Foreign Relations Law

The concept of “Networked multilateralism” has recently emerged, particularly within the UN framework, as a compelling vision of future global governance, calling for stronger cooperation among the numerous institutions and actors within the fragmented global governance system. This essay develops this concept against the backdrop of conventional theories of fragmentation in International Law scholarship and regime complexity in International Relations scholarship, with a focus on cooperation between IOs as pivotal global governance actors. It identifies three key challenges: the cooperation dilemma facing IOs when confronting multisectoral, cross-border problems; the need for mechanisms that foster proactive inter-IO cooperation; and the necessity of revisiting perceptions of global governance, IOs, and multilateralism. The essay argues that existing theoretical and governance frameworks inadequately address these challenges and proposes a shift towards networked multilateralism. This approach recognizes IOs as independent-yet-interdependent actors within a broader global governance network, rather than as isolated structures governing discrete sectors of international affairs. Effective networked multilateralism, therefore, requires reconceptualization and practical reforms to IOs’ mandates and operations. By expanding traditional notions of multilateralism and emphasizing inter-IO cooperation, this approach seeks to enhance the ability of international law and its institutions to deliver coordinated responses to multisectoral challenges, thus better meeting the complex demands of the 21st century.

This Comment discusses the recent and ongoing substantial expansion of the Foreign Direct Product Rule (FDPR) and evaluates the extent to which, as the scope of the FDPR expands, it is increasingly in tension with both international and domestic law. This Comment analyzes the viability of the available legal and procedural mechanisms, both international and domestic, to challenge or halt the FDPR’s expansion. Finally, this Comment cautions that the low likelihood of companies seeking and prevailing on such relief suggests that further expansion of the FDPR is particularly troubling.

Bilateral labor agreements (BLAs) aim to facilitate the movement of temporary migrant workers between countries. So far, studies of BLAs have focused on whether they have effects on migration flows. Despite countries entering hundreds of BLAs, evidence for their effects on migration flows remains limited. Yet, even if BLAs have limited material effects, they may still have important symbolic effects. On this topic, this Comment highlights BLAs’ potential to change rhetoric about international migration among heads of state. Drawing on an original empirical analysis focused on BLAs with the Philippines, the Comment analyzes how BLAs may influence leaders’ expressed attitudes toward international migration during United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) debates. Results reveal significant positive shifts in sentiment about international migration after countries form BLAs with the Philippines. The improved sentiment has a limited duration, however, diminishing after initial surges. Considering these findings, the Comment contributes to three bodies of legal scholarship, namely, those dealing with (1) the need for more social science research in international law, (2) the socioeconomic and political effects of BLAs, and (3) the utility of international agreements to constrain or prompt change in state action. Ultimately, the Comment calls for a comprehensive assessment of international agreements, recognizing their ability to affect not only intended outcomes but also high-profile symbolic outcomes.