|
|
|
| The Spillover Effect of Treaties on Business Actors |
| Li Boxuan |
| School of International Law, China University of Political Science and Law, Beijing 102249, China |
|
|
|
|
Abstract States are a basic subject of international law, and they are also the commonest parties to treaties. As a state enters into a treaty, the obligations in the treaty shall be directly assumed by the state. However, the objective of a treaty is often achieved with the help of non-state actors. Under such circumstances, when implementing the treaty domestically, the contracting states need to transform their obligations in the treaty into the regulation of their domestic actors including the business actors.In accordance with the traditional theory of the law of treaties, the preconditions for the binding force of a treaty on the business actors of the contracting states are that the treaty must be adopted, come into force and be implemented domestically by the contracting states. In other words, such binding force can only be indirectly established by a 2-phase effect conduction from treaties in force to contracting states and then from contracting states to business actors. However, this article explores another possible way that a treaty can influence business actors, which is called the spillover effect. The effect reveals that even if a treaty temporarily or finally fails to be adopted, come into force or be implemented domestically by the contracting states, it is still likely to have direct and de facto binding force on business actors. The effect may occur anytime prior to the domestic implementation of a treaty.There are two main reasons for the occurrence of the spillover effect. The first one is the regulatory threat brought about by an imminent treaty. Before the aforementioned effect conduction is established, an imminent treaty is to business actors a signal of regulatory threat encouraging them to resort to self-discipline. The other is the business actor’s instinct of seeking benefits and avoiding disadvantages. Self-discipline by business actors prior to the establishment of the aforementioned effect conduction results from the benefits of participation that they may have. Business actors can take the initiative of regulation and build a good image by such preemption strategies.Interests of states are inherently conflicting, so it is usually not easy for states to cooperate. As for treaties, such difficulty in cooperation manifests itself as difficulty in concluding a new treaty, obstacle for a treaty to coming into force and abandonment of a treaty in force by the contracting states. The spillover effect signifies that even a treaty that does not go through the whole process of adoption, coming into force and domestic implementation still can have direct and de facto binding force on business actors. The effect is useful in breaking the current predicament of treaty-based governance. Additionally, in the aforementioned effect conduction, business actors have to passively accept the obligations imposed on them by the contracting states. By contrast, in the context of the spillover effect, business actors are treated as both the subject and the object of governance. The union of the dual features of business actors helps to improve the regulatory effectiveness of treaties on them.Nowadays China is taking an active part in the negotiation and conclusion of a series of treaties, which reflects its attempt to make its voices heard in the international community. The spillover effect provides China with a new way of participating in global governance by virtue of treaties. So as to trigger the spillover effect and take full advantage of its values in breaking the predicament of treaty-based governance and improving the regulatory effectiveness of treaties on business actors, China is supposed to increase the exposure of treaties in progress and make the best use of international soft law as a prelude to treaties.
|
|
Received: 28 April 2021
|
|
|
|
1 何志鹏： 《国际法治：一个概念的界定》，《政法论坛》2009年第4期，第63-81页。
2 钱静、肖永平： 《全球治理视阈下的国际法治构建》，《学习与实践》2016年第11期，第57-63页。
3 李浩培： 《条约法概论》，北京：法律出版社，2003年。
4 俞可平： 《经济全球化与治理的变迁》，《哲学研究》2000年第10期，第17-24页。
5 毛俊响、盛喜： 《跨国公司社会责任的确立：基于横向人权义务的补充分析》，《中南大学学报（社会科学版）》2017年第4期，第27-36页。
6 Radu Mares、张万洪： 《工商业与人权的关键议题及其在新时代的意义——以联合国工商业与人权指导原则为中心》，《西南政法大学学报》2018年第2期，第43-51页。
7 Parella K.， “Treaty penumbras，” University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Law， Vol. 38， No. 2 （2017）， pp. 275-333.
8 沈灏： 《〈关于汞的水俣公约〉与我国法律规范面的履约因应路径》，《南京大学学报（哲学·人文科学·社会科学）》2018年第4期，第55-64页。
9 Helfer L. R.， “Understanding change in international organizations： globalization and innovation in the ILO，” Vanderbilt Law Review， Vol. 59， No. 3 （2006）， pp. 649-728.
10 常健、郭薇： 《行业自律的定位、动因、模式和局限》，《南开学报（哲学社会科学版）》2011年第1期，第133-140页。
11 Héritier A. & Eckert S.， “New modes of governance in the shadow of hierarchy： self-regulation by industry in Europe，” Journal of Public Policy， Vol. 28， No. 1 （2008）， pp. 113-138.
