¹ P. C. Jessup, Transnational Law (1956).

² S. Minas, ‘Jessup at the United Nations: International Legacy, Transnational Possibilities’, in P. Zumbansen (ed.), The Many Lives of Transnational Law: Critical Engagements with Jessup’s Bold Proposal (2020), 57, at 57.

³ C. Scott, ‘“Transnational Law” as Proto-Concept: Three Conceptions’, (2009) 10 German Law Journal 859; see also sources cited in Section 2, infra.

⁴ R. Michaels, ‘Globalisation and Law: Law Beyond the State’, in R. Banakar and M. Travers (eds.), Law and Society Theory (2013), 287.

⁵ P. C. Jessup, ‘The Present State of Transnational Law’, in M. Bos (ed.), The Present State of International Law and Other Essays (1973), 340. He was not discouraged, however, noting ‘a multiplicity of cases, situations and juridical activities which provide new and additional examples of matters touched on’.

⁶ T. C. Halliday and G. Shaffer (eds.), Transnational Legal Orders (2015). This is far from an exhaustive list; see also, for example, H. H. Koh, ‘Why Transnational Law Matters’, (2006) 24(4) Penn State International Law Review 745; P. Zumbansen, ‘The Parallel Worlds of Corporate Governance and Labor Law’, (2006) 13(1) Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies 261; T. Gammeltoft-Hansen and T. Aalberts, ‘The Politics of Transnational Law’, (2019) iCourts Working Paper Series No. 152, available at ssrn.com/abstract=3320393.

⁷ H. H. Koh, ‘The 1994 Roscoe Pound Lecture: Transnational Legal Process’, (1996) 75 Nebraska Law Review 181.

⁸ R. Cotterrell, ‘What is Transnational Law?’, (2012) 37(2) Law & Social Inquiry 500, at 502; N. Affolder, ‘Transnational Climate Law’, in P. Zumbansen (ed.) Oxford Handbook of Transnational Law (2021), 247.

⁹ See Cotterrell, ibid; V. Kanwar, ‘Difficulties for Every Solution: Defining Transnational Law at the Edge of Transdisciplinarity’, in Zumbansen, supra note 2, 461.

¹⁰ See Zumbansen, ibid. For more on Jessup’s enduring influence see L. Knöpfel and F. Lüth, ‘Bringing the “Human Problem” Back into Transnational Law – The Example of Corporate (Ir)Responsibility’ and the contributions that they summarize as part of a symposium of the same name, published in (2021) 12(2) Transnational Legal Theory.

¹¹ P. Zumbansen, ‘Transnational Law, With and Beyond Jessup’, in Zumbansen, ibid., at 42 (emphasis in original).

¹² P. Singh, ‘The Private Life of Transnational law: Reading Jessup from the Post-Colony’, in Zumbansen, ibid., at 440.

¹³ A. Anghie, Imperialism, Sovereignty and the Making of International Law (2004).

¹⁴ M. Sornarajah, ‘The Climate of International Arbitration’, (1991) 8 J. of Int’l Arbitration 47.

¹⁵ This article’s use of ‘Third World’ follows the understanding of the term articulated in V. Prashad, The Darker Nations: A People’s History of the Third World (2008).

¹⁶ M. Koskenniemi, The Gentle Civilizer of Nations: The Rise and Fall of International Law 1870-1960 (2004), 2.

¹⁷ See, e.g., F. Grisel, ‘Transnational Law in Context: The Relevance of Jessup’s Analysis for the Study of “International” Arbitration’, in Zumbasen, supra note 2, at 192; P. Zumbansen, ‘The Continuing Search for Law in a Globally Interconnected World: Engaging and Contextualizing Jessup’s “Transnational Law”’, TLI THINK!PAPER 7/2019, available at ssrn.com/abstract=3320108, at 14, published in modified form as Zumbansen, ‘With and Beyond Jessup’, supra note 11.

¹⁸ S. Mcveigh and S. Pahuja, ‘Rival Jurisdictions: The promise and loss of Sovereignty’, in C. Barbour and G. Pavlich (eds.), After Sovereignty: On the Question of Political Beginnings (2009), 97.

