This paper examines the role to be played by the devolved administrations in the negotiation, conclusion and implementation of trade agreements concluded by the UK post-Brexit. By examining, from a comparative perspective, examples of collaborative frameworks between sub-national entities and central governments established in federal jurisdictions, it proposes a significant reform of existing inter-governmental cooperation mechanisms to ensure that the devolved administrations are given a meaningful voice in the shaping of future trade agreements.

No abstract

No abstract

In 2014, the global economic system celebrated two anniversaries: 70 years ago, on 22 July 1944 at Bretton Woods, New Hampshire, the Articles of Agreement of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the Articles of Agreement of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (Worldbank) were adopted. Since then the global financial and monetary system has undergone significant policy changes, but the institutional framework remained the same. More recently, 20 years ago, on 15 April 1994, the Final Act of the Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations was signed and its key component, the Agreement establishing the World Trade Organization, entered into force on 1 January 1995. Even though the beginning of the multilateral trading system dates back to the late 1940s, the founding of the WTO constitutes a significant institutional reform that marks the beginning of a new era. Anniversaries are usually moments of celebration. However, even a superficial observer will notice that neither the current international financial and monetary regime nor the international trade regime is in a stage that invites celebration. Instead, both are facing difficult and fundamental challenges to their very existence not only from the outside but also from within. So while this may not be a time to celebrate, anniversaries are also often used for reflection about the past and the future. Hence, the European Yearbook of International Economic Law, itself celebrating its fifth volume in 2014, considers these two anniversaries the appropriate moment to reflect on the legacy and the current status of the two main pillars of International Economic Law. Apart from the two Distinguished Essays, the special focus sections of this volume consist of contributions by researchers who replied to a call for papers that the editors of the yearbook issued in 2012. This format gave us the opportunity to include papers written by "new voices" in the field, i.e. researchers at the early stages of their career, who approach the issues debated in this volume with fresh and innovative thoughts. As a consequence of the call for papers, the content of this volume is supply-rather than demand-driven but puts the spot on some issues that might otherwise not have been included in such a volume. v

In October 2015, hundreds of thousands of protesters took to the streets of Berlin to voice their concerns about the proposed free trade agreements between the EU and Canada (CETA) and the EU and the United States (TTIP). It was not the first time that international economic agreements or institutions were at the centre of public protests. International economic law has always been a politically and legally contested field. Volume 7 of the European Yearbook of International Law addresses these contestations and focuses its main section on critical perspectives of international economic law. The editors of the yearbook invited critical scholars to voice their concerns of the main features and principles of international economic law as it stands today and outline their critical analyses of the various subfields of the discipline. In order to stimulate debate and to challenge the contestations, we asked other colleagues to comment on these critical perspectives. In most cases, especially in the most fiercely debated areas, the commentators were critical of the critics. Some chose to directly react to the claims of the main chapters, others opted for a broader defence of the system and rejected the critics' assertions more generally. Yet, others added further-sometimes also critical-perspectives and dimensions without directly challenging the claims of the first author. The result is a unique collection of critical essays accompanied by alternative and competing views on some of the most fundamental topics of international economic law. We hope that this collection will stimulate further debate and critical research and will serve as a first source of critical essays on international economic law for newcomers and old participants of the debates alike.