scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Author

John H. Jackson

Bio: John H. Jackson is an academic researcher from Georgetown University. The author has contributed to research in topics: Free trade & Trade barrier. The author has an hindex of 27, co-authored 102 publications receiving 2919 citations. Previous affiliations of John H. Jackson include University of Michigan & Georgetown University Law Center.


Papers
More filters
Book
01 Nov 1992
TL;DR: An introduction to the intricacies of the world trading system, including the GATT (General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade) is given in this paper, where the authors identify the features and precedents of GATT, analyzes the interconnections between GATT and US constitutional and trade laws and evaluates its future.
Abstract: An introduction to the intricacies of the world trading system, including the GATT (General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade). The text identifies the features and precedents of the GATT, analyzes the interconnections between the GATT and US constitutional and trade laws and evaluates its future.

342 citations

Book
01 Jun 1969

195 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The legal effect of a final ruling of the dispute setdement process (that is, a report of a dispute settlement panel, or of the appellate panel that judges an appeal from the first-level dispute set-dement report) is discussed in this paper.
Abstract: The new World Trade Organization (WTO) has now been operating for two years, and there is litde doubt that it has had a very successful launch. It has fortunately avoided two or three potholes in its roadway and is recognized to have a very large potential for future, but not trouble-free, development. One of the more interesting current aspects of the WTO is the focus on the new dispute setdement rules as established by the new Dispute Setdement Understanding (DSU), which is part of the extraordinarily broad agreement embodying the results of the Uruguay Round. Because of the implications of many of the legal obligations in the Uruguay Round texts, and because they were negotiated among more than 120 participating national governments, it is not surprising that one can find ambiguities, omissions and other troublesome interpretive problems in this vast treaty. For this reason, the dispute setdement process becomes crucial, since it is one of the principal means for resolving the inevitable differences that arise about the various legal obligations of the world trading system. In an interesting and perceptive Editorial Comment in the July 1996 issue of this Journal,1 Judith H. Bello brings to bear not only her intellectual acumen, but her extensive experience both in and out of government concerning trade matters and subjects central to the new WTO, including its dispute setdement procedure. However, in my view, at one point in this Editorial Comment she makes a statement that is wrong, or at least misleading. This may have been largely inadvertent in the context of her general message, but I wish to suggest an alternative viewpoint concerning a very vital problem of the new dispute setdement procedure, a problem that has been getting increasing attention in diplomatic, political and academic circles. This problem is part of the broader question of the legal effect of a final ruling of the dispute setdement process (that is, a report of a dispute settlement panel, or of the appellate panel that judges an appeal from the first-level dispute setdement report). There is some controversy about the legal status of such a report when adopted (as it will almost automatically be under the new WTO procedures). The specific question here is whether the international law obligation deriving from such a report gives the option either to compensate with trade or other measures, or to fulfill the recommenda­ tion of the report mandating that the member bring its practices or law into consistency with the texts of the annexes to the WTO Agreement. In other words, does it give the choice to “compensate” or obey? There has been some confusion about this, and some important leaders of major trading entities in the WTO have made statements that indicate this confusion or are misleading, and in some cases flatly wrong. The alternative interpretation is that an adopted dispute setdement report establishes an international law obligation upon the member in question to change its practice to make it consistent with the rules of the WTO Agreement and its annexes. In this view,

121 citations

Book ChapterDOI
TL;DR: The concept of "sovereignty" is still central to most thinking about international relations and particularly international law as mentioned in this paper, and it is still prized and harbored by those who maintain certain "realist" views or who otherwise wish to prevent (sometimes withjustification) foreign or international powers and authorities from interfering in a national government's decisions and activities.
Abstract: Although much criticized, the concept of “sovereignty” is still central to most thinking about international relations and particularly international law. The old “Westphalian” concept in the context of a nation-state’s “right” to monopolize certain exercises of power with respect to its territory and citizens has been discredited in many ways (as discussed below), but it is still prized and harbored by those who maintain certain “realist” views or who otherwise wish to prevent (sometimes withjustification) foreign or international powers and authorities from interfering in a national government’s decisions and activities. Furthermore, when one begins to analyze and disaggregate the concept of sovereignty, it quickly becomes apparent that it has many dimensions. Often, however, the term “sovereignty” is invoked in a context or manner designed to avoid and prevent analysis, sometimes with an advocate’s intent to fend off criticism orjustifications for international “infringements” on the activities of a nation-state or its internal stakeholders and power operators.