¹⁹ G. Shaffer and T. Halliday, ‘With, Within, and Beyond the State: The Promise and Limits of Transnational Legal Ordering’, in Zumbansen, supra note 8, 987.

²⁰ D. Lustig, Veiled Power: International Law and the Private Corporation, 1885-1981 (2020), 146.

²¹ R. Michaels, ‘After the Backlash: A New PRIDE for Transnational Law’, in Zumbansen, supra note 2, at 451; P. Zumbansen, ‘Transnational Law as Socio-Legal Theory and Critique: Prospects for “Law and Society” in a Divided World’, (2019) 67 Buffalo Law Review 909.

²² A. C. Cutler, ‘Locating Private Transnational Authority in the Global Political Economy’, in Zumbansen, supra note 2, at 328; see Grisel, supra note 17, at 192; Zumbansen, ‘The Continuing Search’, supra note 17, at 14.

²³ See Lustig, supra note 20, at 174; Minas, supra note 2, at 70.

²⁴ See Zumbansen, ‘The Continuing Search’, supra note 17, at 17.

²⁵ N. Affolder, ‘Transnational Law as Unseen Law’, in Zumbansen, supra note 2, at 367.

²⁶ Ibid.

²⁷ C. A. Whytock, ‘The Concept of a Global Legal System’, in Zumbansen, ibid., at 81.

²⁸ See Cotterrell, supra note 8; Kanwar, supra note 9.

²⁹ See Scott, supra note 3, at 876; G. Calliess, ‘Law, Transnational’, Comparative Research in Law & Political Economy. Research Paper No. 35/2010, available at digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/clpe/102, at 3.

³⁰ G. Shaffer, ‘Transnational Legal Process and State Change’, (2012) 37(2) Law & Social Inquiry 229, at 233. See also C. Tietje and K. Nowrot, ‘Laying Conceptual Ghosts of the Past to Rest: The Rise of Philip C. Jessup’s “Transnational Law” in the Regulatory Governance of the International Economic System’, in C. Tietje (ed.), Philip C. Jessup’s Transnational Law Revisited: On the Occasion of the 50 ^th Anniversary of its Publication (2006), 27, crediting Jessup with giving the term ‘transnational law’ ‘concrete meaning’.

³¹ See Affolder, supra note 25, at 367.

³² L. C. Backer, ‘The Cri de Jessup Sixty Years Later: Transnational Law’s Intangible Objects and Abstracted Frameworks Beyond Nation, Enterprise, and Law’, in Zumbansen, supra note 2, at 389.

³³ See Zumbansen, ‘With and Beyond Jessup’, supra note 11, at 12.

³⁴ See Affolder, supra note 25, at 367.

³⁵ G. Shaffer and C. Coye, ‘From International Law to Jessup’s Transnational Law, from Transnational Law to Transnational Legal Orders’, in Zumbansen, supra note 2, at 126; see also Calliess supra note 29, at 4, writing that ‘Jessup’s approach must be understood in the light of the 1950s world-order’, and specifically a ‘bipolar world order [that] seemed to be set in stone’.

³⁶ See Zumbansen, ‘With and Beyond Jessup’, supra note 11, at 11.

³⁷ See Jessup, supra note 1, at 23–4.

³⁸ Ibid., at 32.

³⁹ Ibid., at 71.

⁴⁰ Ibid., at 106.

⁴¹ Ibid., at 71, 107–8; see Section 5.3, infra for more on ‘amicable arrangements’.

⁴² Ibid., at 2; see, e.g., Whytock, supra note 27, at 73.

⁴³ See Jessup, supra note 1, at 2; see, e.g., Scott, supra note 3; see Zumbansen, ‘With and Beyond Jessup’, supra note 11, at 3–4.

⁴⁴ See Jessup, ibid., at 106.

⁴⁵ Ibid., at 8–9.

⁴⁶ Ibid., at 27–8.

