This Chapter outlines the national legal frameworks for applying security measures by the US, the EU, and BRICS in order to understand the level of securitization of their policy objectives. It focuses on the measures that are or can be applied by the US, the EU, and BRICS in pursuit of their national (regional) security interests and, thus, potentially subjected to security exceptions under international law. Specifically, this Chapter discusses the practice of application of economic sanctions and investment screening mechanisms in those jurisdictions.

Chapter 3 engages with the thesis that transnationalisation of law has taken place in the development of Internet regulations, since it was invented in the 1990s. Is it true that a transnational law is developing that is largely free from state influence? What does a factual analysis reveal about the relationship between non-state governance and state regulation in addressing pressing social problems related to the ‘network of networks’? How do approaches to content and technology regulation differ between the United States and the EU? Net neutrality serves as a case study for an in-depth examination of the transnationalisation thesis in the context of the technological preconditions of free speech. In addition to the debates on net neutrality in the United States and the EU, this chapter also analyses the debate in India using the example of Meta Free Basics, which illustrates how the actions of large technology companies can lead to restrictions on freedom of expression. Does the history of net neutrality in these three jurisdictions, where regulatory solutions have been found along national territorial lines, confirm that there is a risk of developing a ‘splinternet’ and speak against a transnationalisation of the law?

This chapter argues that, albeit with variations, each of the three countries – that is, the US, Mexico and Canada – that belong to the USMCA can point to some concrete positive economic and welfare developments that have been realised because of NAFTA. The relative success of NAFTA / the USMCA has largely happened because of the belief that the three contracting parties have in the institution created to enhance the implementation of obligations under the agreement. Indeed, in 1994, NAFTA placed emphasis on the creation of ‘effective procedures for the implementation and application’ of member states’ obligations. In contrast to dispute settlement under the AfCFTA, ASEAN and MERCOSUR, a premium was placed on an effective dispute settlement mechanism. This explains why the USMCA’s chapter 10 is viewed as the ‘crown jewel’ of the RTA. The same can be said of Chapter 14 on ISDS which even has authority to review decisions by, for instance, a state court in the US. Further, we have also argued that free trade agreements between a hegemon and countries at a lower level of economic and political development may likely lead to the loss of ability by the party at the lower stages of development to adopt trade measures for the protection of its own industries.

This chapter is based upon an extensive examination of US statutes, regulations, and executive orders from 1994 to 2021 containing US blacklists against Cuba. The chapter discusses the effects of the listing on individuals or targeted entities. Because many of these targets are Cuban government officials or state-owned enterprises, the listing of these persons and entities has the effect of interfering with sectors of the Cuban economy. The chapter also discusses the secondary impact on Cuba’s trade partners in general, and the consequent “chilling effect” that interferes in Cuba’s overall ability to import and export goods, and attract foreign investment.

United States sanctions undermine Iran’s ability to import critical agricultural products, especially wheat. Despite long-standing exemptions for humanitarian trade, sanctions have fragmented Iran’s wheat-supply chain, deterring major commodities traders, interrupting payment channels, and delaying shipments. While Iran does continue to import wheat to meet its food security needs, commodities traders can extract a higher price from Iranian importers, citing the unique challenges of exporting to the country. In this way, sanctions contribute to structurally higher prices for wheat in Iran. The country’s growing dependence on wheat imports, driven by demographic changes and worsening climate conditions, has made these disruptions more acute. Efforts to mitigate these effects, such as humanitarian trade arrangements launched by multiple US administrations, have largely failed due to bureaucratic inefficiencies and financial sector overcompliance. As a result, Iranian households have had to contend with significant food inflation, even for staples such as bread. Considering that the negative humanitarian effects of sanctions are both persistent and systemic and have been long known to US officials, it is difficult to conclude that the effects are truly unintended.