119 citations


Cited by
More filters
Book
15 Apr 1996
TL;DR: Sassen argues that a profound transformation is taking place, a partial denationalizing of national territory seen in such agreements as NAFTA and the European Union as discussed by the authors, and that two arenas stand out in the new spatial and economic order: the global capital market and the series of codes and institutions that have mushroomed into an international human rights regime.
Abstract: From the Publisher: What determines the flow of labor and capital in this new global information economy? Who has the capacity to coordinate this new system, to create a measure of order? And what happens to territoriality and sovereignty, two fundamental principles of the modern state? Losing Control? is a major addition to our understanding of these questions. Examining the rise of private transnational legal codes and supranational institutions such as the World Trade Organization and universal human rights covenants, Saskia Sassen argues that sovereignty remains an important feature of the international system, but that it is no longer confined to the nation-state. Sassen argues that a profound transformation is taking place, a partial denationalizing of national territory seen in such agreements as NAFTA and the European Union. Two arenas stand out in the new spatial and economic order: the global capital market and the series of codes and institutions that have mushroomed into an international human rights regime. As Sassen shows, these two quasi-legal realms now have the power and legitimacy to demand accountability from national governments, with the ironic twist that both depend upon the state to enforce their goals.

1,635 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
Joseph M. Grieco1
TL;DR: In this article, the authors highlight the profound divergences between realism and the newest liberal institutionalism and argue that the former is likely to be proven analytically superior to the latter.
Abstract: The newest liberal institutionalism asserts that, although it accepts a major realist proposition that international anarchy impedes cooperation among states, it can nevertheless affirm the central tenets of the liberal institutionalist tradition that states can achieve cooperation and that international institutions can help them work together. However, this essay's principal argument is that neoliberal institutionalism misconstrues the realist analysis of international anarchy and therefore it misunderstands realism's analysis of the inhibiting effects of anarchy on the willingness of states to cooperate. This essay highlights the profound divergences between realism and the newest liberal institutionalism. It also argues that the former is likely to be proven analytically superior to the latter.