⁴⁷ See Gammeltoft-Hansen and Aalberts, supra note 6.

⁴⁸ See Jessup, supra note 1, at 70.

⁴⁹ Ibid., at 7.

⁵⁰ P. C. Jessup, ‘The Use of International Law’, The Thomas C. Cooley Lectures, Eighth Series (1958), 63.

⁵¹ See Jessup, supra note 1, at 108.

⁵² Of these, one ‘flatly rejected the possibility of a judgment non liquet on the theory of the existence of a “gap” in the law’ (ibid., at 89), another was a dissenting judgment (ibid., at 90–1), and the third concerned the Italian Court of Cassation noting how gaps in the substantive law of the International Institute of Agriculture may be filled (ibid., at 101).

⁵³ Ibid., at 4.

⁵⁴ Ibid., at 34; it is also referenced in relation to protective jurisdiction (ibid., at 50–1), and to a public international law study (ibid., at 62).

⁵⁵ A similar view was expressed by Jessup in P. C. Jessup, A Modern Law of Nations: An Introduction (1948), 31.

⁵⁶ See Jessup, supra note 1, at 32.

⁵⁷ Ibid., at 6.

⁵⁸ Ibid., at 17.

⁵⁹ Ibid., at 19.

⁶⁰ Ibid., at 23–4.

⁶¹ Ibid., at 27–31.

⁶² Ibid., at 10–11.

⁶³ See Jessup, supra note 55, at 3.

⁶⁴ A. Getachew, Worldmaking after Empire: The Rise and Fall of Self-Determination (2019), 16.

⁶⁵ Ibid., at 2.

⁶⁶ L. Eslava, M. Fakhri and V. Nesiah, ‘The Spirit of Bandung’, in L. Eslava, M. Fakhri and V. Nesiah (eds.), Bandung, Global History, and International Law: Critical Pasts and Pending Futures (2016), 3, at 4.

⁶⁷ A. Acharya, ‘Studying the Bandung Conference from a Global IR Perspective’, (2016) 70(4) Australian Journal of International Affairs 342, at 353–4.

⁶⁸ Final Communiqué of the Asian-African Conference of Bandung, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Republic of Indonesia, 24 April 1955.

⁶⁹ For more on that debate see Eslava, Fakhri and Nesiah, supra note 66.

⁷⁰ Ibid., at 26; see Acharya, supra note 67, at 353.

⁷¹ See Acharya, ibid., at 342–57; Prashad, supra note 15, at 48.

⁷² S. Pahuja, ‘Letters from Bandung: Encounters with Another International Law’, in Eslava, Fakhri and Nesiah, supra note 66, at 552; Anghie, supra note 13, at 201–3.

⁷³ See Jessup, supra note 1, at 19–20.

⁷⁴ See notes 80 and 174, infra.

⁷⁵ C. Fairman, ‘Book Review: A Modern Law of Nations’, (1949) 1(3) Stanford Law Review 581, at 585; see Minas, supra note 2, at 59; Zumbansen, ‘With and Beyond Jessup’, supra note 11, at 5; A. Browder, ‘Philip C. Jessup: The Original Transnational Lawyer’, in Tietje, supra note 30.

⁷⁶ See, e.g., Zumbansen, ‘With and Beyond Jessup’, supra note 11; see Affolder, supra note 25. For an exception see note 78, infra.

⁷⁷ See Koskenniemi, supra note 16, at 465–6.

⁷⁸ O. Schacter, ‘Philip Jessup’s Life and Ideas’, (1986) 80(4) American Journal of International Law 878, at 880; E. Pace, ‘Philip C. Jessup Dies; Helped End Berlin Blockade’, New York Times, 1 February 1986.

⁷⁹ Schachter, ibid.

⁸⁰ M. Fakhri, ‘The 1937 International Sugar Agreement: Neo-Colonial Cuba and Economic Aspects of the League of Nations’, (2011) 24 Leiden Journal of International Law 899, 917.

⁸¹ See Schachter, supra note 78, at 881.

⁸² Ibid., at 881–2.

