake in decision making should have more votes to achieve a higher degree of representation of affected interests. Social refinement of democratic ideal enables incorporation of social justice concepts into democracy. This agility might cut across transnational bodies and not just to political institutions. Easier said than done, the incorporation of social justice concepts may be assessed against the prevailing political and economic aspects of transnational activities. The next sections will deal with in details and assess whether transnational activities adhere to social justice concepts.

Impact of political confinement on social transnational law

Lemaitre states that globalisation of law involves exchange and flow of norms and legal discourses across nations, and the processes leading to adopt and transform norms in both the national and international environment. The characteristic of transnational legal process in legal globalisation involves both public and private actors creating, interpreting, enforcing and internalising rules of transnational law. This involves a cycle of reforms that have been seen in areas such as war crimes, violence against women, trade law, etc. It involves a cycle of feedback between the players and the power interests at each level conforming to norms. The cycle of creation and reformation of norms across nations could also be seen in the field of social justice. Lemaitre further states that there are two sets of players apparently involved in this cycle. First is the group of global activist networks having their play in international relations. Second is the group of national players, which are arguably responsible to facilitate adherence or adoption to international norms at national level. They translate these norms into local cultures and terms to make human rights concepts and principle effective. As is seen here, there are two sets of activities occurring, one cycle is in the international level and another cycle is at the local level. It is understandable that at local level, the activities are governed by law originated at domestic jurisdictions with the state as the potential violent enforcer. Lemaitre claims that at the international level, it is arguably more to do with mutually dependant nature of international law and international economic and political relations in the absence of an external enforcer. The element of consent at the international level may not be suitable in situation involving state and non-state actors. The question arises as to the position of law beyond the state absent the mutual consent or dependency. This is relevant to transnational cycles of social and political activities. Lemaitre argues that consent is put forward as being the governing factor for such situation, but reaching to an agreement subject to rules of engagement seems complicated. However, answering to Lemaitre that it is possible to form consensual rules despite the complicity. The formation of EU and EU laws, treaties and directives are examples in this regard. At the international level is the EU law, which is both primary and secondary legislation. Primary legislation comprises treaties. Regulations, decisions and directives are secondary legislation. At the local level, state laws govern concerned activities. However, states should implement measures and devise own laws to achieve goals as per EU directives. This obligation is provided under Article 288 of TFEU. This may affirmed Lemaitre’s statement that the element of consent at the international level may not be suitable in situation involving state and non-state actors, even in EU context. In the EU context, conflict situation arises when it involves an international law issue. In such case, EU takes the form of supremacy. This supremacy principle is based on the rationale that sovereignty of member states has transferred its state powers to the EU. This was also reflected in the case of Flaminio Costa v Enel that established the doctrine of uniform application of EU law, which law occupies a core part in domestic laws.

Given this circusmtance, on one hand, it may be stated that there is always a dominant feature in existence, and on the other the goal of collective good needs this features, such as the EU supremacy to that effect. However, in the times of globalisation, there has been a decrease of governance by state laws and private actors are opting for alternative arrangement that attempts to avoid state laws as far as possible. Such a shift from ex post to ex ante governance of private relationships is one of many results from globalisation of private laws and in EU perspective, from Europeanisation. The transnational nature of the law is also seen in changes in substantive law perceptions of social justice. Such replacement of law by other private mechanisms puts the validity of legality beyond the law. Globalisation has brought nations to the face of cross-border mergers, which see increased inter-dependent national governance separate from international legislation. Nation-states undergo changes in core tasks in respect of territoriality or citizenship. Even at the level of policy formulation, there is a complex mechanism transformation with an aim to adhere to local and international aspects. Globalisation has affected the states’ representative role in decisional system. The national sovereignty has extended to more than one political actor. It has brought about instability in the traditional political order. In the EU perspective, the EU has adopted policies applicable to and to be complied with by the member states for bringing uniformity and maintaining autonomy of EU. It has adopted various conventions and regulations. For instance, the EU adopted the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). It required member states to adopt the provisions. The British Parliament did so by enacting the Human Rights Act 1998. This is an example of how globalisation has disrupted the traditional political order and facilitated growth of transnational politics. Such growth causes implications on national sovereignty and has led to the ‘hollowing out’ of the nation state.

