Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T22:59:16.740Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Changing subjects: Rights, remedies and responsibilities of individuals under global legal pluralism

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 June 2013

Abstract

Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Dahl, RA, Who Governs? Democracy and Power in an American City (Yale University Press, New Haven, CT, 1961).Google Scholar

2 Hersch Lauterpacht is one of the earliest and most strident advocates of the idea that international law is coming to recognize ‘the individual as a subject of the law of nations’. See especially Lauterpacht, H, International Law and Human Rights (Archon Books, Hamden, CT, 1968 [1950]) 4; also, ch 2.Google Scholar

3 Maduro, MP, We the Court: The European Court of Justice and the European Economic Constitution (Hart Publishing, Oxford, 1998) 9.Google Scholar

4 A modest sampling of such works includes Charnovitz, S, ‘Two Centuries of Participation: NGOs and International Governance’ (1997) 18 Michigan Journal of International Law 183, 268–70Google Scholar; Isiksel, T, ‘Citizens of a New Agora: Postnational Citizenship and International Economic Institutions’ in Maas, W (ed), Multilevel Citizenship (University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, PA, 2013)Google Scholar; Peters, A, ‘Membership in the Global Constitutional Community’ in Klabbers, J, Peters, A and Ulfstein, G, The Constitutionalization of International Law (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2009)Google Scholar; Sassen, S, Losing Control? Sovereignty in an Age of Globalization (Columbia University Press, New York, 1996), esp ch 2Google Scholar; Sassen, S, Territory, Authority, and Rights: From Medieval to Global Assemblages (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 2006)Google Scholar; Scholte, JA (ed), Building Global Democracy? Civil Society and Accountable Global Governance (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2011)Google Scholar; O’Brien, R, Goetz, AM, Scholte, JA and Williams, M, Contesting Global Governance: Multilateral Economic Institutions and Global Social Movements (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Santos, BDS and Rodríguez-Garavito, CA (eds), Law and Globalization from Below: Towards a Cosmopolitan Legality (Cambridge University Press, New York, 2005)Google Scholar; Spiro, PJ, ‘New Global Potentates: Nongovernmental Organizations and the “Unregulated” Marketplace’ (1996) 18 Cardozo Law Review 957Google Scholar; Willetts, P (ed), ‘The Conscience of the World’: The Influence of Non-Governmental Organizations in the UN System (Brookings Institution, Washington, DC, 1996).Google Scholar

5 Wiener, A, Lang, AF Jr, Tully, J, Maduro, MP and Kumm, M, ‘Global Constitutionalism: Human Rights, Democracy and the Rule of Law’ (2012) 1 Global Constitutionalism 1, 1.Google Scholar

6 De Wet, E and Vidmar, J (eds), Hierarchy in International Law: The Place of Human Rights (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2012).Google Scholar

7 The phrase is borrowed from J Resnik, ‘Law’s Migration’ (2006) 115 Yale Law Journal and cited in PS Berman, ‘Global Legal Pluralism’ (2007) 80 Southern California Law Review 1155, 1210.

8 With reference to Wiener et al. (n 5).

9 For an antecedent debate on ‘linkages’ between different policy objectives sought by international institutions, see the Symposium in 19 University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Economic Law (1998); see also Leebron, DW, ‘Linkages’ (2002) 96 American Journal of International Law 5.Google Scholar

10 G Shaffer, ‘Developing Country Use of the WTO Dispute Settlement System: Why It Matters, the Barriers Posed’ (2009) University of Minnesota Law School Legal Studies Research Paper Series, No 08-50, 171–5.