⁸³ Ibid., at 882.

⁸⁴ A. Lazarowitz, ‘Philip Caryl Jessup’, in C. J. Nolan (ed.), Notable U.S. Ambassadors Since 1775 (1997), 195.

⁸⁵ See Schachter, supra note 78, at 882.

⁸⁶ See Jessup, supra note 55.

⁸⁷ See Lazarowitz, supra note 84, at 196; Minas, supra note 2, at 59. This period also saw Jessup come under attack by Senator McCarthy on allegations of pro-Soviet conspiracies and Communist associations, citing amongst other things earlier advocacy of non-intervention and of lifting an embargo placed on Republican Spain, and testimony as a character witness at the trial of Alger Hiss. In reflecting on why Transnational Law has avoided more critical scrutiny, it could be worth returning to Jessup’s contemporary association with such positions and resulting attacks and how it may have shaped, in particular, earlier interpretations of his work. Jessup successfully refuted the allegations partly through reference to his work at the UN, where he had helped prevent Communist China’s recognition, and an investigation by the Loyalty Board of the State Department cleared him of the charges, a finding confirmed by a Senate committee (see Lazarowitz, ibid., at 197; Schachter, supra note 78, at 886–7).

⁸⁸ See Lazarowitz, ibid., at 198.

⁸⁹ See Schachter, supra note 78, at 884; see also L. H. Burke, Ambassador At Large: Diplomat Extraordinary (1972), at 20–50.

⁹⁰ P. C. Jessup, ‘Reviewed Work: Realities of American Foreign Policy’, (1955) 70(1) Political Science Quarterly 131, at 133.

⁹¹ R. Beisner, Dean Acheson: A Life in the Cold War (2006), 559.

⁹² See Lazarowitz, supra note 84, at 199.

⁹³ See Schachter, supra note 78, at 883.

⁹⁴ See Lazarowitz, supra note 84, at 196.

⁹⁵ D. Acheson, ‘Philip C. Jessup, Diplomatist’, in W. Friedmann, L. Henkin and O. Lissitzen (eds.), Transnational Law in A Changing Society: Essays in Honor of Philip C. Jessup (1972), 3, at 9–10.

⁹⁶ See Lazarowitz, supra note 84, at 197–8.

⁹⁷ As noted below, the relationship between power and law was one he explored in some detail in an address delivered the year before his Storrs Lectures (P. C. Jessup, ‘Power, Facts and Law’, (1955) 49 Proceedings of the American Society of International Law at Its Annual Meeting 1921-1969 1.

⁹⁸ See Fakhri, supra note 79, at 911.

⁹⁹ See generally, S. Pahuja, Decolonising International Law: Development, Economic Growth and the Politics of Universality (2011), 14–15; R. Peet, Unholy Trinity: The IMF, World Bank and WTO (2009).

¹⁰⁰ E. Luard, A History of the United Nations, Volume 1: The Years of Western Domination, 1945-1955 (1984), 68. See also M. Mazower, No Enchanted Place: The End of Empire and the Ideological Origins of the United Nations (2013), 68–9, arguing that it constituted ‘the effort by anxious elites to shore up a liberal world order that would be compatible with empire and Anglo-American hegemony for decades to come’.

¹⁰¹ P. C. Jessup, The Birth of Nations (1974), 13.

¹⁰² See Jessup, supra note 55, at 30.

¹⁰³ See Jessup, supra note 101.

¹⁰⁴ Ibid., at 134. Anticolonialism, in the sense of breaking up European empires, was of course not inconsistent with the US’s own imperial ambitions (see, e.g., Pahuja, supra note 99, at 60; Mazower, supra note 100).

¹⁰⁵ Ibid., at 41, 90.

¹⁰⁶ Ibid., at 154, 211, 236.

¹⁰⁷ Ibid., at 19.

¹⁰⁸ L. E. Ambrosius, ‘Woodrow Wilson and The Birth of a Nation: American Democracy and International Relations’, (2007) 18(4) American Democracy and International Relations, Diplomacy and Statecraft 689.