Concept of social justice beyond nation-states

Mandatory rules may prohibit private and other concerned actors from giving validity to their alternative mechanisms, as discussed above. Irrespective of this objective, it may by itself serve as the reason why private players are opting for alternative arrangement. This could be seen in the form of the Global Value Chain (GVC) capitalism that has transformed into a peculiar social form acquiring a systemic nature. It produces conflicts falling in the area that is not governed by political institutions and classical legal doctrine. The lack of legal concepts presents a key challenge for regulation the conflicts. In such a situation, there should be innovative governance alternatives that originate from bottom-up in civil society instead of through legislation. One of the alternatives is third-party certification that may match GVCs as regulatory subjects and it may embody a tailored concept of responsibility. The manner of certification might represent an indispensable building-block of transnational regulations. As such, transnational law should trace the regulatory logic and reflexively tackle emergence of social institutions, such as the third party certification. This may enable transnational law to meet challenges of projecting and rearranging political autonomy’s guarantees beyond the states. However, Lemaitre claims that the position of globalised law or for that matter the rules of engagement is associated with powerful self-interest driven actors, like MNCs. Such businesses are principal actors, which create law “without the state” by employing: i) international mechanisms to recognise lex mercatoria, which is based on business practices and agreements; ii) direct regulation of trade by multilayered and complex set of norms of international institutions and convention; and iii) voluntary commitments, known as “soft law”. MNCs could influence political system and business models to advance self-interests and gains. They employ economic pressure and their consistent investment in developing countries is exploitative. This enables them occupy an important role in domestic economy. They also influence global politics and exert considerable economic and political pressure in global economy. Western nations allegedly use MNCs as their agents of neo-colonialism in order to gain control over weaker developing nations. They could influence domestic policies and laws for their self, which in turn is detrimental to the interests of native people. The World Bank estimated that around $1.5 trillion bribes is annually paid by businesses and individuals, which constitutes around 2% of global GDP. This level of corruption harms the development and economic growth affecting a larger part of the income of the poor. Not only that, corruption has reportedly caused obstacles in accessing health services, and has also caused higher-order crimes like drug and human trafficking. However, an alternative argument proposed by Lemaitre is that the coexistence of the norms with national and international laws, and also with norms as promoted by NGOs and social movement limits the potential of violence by businesses, which can in turn fulfil human rights concerns. However, there might be situation whether social work is not in order so as to limit unjust acts of business. For instance, what if social workers are from a region different from the area where the social welfare is needed? In this situation, they will be in a position affected by the tensions created out of welfare state that is implicated in unjust globalisation processes. This tension is directly caused by the practice of such social workers in welfare states that do not look beyond confinement established buy their own nation-states. This position is termed as the ‘‘glocal’’ nature of social reality, which presents a conflicting situation for the social work where in one hand they are duty bound to social welfare principle and on the other, they are employed by welfare states, which refuses to realise the social needs of those who are outside their jurisdiction.

The concerned question is will the law “without the state” be able to promote or protect human rights concerns beyond borders without the intervention of state actors? The answer is yes as nations could frame transnational rules governing the activities of the concerned players. For example while dealing with case of bribery, which has transformed beyond borders, the lack of enforceable domestic mechanism has led to transnational framework for the regulation of bribery. Also, international conventions and institutes play a major role in setting governance. The International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) emphasises on the key function of enterprises in compliance programs with respect to prohibiting bribery in any form, for instance, Article 7 of the ICC Rules of Conduct and Recommendations to Combat Extortion and Bribery. Similarly, the 1994 Caux Round Table, Article 8 of the ICC Rules also provides for financial recording and auditing on accounting and book keeping practice. The Convention On Combating Bribery Of Foreign Public Officials In International Business Transactions, 1997, Article 1 also provides member states to criminalise bribery of foreign public official. Social justice concept may operate beyond nation-states, with transnational social justice duties being complementary to national social justice conceptions. It may redress arbitrary inequalities through their operation in transnational interaction and may also reinforce capacities of nation-states continue maintaining their own social justice conception. There are three transnational social justice duties that could be seen in the European Union. They are economic non-discrimination, social policy tolerance, and institutional stabilisation. Arguably, certain circumstances of justice in the international arena might suggest a possible speculation of about distributive duties. States act as relevant moral agents in feasible arrangement in respect to international justice, which have a moral nature. This entitles them to rights and imposes moral responsibility for their wrongdoings. The moral nature of states is associated with the characteristics of the states as being agents of common good. States should secure well-being and social conditions that could guarantee satisfaction of basic human needs. The moral character applied to state may be arguably treated as a traditional approach now not suitable to answer the issue of determining at which level, whether it is the individual or the state, shall be the claims and duties of justice be located. The plausible answer may lie in cosmopolitanism, where all international moral obligations lie with the individuals. However, this is also subject to the view that international society is composed of persons, and not states. This in turn seems empirically unjustifiable, considering the dense political and social divisions. Therefore, it is for the state to enforce justice acting as the agent of the individuals and such duty of the state stems from citizens’ moral obligations. This demonstrates the need for a minimum level of an institutional community.