12 Stefanadis C.， “Self-regulation， innovation， and the financial industry，” Journal of Regulatory Economics， Vol. 23， No. 1 （2003）， pp. 5-25.
13 Stango V.， “Strategic responses to regulatory threat in the credit card market，” The Journal of Law and Economics， Vol. 46， No. 2 （2003）， pp. 427-452.
14 胡辉华、段珍雁： 《论我国行业协会自律职能失效的根源》，《暨南学报（哲学社会科学版）》2012年第7期，第 58-63页。
15 Lenox M. J.， “The role of private decentralized institutions in sustaining industry self-regulation，” Organization Science， Vol. 17， No. 6 （2006）， pp. 677-690.
16 常健、郭薇： 《论行业自律的作用及其实现条件》，《理论与现代化》2011年第4期，第113-119页。
17 郭薇： 《政府监管与行业自律——论行业协会在市场治理中的功能与实现条件》，北京：中国社会科学出版社，2011年。
18 Maxwell J. W.， Lyon T. P. & Hackett S. C.， “Self-regulation and social welfare： the political economy of corporate environmentalism，” The Journal of Law and Economics， Vol. 43， No. 2 （2000）， pp. 583-617.
19 Wotruba T. R.， “Industry self-regulation： a review and extension to a global setting，” Journal of Public Policy & Marketing， Vol. 16， No. 1 （1997）， pp. 38-54.
20 Moon S.， “Corporate environmental behaviors in voluntary programs： does timing matter？” Social Science Quarterly， Vol. 89， No. 5 （2008）， pp. 1102-1120.
21 Barnett M. L. & King A. A.， “Good fences make good neighbors： a longitudinal analysis of an industry self-regulatory institution，” Academy of Management Journal， Vol. 51， No. 6 （2008）， pp. 1150-1170.
22 Ingram P. & Inman C.， “Institutions， intergroup competition， and the evolution of hotel populations around Niagara Falls，” Administrative Science Quarterly， Vol. 41， No. 12 （1996）， pp. 629-658.
23 佟家栋、何欢、涂红： 《逆全球化与国际经济新秩序的开启》，《南开学报（哲学社会科学版）》2020年第2期，第1-9页。
24 刘志云： 《论国家利益与国际法的关系演变》，《世界经济与政治》2014年第5期，第33-48页。
25 王逸舟： 《国家利益再思考》，《中国社会科学》2002年第2期，第160-170页。
26 李少军： 《论国家利益》，《世界经济与政治》2003年第1期，第4-9页。
27 刘雪莲、张松梅： 《全球化进程的矛盾性与中国的作为》，《吉林大学社会科学学报》2020年第2期，第119-126页。
28 宋伟： 《国家利益的界定与外交政策理论的建构》，《太平洋学报》2015年第8期，第22-32页。
29 刘芳雄： 《全球化、社会公平与劳工权益保护》，《中州学刊》2008年第2期，第122-124页。
30 王利明： 《人格权法研究》，北京：中国人民大学出版社，2005年。
31 李燕： 《限制与保护：公共健康领域的个人隐私权》，《政法论丛》2017年第2期，第76-83页。
32 俞可平： 《全球治理引论》，《马克思主义与现实》2002年第1期，第20-32页。
33 薛安伟、张道根： 《全球治理的主要趋势、诱因及其改革》，《国际经济评论》2020年第1期，第94-107页。
34 马忠法、赵建福： 《全球治理语境下的商业组织与国际法》，《学海》2020年第1期，第166-176页。
35 刘宏松： 《中国参与全球治理70年：迈向新形势下的再引领》，《国际观察》2019年第6期，第1-21页。
36 Senden L.， Soft Law in European Community Law， Glidden： Hart Publishing， 2004.
37 Abbott K. W. & Snidal D.， “Hard and soft law in international governance，” International Organization， Vol. 54， No. 3 （2000）， pp. 421-456.
38 徐崇利： 《全球治理与跨国法律体系：硬法与软法的“中心—外围”之构造》，《国外理论动态》2013年第8期，第19-28页。
39 Chinkin C. M.， “The challenge of soft law： development and change in international law，” International and Comparative Law Quarterly， Vol. 38， No. 4 （1989）， pp. 850-866.
40 陈海明： 《国际软法论纲》，《学习与探索》2018年第11期，第87-93页。 |
|
|
|
2021, Vol. 51 