¹⁰⁹ Roy Wilkins, as quoted in S. Weinberger, ‘The Birth of a Nation and the Making of the NAACP’, (2011) 45(1) Journal of American Studies 77, at 77.

¹¹⁰ See Jessup, supra note 101, at 19.

¹¹¹ I. Brownlie, Legal Status of Natural Resources In International Law (Some Aspects) (1980), 253.

¹¹² K. Miles, The Origins of International Investment Law: Empire, Environment and the Safeguarding of Capital (2013); see Sornarajah, supra note 14; J. T. Gathii, ‘War’s Legacy in International Investment Law’, (2009) 11 International Community Law Review 353.

¹¹³ N. Schrijver, Sovereignty Over Natural Resources: Balancing Rights and Duties (1997).

¹¹⁴ One of the sources of debate was whether the initiative was necessary, with states such as Mexico and Haiti opposing Uruguay’s draft resolution on the basis that it was not for the UN to pass judgment on an issue of ‘unquestionable validity’, which could in fact weaken states’ sovereignty (UN Doc. A/C.2/SR.231 (6 December 1952), at 254, paras. 14, 24).

¹¹⁵ This article stipulates as being amongst the purposes of the UN Charter ‘[t]o develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples’.

¹¹⁶ UN Doc. A/C.2/L.165 (5 November 1952).

¹¹⁷ UN Doc. E/CN.4/L.24 (16 April 1952).

¹¹⁸ UN Doc. A/C.2/SR.231 (6 December 1952), at 255, para. 10.

¹¹⁹ UN Doc. E/CN.4/SR.260 (6 May 1952), at 11.

¹²⁰ UN Doc. A/C.2/SR.231 (6 December 1952), at 254, para. 9.

¹²¹ Ibid., at 256, para. 37.

¹²² Ibid., at 257, para. 39.

¹²³ UN Doc. E/CN.4/SR.260 (6 May 1952), at 6.

¹²⁴ See Sornarajah, supra note 14, at 51.

¹²⁵ UN Doc. E/CN.4/SR.260 (6 May 1952), at 9.

¹²⁶ UN Doc. A/C.s/SR.237 (11 December 1952), para. 41.

¹²⁷ UN Doc. A/PV.411 (VII) (21 December 1952), at 496, para. 176.

¹²⁸ UN Doc. E/2573/CN.4/705 (April 1954), at 37.

¹²⁹ See Schrijver, supra note 113, at 149; J. Linarelli, M. E. Salomon and M. Sornarajah, The Misery of International Law Confrontations with Injustice in the Global Economy (2018).

¹³⁰ General Assembly Resolution 1803 (XVII) of 14 December 1962, ‘Permanent Dovereignty over Natural Resources’.

¹³¹ The Resolution on the Establishment of a New International Economic Order was passed at the Sixth Special Session of the General Assembly on 1 May 1974. Declaration on the Establishment of a New International Economic Order, A/Res/5-6/3201 (1 May 1974).

¹³² See Anghie, supra note 13, at 211.

¹³³ See Jessup, supra note 1, at 107.

¹³⁴ For more on the limits of international law as a means to constrain imperial power during this period see S. Pahuja and C. Storr, ‘Rethinking Iran and International Law: The Anglo-Iranian Oil Company Case Revisited’, in J. Crawford et al. (eds.), The International Legal Order: Current Needs and Possible Responses, Essays in Honour of Djamchid Momtaz (2017), 53.

¹³⁵ See Mazower, supra note 100, at 26.

¹³⁶ P. Zumbansen, ‘Transnational Law’, Comparative Research in Law & Political Economy Research Paper No. 9/2008, available at digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/clpe/181/, at 739.

¹³⁷ Ibid., at 11 (emphasis added).

¹³⁸ C. G. Fenwick, ‘Transnational Law Review’, (1957) 51(2) American Journal of International Law 444, at 444.

¹³⁹ See Scott, supra note 3, at 859.