1,393 citations

01 Jan 2014
TL;DR: In this paper, Cardozo et al. proposed a model for conflict resolution in the context of bankruptcy resolution, which is based on the work of the Cardozo Institute of Conflict Resolution.
Abstract: American Bankruptcy Institute Law Review 17 Am. Bankr. Inst. L. Rev., No. 1, Spring, 2009. Boston College Law Review 50 B.C. L. Rev., No. 3, May, 2009. Boston University Public Interest Law Journal 18 B.U. Pub. Int. L.J., No. 2, Spring, 2009. Cardozo Journal of Conflict Resolution 10 Cardozo J. Conflict Resol., No. 2, Spring, 2009. Cardozo Public Law, Policy, & Ethics Journal 7 Cardozo Pub. L. Pol’y & Ethics J., No. 3, Summer, 2009. Chicago Journal of International Law 10 Chi. J. Int’l L., No. 1, Summer, 2009. Colorado Journal of International Environmental Law and Policy 20 Colo. J. Int’l Envtl. L. & Pol’y, No. 2, Winter, 2009. Columbia Journal of Law & the Arts 32 Colum. J.L. & Arts, No. 3, Spring, 2009. Connecticut Public Interest Law Journal 8 Conn. Pub. Int. L.J., No. 2, Spring-Summer, 2009. Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy 18 Cornell J.L. & Pub. Pol’y, No. 1, Fall, 2008. Cornell Law Review 94 Cornell L. Rev., No. 5, July, 2009. Creighton Law Review 42 Creighton L. Rev., No. 3, April, 2009. Criminal Law Forum 20 Crim. L. Forum, Nos. 2-3, Pp. 173-394, 2009. Delaware Journal of Corporate Law 34 Del. J. Corp. L., No. 2, Pp. 433-754, 2009. Environmental Law Reporter News & Analysis 39 Envtl. L. Rep. News & Analysis, No. 7, July, 2009. European Journal of International Law 20 Eur. J. Int’l L., No. 2, April, 2009. Family Law Quarterly 43 Fam. L.Q., No. 1, Spring, 2009. Georgetown Journal of International Law 40 Geo. J. Int’l L., No. 3, Spring, 2009. Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics 22 Geo. J. Legal Ethics, No. 2, Spring, 2009. Golden Gate University Law Review 39 Golden Gate U. L. Rev., No. 2, Winter, 2009. Harvard Environmental Law Review 33 Harv. Envtl. L. Rev., No. 2, Pp. 297-608, 2009. International Review of Law and Economics 29 Int’l Rev. L. & Econ., No. 1, March, 2009. Journal of Environmental Law and Litigation 24 J. Envtl. L. & Litig., No. 1, Pp. 1-201, 2009. Journal of Legislation 34 J. Legis., No. 1, Pp. 1-98, 2008. Journal of Technology Law & Policy 14 J. Tech. L. & Pol’y, No. 1, June, 2009. Labor Lawyer 24 Lab. Law., No. 3, Winter/Spring, 2009. Michigan Journal of International Law 30 Mich. J. Int’l L., No. 3, Spring, 2009. New Criminal Law Review 12 New Crim. L. Rev., No. 2, Spring, 2009. Northern Kentucky Law Review 36 N. Ky. L. Rev., No. 4, Pp. 445-654, 2009. Ohio Northern University Law Review 35 Ohio N.U. L. Rev., No. 2, Pp. 445-886, 2009. Pace Law Review 29 Pace L. Rev., No. 3, Spring, 2009. Quinnipiac Health Law Journal 12 Quinnipiac Health L.J., No. 2, Pp. 209-332, 2008-2009. Real Property, Trust and Estate Law Journal 44 Real Prop. Tr. & Est. L.J., No. 1, Spring, 2009. Rutgers Race and the Law Review 10 Rutgers Race & L. Rev., No. 2, Pp. 441-629, 2009. San Diego Law Review 46 San Diego L. Rev., No. 2, Spring, 2009. Seton Hall Law Review 39 Seton Hall L. Rev., No. 3, Pp. 725-1102, 2009. Southern California Interdisciplinary Law Journal 18 S. Cal. Interdisc. L.J., No. 3, Spring, 2009. Stanford Environmental Law Journal 28 Stan. Envtl. L.J., No. 3, July, 2009. Tulsa Law Review 44 Tulsa L. Rev., No. 2, Winter, 2008. UMKC Law Review 77 UMKC L. Rev., No. 4, Summer, 2009. Washburn Law Journal 48 Washburn L.J., No. 3, Spring, 2009. Washington University Global Studies Law Review 8 Wash. U. Global Stud. L. Rev., No. 3, Pp.451-617, 2009. Washington University Journal of Law & Policy 29 Wash. U. J.L. & Pol’y, Pp. 1-401, 2009. Washington University Law Review 86 Wash. U. L. Rev., No. 6, Pp. 1273-1521, 2009. William Mitchell Law Review 35 Wm. Mitchell L. Rev., No. 4, Pp. 1235-1609, 2009. Yale Journal of International Law 34 Yale J. Int’l L., No. 2, Summer, 2009. Yale Journal on Regulation 26 Yale J. on Reg., No. 2, Summer, 2009.

1,336 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors use the gravity model to examine bilateral trade patterns throughout the world, and find evidence of trading blocs in the Western Hemisphere and elsewhere, as in earlier work.

836 citations