► Full Reference: Frison-Roche, M.-A., Globalization from the point of view of Law, working paper, May 2017.

____

🎤 This working paper initially served as a basis for a synthesis report made in French in the colloquium organized by the Association Henri Capitant in the International German Days on the subject of "Le Droit et la Mondialisation" (Law and Globalization).

📝 Il sert dans un second temps de base à l'article paru dans l'ouvrage La Mondialisation.

📝 it serves as a second basis for the article (written in English, with a Spanish Summary) to be published in the Brezilian journal Rarb - Revista de Arbitragem e Mediação  (Revue d`Arbitrage et Médiation).

It uses the Bilingual Dictionary of the Law of Regulation and Compliance.

____

► Summary of the Working: Globalization is a confusing phenomenon for the jurist. The first thing to do is to take its measure. Once it has been taken, it is essential that we allow ourselves to think of something about it, even if we have to think about it. For example, on whether the phenomenon is new or not, which allows a second assessment of what is taking place. If, in so far as the law can and must "pretend" to defend every being, a universal claim destined to face the global field of forces, the following question - but secondary - is formulated: quid facere? Nothing ? Next to nothing ? Or regulate? Or can we still claim that the Law fulfills its primary duty, which is to protect the weak, including the forces of globalization?

____

read the Working Paper below⤵️

If one admits that Regulation is identified by the balancing of the principle of competition with another principle, a-competitive or anti-competitive, then peace is destined to slip into this technical definition of Regulation . So, it is possible to conceive relagulating of trade in terms of peace.
Indeed, if we consider that liberalism has links with competition, we can instead consider economic mechanisms which are "colored" by the concern for social justice, equitable distribution of wealth. For example the construction of infrastructure for the future common good can be interpreted as being relied on the concept of peace, conceived as Kantian project. Organized in this sensee, the regulation belongs to the public international law.
But we can design a system in a more economic perspective, more for the right business. Thus, the example "oil against food" program that you can just read it as a regulation of commerce, shows this sort of trade regulation is built to engender peace negatively  preventing build up war chests and allowing the citizens to be transformed in consumers.Furthermore, when the limitation of the rights of creditors had been done ​​by CERDI , it had been on behalf of the right of States to exercise a power expressly to "regulate" its money in disfavor th creditors but to bring peace through devaluation so that citizens can remain consumers.

Can we go further? Can we go beyond casuistry?