For the state to enforce justice and for applicability of justice, it requires conditions where social goods could be allocated in context of political and legal relationships between actors. Given this requirement, the international society should be such a community where justice could be applied. The testimony of existence of such a community is found in multilateral treaties in context of interconnected social and economic characteristic found in globalisation. This also demonstrated a transnational community of justice among stakeholders which are party to global socio-economic treaties. John Rawls in his difference principle states that the “higher expectations of the more advantage contribute to the prospects of the least advantage”. Any social and economic inequalities must be in the interest of those representative men in all concerned social positions. There cannot be any coherent theory if the multiplicity of competing positions is taken into account. This calls for identifying appropriate or certain positions as more basic than others. The probable issue here may be with identifying the role of states to identify these positions. In the modern age of globalisation, there is a global legal pluralism that shows various interjection betweens laws of local actors and that of other nations. Lamaitre argues that the globalisation of law disconnect violence from law by overemphasising over consent. There is imposition of views of dominant actors through law at the sub-national level, which has fettered states’ territorial control. For example, in the case of human and drug trafficking, the US has employed heavy-handed promotion of its norm in Latin American states and has imposed sanctions as well. To deal with drug trafficking, they have used military force trafficking through international institutions. The global legal pluralism thus emphasises on the need of violence and coercion as core of the plurality of law. This violent pluralism has a violent correlate between state and non-state actors in respect to sub-national territorial control. For instance, violence in Latin America is linked with economic liberalisation and decentralisation arising out of the resurgence of democracy. The use of violence was arguably a means to keep neoliberal policies, which resulted in independent and sub-national armed groups and actors in the plurality of law and of violence. So, in the dialogue between cross-border interests to create a global community, the violent aspect of sovereignty that control a territory is often ignored and the relevant global law is treated as being consensual. Lamaitre further states that violence is central to the globalisation of law and not to globalisation. Violence perpetrated by private actors has crosses state borders. This creates issues for possibility of justice. Alternative argument against Lamaitre observation above could be found in quasi-judicial activities of transnational tribunal, which limits imposition norms of private actors. Due process requirements are found not just within the state but also outside the state. A case example is that of Juno Trader case where the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (“ITLOS”) passed the judgment ordering the host stated of Guines-Bissau to release the vessel which its authorities confiscated on the ground of illegal fishing inside its exclusive economic zone. ITLOS held that the host state breached UNCLOS 1994, Article 73(2) that provides for prompt release of arrested vessels and their crews upon a bond or security. This seemingly represents the traditional perspective of natural justice due process, which reflects conception of process rights. In the case regarding standards of conduct that are imposed on public authorities, the perspective may be fashioned in a different manner. For example, in the context of interest of the group of citizens, which is distinct from their respective individual rights, the judicial system will need to apply different need principle, as was done in Overton Park. The Supreme Court called for a necessity of a hearing, which permitted public participation. Shapiro stated that the involvement of the interest groups is not only to seek to influence the relevant government decision making, but also to protect certain collective goals. The need to seek collective goals was also seen in the transnational case involving Marlin Mine exploitation, which affected the ethnic minority of Gautemala. As per the national government direction, feasibility studies and excavation concession were permitted. A complaint was raised by an NGO, operating within the framework of the Wold Bank guidelines, to the Compliance Advisory Ombudman seeking to protect the rights of the indigenous people. The excavation process was stopped citing concerned ILO Convention 1989 to protect indigenous and tribal people.

The discussion so far may rightly be concluded with the observation of Skillington in the paper around climate change and the human rights challenge. It is right to state that one direction perspective of a nation contributed to shape conceptual framework of ‘entitlement’ and ‘right’, such as in international policy debate on security implications of climate change. This causes major challenges in finding a settlement between competing interests of global actors and the needs of vulnerable communities. The top issue does not lie in determining the duties to global actors, but more to do with entitlements of nation-states and private actors with their sole objective of self interests. As a resistance to this dominant feature of globalisation, there are corporation and coalition, such as climate justice coalitions, alliances between small state and international human right organisations. Such resistive forces challenge the self-interest of dominant actors with their efforts in order to reframe acts of dominant actors, including acts activates causing ecological destruction, as a deliberate violation of human rights.

