IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bpj/lawdev/v14y2021i2p689-722n4.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Can a Complicated “Consensus” Survive a Dose of Populist Poison? Exploring the Potential Impact of Brexit and Trumpism on the Developed Country Approach to Trade Law and Policy

Author

Listed:
  • Stacy Sean

    (Universität Bern World Trade Institute, Bern, 3012, Switzerland)

Abstract

Among wealthier, so-called “developed” nations, a consistent and shared policy orientation on trade has generally prevailed over the last three quarters of a century. This consensus has been hallmarked by the promotion of freer trade facilitated by a state-centric, rules-based legal system. While most wealthy countries appear to desire a continued fidelity to that policy orthodoxy, the United Kingdom’s (UK’s) ‘Brexit’ decision and the United States’ (US’) increasingly antagonistic stance toward World Trade Organization (WTO) dispute settlement beg the question as to whether fissures in the consensus are forming. This paper examines the depth of the perceived consensus and the degree to which US and UK actions signify a turning point. As part of this examination, populism’s role in promoting change in the US, UK and beyond, is explored.

Suggested Citation

  • Stacy Sean, 2021. "Can a Complicated “Consensus” Survive a Dose of Populist Poison? Exploring the Potential Impact of Brexit and Trumpism on the Developed Country Approach to Trade Law and Policy," The Law and Development Review, De Gruyter, vol. 14(2), pages 689-722, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:bpj:lawdev:v:14:y:2021:i:2:p:689-722:n:4
    DOI: 10.1515/ldr-2021-0048
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1515/ldr-2021-0048
    Download Restriction: For access to full text, subscription to the journal or payment for the individual article is required.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1515/ldr-2021-0048?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bpj:lawdev:v:14:y:2021:i:2:p:689-722:n:4. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Peter Golla (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.degruyter.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.