English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Professor Petersmann has developed a constitutionalization theory for IEL based on Western constitutionalism theory in conjunction with human rights law. However, there is a paradox in his theory considering that he stresses ‘legal pluralism’ on the one hand, while calling for a cosmopolitan conception of IEL on the other hand. The hypothesis of this paper is that there are no ‘universalizable’ principles and common constitutional principles that can guarantee the compatibility between the two. Petersmann’s three often-used keywords, ‘human rights,’ “principles of justice,” and “judicial protection of individual rights,” are clarified in the context of Chinese thought and China’s progressive integration into the world economy. This paper finds that Petersmann’s theory focuses on bottom-up individual struggles, whereas Chinese thought is characterized by top-down overall consideration. The value divergence between the goodness of human nature in Chinese thought and the evil of human nature in Western thought makes ‘legal pluralism’ an insurmountable obstacle to a cosmopolitan conception of IEL. China and WTO Review

Pluralism or Cosmopolitanism? Reflections on Petersmann’s International Economic Law Constitutionalism in the Context of China