¹⁴⁰ See Jessup, supra note 1, at 35; SS Lotus case (France v. Turkey), PCIJ Rep Series A No 10, at 19.

¹⁴¹ American Banana Co. v. United Fruit Co., 213 U.S. 347 (1909).

¹⁴² See Jessup, supra note 1, at 40.

¹⁴³ Ibid., at 39–40.

¹⁴⁴ Ibid., at 39.

¹⁴⁵ Ibid., at 40.

¹⁴⁶ Ibid., at 40–1.

¹⁴⁷ Ibid., at 41.

¹⁴⁸ Ibid., at 70, quoting Bentham as quoted in P. C. Jessup, ‘International Law in the Post-War World’, (1942) 36 Proceedings of the American Society of Int’l L. 46, at 48, 50.

¹⁴⁹ See Jessup, supra note 1, at 59.

¹⁵⁰ Ibid., at 62.

¹⁵¹ Ibid., at 61. Jessup later explains, in terms that again are difficult to divorce from questions of power, politically conceived:

¹⁵² Ibid., at 71.

¹⁵³ Ibid., at 76.

¹⁵⁴ Ibid.

¹⁵⁵ Ibid.

¹⁵⁶ Ibid.

¹⁵⁷ Ibid., at 81.

¹⁵⁸ Ibid., at 81–2.

¹⁵⁹ See Anghie, supra note 13, at 226.

¹⁶⁰ See Jessup, supra note 1, at 81.

¹⁶¹ Ibid., at 96.

¹⁶² Ibid., at 106–7.

¹⁶³ Ibid., at 107.

¹⁶⁴ Ibid.

¹⁶⁵ Ibid.

¹⁶⁶ Ibid., at 107–8, quoting from National Fruit Product Co. v. Dwinnel-Wright Co., 47 F. Supp. 499, at 504 (D. Mass. 1942).

¹⁶⁷ See sources cited at note 22, supra.

¹⁶⁸ See Jessup, supra note 1, at 3.

¹⁶⁹ Ibid., at 8–9.

¹⁷⁰ Ibid., at 109–11.

¹⁷¹ Ibid., at 110–12.

¹⁷² Jessup does not explain precisely what he means by ‘better suited’ to transnational situations, though he does cite efforts to reverse the rule of jurisdiction set in The Lotus case as a good example of new law created when ‘the old law … does not reflect the interests and desires of that part of the community particularly affected’ (ibid., at 111). Jessup’s approach clearly begs the questions of how it is determined which community is ‘particularly affected’ and how their interests and desires are represented, which are difficult to answer absent considerations of power and influence.

¹⁷³ See Jessup, supra note 55, at 31.

¹⁷⁴ These included Texaco in its influential arbitral challenge to Libya’s nationalization of its oil industry (see Grisel, supra note 17, at 195). Jessup was also amongst the US international lawyers whose 1958 report on behalf of the American Branch of the International Law Association supported foreign investment protection (American Branch of the International Law Association, ‘Response to the Questionnaire of the International Committee on Nationalization, 1958’, in Society to Advance the Protection of Foreign Investment, Publication No. 3 (1960), 81–96; for more on the significance of this report see N. M. Perrone, Investment Treaties & the Legal Imagination: How Foreign Investors Play by Their Own Rules (2021)).

¹⁷⁵ See Jessup, supra note 55, at 33.

¹⁷⁶ See Jessup, supra note 1, at 19–20.

¹⁷⁷ Ibid., at 19, 24.

¹⁷⁸ Ibid., at 6.

¹⁷⁹ United States Congress, Senate, Select Committee On Small Business, Subcommittee on Monopoly, The International Petroleum Cartel: Staff Report to the Federal Trade Commission, 82nd Congress, 2nd session, Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office (1952), at 197.

¹⁸⁰ See Jessup, supra note 1, at 13–14, citing A. A. Berle, The 20 ^th Century Capitalist Revolution (1954), 147.

¹⁸¹ See Jessup, ibid., at 14.

