TY - JOUR
AU - Sacerdoti, Giorgio
AB - Jerusalem Review of Legal Studies, Vol. 9, No. 1 (2014), pp. 1–12 doi:10.1093/jrls/jlt011 Published Advance Access October 21, 2013 Trade and Investment Law: Institutional Differences and Substantive Similarities Giorgio Sacerdoti* Introduction: the interconnection between trade and investment does not result in a unitary regime Ju¨rgen Kurtz has convincingly argued in favor of convergence in law-making, adjudication, and interpretation of relevant instruments between trade and in- vestment law. I will not dwell here on the reasons he has exposed for advocat- ing such convergence which I share and on the models he has analyzed. I would like to point out that these reasons reflect and are justified, as to the economic underpinning, by the ever closer link between international trade and international investment in the globalized economy of the early XXI century, where national economies are interconnected, and developments in any major economy directly influence the evolution of other economies. Financial markets are not and cannot be isolated, a state of affairs that is due also to the intentional choice by governments and their regulators in the last 20 years to proceed in the direction of deregulation of domestic financial markets, liberalization of cross-border movements of funds, and the encouragement 
TI - Trade and Investment Law: Institutional Differences and Substantive Similarities
JO - Jerusalem Review of Legal Studies
DO - 10.1093/jrls/jlt011
DA - 2014-06-21
UR - https://www.deepdyve.com/lp/oxford-university-press/trade-and-investment-law-institutional-differences-and-substantive-HA38sdOW60
SP - 1
EP - 12
VL - 9
IS - 1
DP - DeepDyve
ER -