Domestic legal traditions and international cooperation: Insights from domestic and international qualification systems

Abstract

The compatibility in terms of domestic systems that embed specific values of particular legal traditions is a critical determinant of international cooperation. We analyze international cooperation on professional qualifications because a domestic qualification system best showcases its distinct approach to social governance. Civil law states, which value written rules and certainty, use paper examinations as a core component of competency assessment of professionals, and upon international cooperation they opt to harmonize paper examinations. Common law states regard track record as important in assessing competence, and they often mutually allow professionals from partner states who have a good track record to practice in their territory. Cooperation between civil and common law states is possible when both parties make a conscious effort to align their domestic systems. In this case, an international mechanism has features of harmonization and mutual recognition. We also consider how to generalize the findings to explain states’ attitude toward inter-governmental organizations in general.

Legal Traditions as Economic Borders

“…ASEAN members' attitudes toward ITPEC are as follows: Japan, which initiated the ITPEC is the most active among all members; Vietnam, the Philippines, and Thailand actively send applicants to take the ITPEC harmonized paper-based examination; Taiwan and Korea are inactive in the ITPEC, however, while they do not participate in the ITPEC per se, they agree to cooperate with Japan on this matter; and Malaysia, Singapore and Indonesia are very inactive. Malaysia decided to withdraw from the ITPEC in 2017, and Singapore's participation in ITPEC excludes its core component (Hamanaka & Jusoh, 2023). Table 1 shows the relationship between domestic qualification regimes and their attitudes toward the ASEAN+3 ITPEC examination.…”

“…APEC members' attitudes toward APEC Engineers are as follows: Australia, New Zealand, Malaysia, and Korea are very active in signing MRAs under APEC Engineer and they are also original members of the International Professional Engineer Agreement (IPEA), a sister organization of APEC Engineers; Singapore is active in singing MRAs under APEC Engineers, but it is not an original member of IPEA; other states (except Vietnam) are inactive-they decided to participate in APEC Engineers scheme, but seem reluctant to sign bilateral MRAs under it; and, finally, Vietnam is very inactive in APEC Engineer project. While it is a member of APEC, Vietnam decided not to participate in the APEC Engineer scheme (Hamanaka & Jusoh, 2023). Table 2 shows the relationship between domestic engineer qualification regimes and attitudes toward activities related to APEC MRA.…”