Three pieces in the news today highlight that trade is more than trade (it’s strategic), international economic engagement by the U.S. is essential, and New York State law is central to international financial and contractual undertakings when involving foreign sovereigns. To me this continues to represent the importance to understanding the very broad nature of global trade, the critical role of U.S. trade policy, and the importance of law (both state and federal) in managing global trade relations. They amount to pillars of global commerce today. Here are some more details:
…… Former National Security Adviser Tom Donlon argues that the centerpiece of the U.S. economic balancing in Asia is the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement. It’s most important aim is not trade but strategic. Tom Donlon, “A Pivotal Time for the U.S. in Asia.” Washington Post (April 21, 2014).
…… A lead editorial in the Financial Times contends the U.S. may be backing off vital planks of its international economic engagement. Evidence of this includes congressional wobbling on the reauthorization of the Ex-Im Bank, not yet extending fast-track authority, and not approving its IMF quota. This is a troubling picture. “Battle Over Export Credit Harms U.S.” Financial Times (April 21, 2014).
…… The U.S. is the world’s largest economy and New York City is the global commercial capital of the world. It’s the application of New York State law to global transactions in both arbitration and litigation that adds stability to global commerce. Jonathan Macey of Yale Law School argues that Argentina law suit, now in the Supreme Court, to stop litigation against it for its international bond default is unfounded. He contends that the way to help sovereigns is by upholding their contracts and by applying state choice-of-law and choice-of-forum provisions. This demonstrates the inter-play between national and sub-national law and global transactions. This application of law enables a free global economy to operate. Jonathan Macey “How Argentina’s Default Could be New York’s Loss.” Wall Street Journal (April 21, 2014).