Conclusion

Globalisation has generated an increase level of interaction, relationships and transactions between known and unknown actors based on the principles of general trust. This general trust could form the basis of law to delivers justice when global relationship and interaction is beyond border. As observed in this essay, there are the dominant characteristics of globalisation that may act as hindrance against the field of delivering justice. In this regard, Lemaitre is right in claiming that there is an environment of the use of violence by global and private players in advancing and promoting self interests. Global governance is complex with many independent legal and political structures. The enforceability of the principles of democracy, such as doctrine of proportionality, is necessary given the conflict between the dominant and resistance group. Existence of an eco-system of international and transnational framework would provide support in this regard. Imagine an environment that does not have framework including European Social Charter, UDHR, or ICESCR, it would have been near to impossible to deliver social and economic justice in cases that are beyond a nation-state boundary. However, such framework will also keep facing complexity in dealing with various aspect of globalisation. Globalisation is an overreaching concept where consensus among most dominant members mostly governs its interaction between all the players. Their use of power and violence as legitimate means through alternative arrangements hampers legitimate stakeholders claims. Also, the constant competing interests of these players would lead to a detailed separate study of how social justice concepts are incorporated in the prevailing political and economic aspects of transnational activities. As Lemaitre pointed out it would be complicated to arrive at global rules of engagement. It definitely does, as seen in the EU law context. However, the answer lies not in making these rules, but making these rules dominant in nature and not any actor. The EU law supremacy is a testimony to this. In addition there is a certain set of moral duty being imposed on the member states and the EU acts as an enforcer of such moral duties. This is the alternative arrangement that states should drive for where the complexity in establishing transformational mechanism could be effectively dealt enabling to adherence to both local and international aspects. Whatever aspect of globalisation, in such situation, would have lesser chances of affecting the states’ representative role in decisional system. Similar example is with GVCs capitalism where the effective alternative arrangement is the third-party certification that embodies a tailored concept of responsibility.

There is no denying what Lemaitre has stated regarding position of globalised law. Powerful self-interest driven actors are in dominant position in the global governance scheme, where any law beyond the state may not apply to them. To the end of social justice, a new version of cosmopolitanism should be implemented where nations frame transnational rules, similar in the line of International Chamber of Commerce (ICC), or other convention and treaties mentioned in the essay with quasi-judicial authorities appointed, just like the Compliance Advisory Ombudman or ITLOS. Such rules should be specific transnational social justice treaties covering concerned issues of social justice. In addition to framework, each concerned state performs its obligation under the rule and enforceable local rules to deliver social justice to its citizens. This may create conditions appropriate for allocating social goods. This will adhere to John Rawl’s theory of developing a coherent theory where only specific competing positions are taken into account and where resistive forces and dominant forces create inequalities to achieve equalities.

Bibliography

Cananea GD, Due Process of Law Beyond the State: Requirements of Administrative Procedure (Oxford University Press 2016).

Bantekas I and Lutz Oette, International Human Rights Law and Practice (Cambridge University Press 2016).

Beitz CR, Political theory and international relations (Princeton University Press 1999).

Brock G, Theories of global justice: Research Handbook on Global Justice and International Economic Law (Edward Elgar Publishing 2013).

Capogrosso F, Shared Sovereignty and Denationalisation of Statehood in the European Union (GRIN Verlag 2008).

Cordourier-Real CR, ‘Transnational Social Justice’ in Transnational Social Justice. Global Ethics Series (Palgrave Macmillan 2010).

Gori G, ‘Domestic Enforcement of the European Social Charter: the way forward’ in G. deBurca and B. de itte, Social Rights in Europe (Oxford University Press 2005).

Geppert M, Florian Becker-Ritterspach and Ram Mudambi, New organizational perspectives on the study of politics and power in the multinational company (University of Surrey 2013).

Hazenberg H, ‘The value of the ideal of democracy in global governance’ in Jan Wouters at el (eds.), Global Governance and Democracy: A Multidisciplinary Analysis (Elgar Publishing 2015).

Mowbray A, Cases, Materials and Commentary on the European Convention on Human Rights (Oxford University Press 2012).

Smits JM, ‘Private law in a post-national society: From ex post to ex ante governance’ in Miguel Maduro, Kaarlo Tuori and Suvi Sankari (eds.), Transnational Law: Rethinking European Law and Legal Thinking (2015) 307-308.

Eller KH, ‘Private governance of global value chains from within: lessons from and for transnational law’ (2017)8(3) Transnational Legal Theory Pages 296-329.

Garcia FJ, ‘Globalization, Global Community, and the Possibility of Global Justice’ (2005) Boston College Law School Research Paper 56.

Hazenberg H, ‘The value of the ideal of democracy in global governance’ in Jan Wouters at el (eds.), Global Governance and Democracy: A Multidisciplinary Analysis (Elgar Publishing 2015) 38.

Santos BDS, ‘Globalizations’ (2006) 23(2-3) Theory, Culture & Society 393-399.

Moosa-Mitha M and Fariyal Ross-Sheriff, ‘Transnational Social Work and Lessons Learned From Transnational Feminism’ (2010) 25(2) Journal of Women and Social Work 105-109.

Skillington T, ‘Climate change and the human rights challenge: Extending justice beyond the borders of the nation state’ (2012) 16(8) The International Journal of Human Rights 1196-1212.