¹⁸² Positioning scholars and practitioners to be driving forces of law’s development is a consistent theme in Jessup’s writing: P. C. Jessup, ‘The Reality of International Law’, (1940) Foreign Affairs; and ‘International Court of Justice and Legal Matters’, (1947–1948) 42 Illinois Law Review 273; see also Singh, supra note 12. One function served by Transnational Law was to counter the risks of undue ‘political and constitutional provincialism’ on the part of the US (see Jessup, supra note 1, at 112).

¹⁸³ See Jessup, supra note 1, at 113.

¹⁸⁴ Ibid., at 108.

¹⁸⁵ K. Pistor, The Code of Capital: How the Law Creates Wealth and Inequality (2019).

¹⁸⁶ S. Quack, ‘Legal Professionals and Transnational Law-Making: A Case of Distributed Agency’, (2007) 14(4) Organization 643; see Perrone, supra note 174.

¹⁸⁷ P. Zumbansen, ‘Can Transnational Law be Critical? Reflections on a Contested Idea, Field and Method’, in E. Christodoulidis, R. Dukes and M. Goldoni (eds.), Research Handbook On Critical International Theory (2019), 473, at 473.

¹⁸⁸ L. Mchugh-Russell, ‘International Labor Law and Its Others: Governance by Norm versus Governance by Knowledge’, (2019) 113 American Society of International Law 402, at 406.

¹⁸⁹ See Zumbansen, ‘With and Beyond Jessup’, supra note 11, at 12–13; Scott, supra note 3.

¹⁹⁰ R. Wai, ‘Transnational Liftoff and Juridical Touchdown: The Regulatory Function of Private International Law in an Era of Globalization’, (2002) 40(2) Columbia Journal of Transnational Law 209.

¹⁹¹ See, e.g., Nevsun Resources Ltd v. Araya, 2020 SCC 5; U. Baxi, ‘Nevsun: A Ray of Hope in a Darkening Landscape?’, (2020) 5(2) Business and Human Rights Journal 241.

¹⁹² See Zumbansen, supra note 187.

¹⁹³ See Knöpfel and Lüth, supra note 10.

¹⁹⁴ K. Nkrumah, Neo-Colonialism: The Last Stage of Imperialism (1965); see Linarelli, Salomon and Sornarajah, supra note 129.

¹⁹⁵ See Pistor, supra note 185; Perrone, supra note 174. As Slobodian notes, Jessup expressly drew on the work on an early proponent of neoliberalism, Philip Cortney, in Jessup, supra note 55, at 79 (Q. Slobodian, Globalists: The End of Empire and the Birth of Neoliberalism (2018), 135).

¹⁹⁶ See Jessup, supra note 50, at 63.

¹⁹⁷ See, e.g., Pistor, supra note 185; B. Bhandar, Colonial Lives of Property: Law, Land, and Racial Regimes of Ownership (2018).

¹⁹⁸ G. C. Shaffer and M. A. Pollack, ‘Hard vs. Soft Law: Alternatives, Complements, and Antagonists in International Governance’, (2010) 96 Minnesota Law Review 706, at 728–9; A. A. Shalakany, ‘Arbitration and the Third World: A Plea for Reassessing Bias under the Specter of Neoliberalism’, (2000) 41 Harvard International Law Journal 419, at 439; J. Britton-Purdy et al., ‘Building a Law-and-Political-Economy Framework: Beyond the Twentieth-Century Synthesis’, (2020) 129 Yale Law Journal 1784. It was also observed in an early review of Transnational Law that although the Lectures’ implications were far-reaching, their presentation was ‘so moderate, so craftsmanlike, such a skillful blend of old and new, that one hopes even the most timid and myopic may be beguiled into inching forward’ (N. B. Katzenbach, ‘Transnational Law Review’, (1957) 24(2) University of Chicago Law Review 413, at 417).

¹⁹⁹ See Jessup, supra note 1, at 39, fn. 10.

²⁰⁰ See Jessup, supra note 97; see also Jessup, supra note 55, at 2.

²⁰¹ See Jessup, supra note 97, at 7.

²⁰² Ibid.

²⁰³ Ibid.