The complexity of international economic sanctions, breach of which can carry severe penalties, is well known to cause banks and other financial institutions to “de-risk” in relation to sanctioned countries. The practice of denying financial services to entire classes of people prevents those who need to transfer funds to or from sanctioned countries from accessing traditional banking channels, often leading them to rely instead on Informal Value Transfer Systems (IVTS). Where IVTS service providers are not properly licensed, customers increasingly risk being targeted by law enforcement agencies under wide-ranging civil forfeiture laws. The chapter considers how this state of affairs has developed, with a focus on members of the Iranian diaspora who seek to transfer money between Iran and the UK and US. Two individual case studies are considered and the authors address the treatment of those caught in the crosshairs of sanctions and anti-money laundering measures and some of the remedies available to them.

This chapter examines how copyright reversion mechanisms developed in US copyright law. It traces the history of such provisions to its present day iteration (an inalienable right for creators to terminate copyright grants after around 35 years). As with the study of British reversionary rights, the chapter highlights how the US provisions have often been rendered ineffective through the behaviour of rightsholders (both before and after reversion mechanisms have been passed). It focuses on how the current termination scheme operates, highlighting its considerable problems: for example, uncertainty over whether sound recordings are covered, and the sheer difficulty of meeting the formalities necessary to exercise the statutory rights.

Chapter 10 questions whether law should widen its lens to address general appearance discrimination too. Would a protected characteristic of appearance offer viable legal rights to the many millions of us who do not have a disfigurement but are less-than-beautiful in some way? For example, is appearance objective enough to be adjudicated in law? Is a clear distinction between mutable and immutable aspects of appearance important – or even possible given increasing medico-cosmetic opportunities to change the way our bodies look? Do we have an unobjectionable nomenclature to describe appearance and attractiveness in legal terms? And could we swallow well-meaning employers’ attempts to measure the attractiveness of their staff for the purposes of diversity monitoring? The discussion draws on examples of comparative laws in France and America. Both countries have adopted wider conceptions of appearance equality, and America’s laws have seen a recent period of growth, with Binghampton, New York, the latest to vote such a law onto its statute books in 2023. However, both sets of laws remain little used so far, despite evidence showing that appearance discrimination remains prevalent. How could we ensure that a protected characteristic of appearance in the UK avoided a similar fate?

Chapter 5 traces the dynamics of our argument about the causes and consequences of IO withdrawal with three qualitative case studies: the US’ withdrawal from the ILO from 1977–1980, Japan’s withdrawal from the IWC in 2019, and the UK’s withdrawal from the EU in 2020. The cases show how states often think of withdrawal as a negotiation tool and highlight states’ long-term striving for “better” institutional arrangements through other mechanisms of “voice” before exit. In each case, we use archival research and media sources to document that the desire for IO change prompted exit, that states used withdrawal threats for negotiation, and that negotiation prior to withdrawal happened but fell short of the state’s goals, leading to withdrawal. In the cases of the ILO and IWC, negotiation continued while the state was a non-member and led to its return in the case of the ILO. The case studies also underscore the effects of withdrawal: Each of the withdrawing states suffered negative reputational and cooperative consequences and sometimes material consequences from withdrawal. International actors chastised withdrawing states, and the withdrawers then engaged in rhetorical stigma management to try to lessen the impact.

Governments and regulatory agencies make policy through a range of instruments from soft-law guidelines and executive orders to executive rules with the force of law. Based on her book, Democracy and Executive Power, Susan Rose-Ackerman’s essay highlights the link between cross-country differences in rulemaking practices and underlying constitutional frameworks. Based on the US, the UK, Germany, and France, the chapter illustrates how these countries’ disparate constitutional structures help to explain their divergent rulemaking practices. She stresses the existence of policymaking accountability under the rulemaking provisions of the US APA and its absence from the other cases. Nevertheless, whatever the legal framework, the author argues that bureaucrats should take account of outside input as they implement statutory language to make policy choices. The organization of the executive branch should encourage public input and promote bureaucratic competence. Contemporary pressures may indeed be moving all of these countries toward more accountable procedures – not just to protect individual rights but also to enhance the democratic legitimacy of executive rulemaking.

Considers the international law and practice around asset recovery. Starts with UNCAC Chapter 5 and its genesis, and covers what human rights bodies have said on asset recovery and return. Summarizes the national law of major asset-holding states on recovery and return, and looks at four different models for returning assets to states where they were stolen while avoiding those same assets being re-stolen. Considers some of the complications of asset return where the same networks responsible for stealing them are still in power.