As a standard bridging law and other spheres of normativity, due diligence is pervasive across numerous areas of international law. This paper defines the features and functions of due diligence, illustrating how the concept's development reflects structural changes in the international legal order. Concerning their content, due diligence obligations can be separated into two overlapping types: procedural obligations and obligations relating to States' institutional capacity. Thus, due diligence serves to manage risks, compensate for States' freedoms being circumscribed through legalisation, expand State accountability and possibly stabilise the international order through ‘proceduralisation’. However, it is argued that due diligence cannot be characterised as a general principle of international law due to its diverse content in different fields of international law and its dependence on accompanying primary rules. Finally, it is contended that due diligence introduces certain risks, particularly by diluting States' substantive obligations and contributing to the rise of ‘informal’ international law.
Browse by title
Anne Peters, Heike Krieger and Leonhard Kreuzer
Catherine Drummond and Patrick Simon Perillo
Some optimistic heterodox economists felt that the effects of the global financial crisis might open the door for a new approach capable of providing a better understanding of how a monetary production economy works. However, this hope quickly evaporated as mainstream economists regained their confidence and the orthodox paradigm reasserted its ascendency, albeit in a slightly modified form. Three questions follow; first, how was mainstream economics able to maintain its hegemony? Second, is it nevertheless feasible that the mainstream paradigm could be challenged in the foreseeable future? Third, do heterodox economists have enough in common to work together as part of a coherent alternative approach? In a series of in-depth interviews with leading economists from different schools; Austrian, monetarist, New-Keynesian, Post-Keynesian, Modern Monetary Theory, Marxist, Sraffian and Institutionalist, as well as policy–makers, the book aims to shed light upon the behaviour of economists and the sociology of the economics profession by enabling economists to express their views on a wide range of issues. I hope to provide a stimulating resource for researchers who are interested in understanding the pre-suppositions that underpin the way key thinkers theorise and to reveal the opinions of key thinkers regarding the most important issues that the discipline might address going forward.
Giuseppe Fontana, Riccardo Realfonzo and Marco Veronese Passarella
The 2010s have witnessed a new shift in central banking and, partially at least, in monetary economics and macroeconomic modelling. It is a fact that the endogenous money theory has been gradually clawing back popularity at the expense of the classical theory of interest rates, the financial intermediation view of banks, the money-multiplier story and the quantity theory of money. However, the loanable funds theory and the view of banks as pure financial intermediaries (sometimes coupled with the money-multiplier story) are still sometimes invoked. In addition, the dynamic process of creation, circulation and destruction of money is usually neglected. The point is that money endogeneity is still regarded by many mainstream economists as a mere empirical fact, not a key feature of capitalist market-based economies to be properly explained by a logically consistent theory. By contrast, dissenting economists have further advanced the endogenous money view through: (a) a generalised theory of the endogenous process of money creation; (b) the increasing popularity of modern monetary theory in the public debate; and (c) the development of aggregative stock–flow consistent models and agent-based stock–flow consistent models as an alternative to dynamic stochastic general equilibrium models.
This paper provides an alternative view of monetary sovereignty (MS) from the Neo-Chartalist approach found in the Modern Money Theory literature. The differences between the author's approach to MS and Neo-Chartalism cover the following aspects: the nature of money, the acceptability of money, and the relationship between the central bank and the Treasury. The paper then analyses the relationship between MS, the currency hierarchy (CH), and policy space. The focus is placed on emerging-market economies. It is argued that emerging-market economies' policy space is determined by the interplay of two factors: the degree of MS and the position of national money (that encompasses the state and bank monies) within the CH.