Law and Development. Balancing Principles and Values.

Kobe University Monograph Series in Social Science Research Series Editor Takashi Yanagawa, Professor, Kobe University, Kobe, Japan The Kobe University Monograph Series in Social Science Research is an exciting interdisciplinary collection of monographs, both authored and edited, that encompass scholarly research not only in the economics but also in law, political science, business and management, accounting, international relations, and other sub-disciplines within the social sciences. As a national university with a special strength in the social sciences, Kobe University actively promotes interdisciplinary research. This series is not limited only to research emerging from Kobe University’s faculties of social sciences but also welcomes cross-disciplinary research that integrates studies in the arts and sciences. Kobe University, founded in 1902, is the second oldest national higher education institution for commerce in Japan and is now a preeminent institution for social science research and education in the country. Currently, the social sciences section includes four faculties—Law, Economics, Business Administration, and International Cooperation Studies—and the Research Institute for Economics and Business Administration (RIEB). There are some 230-plus researchers who belong to these faculties and conduct joint research through the Center for Social Systems Innovation and the Organization for Advanced and Integrated Research, Kobe University. This book series comprises academic works by researchers in the social sciences at Kobe University as well as their collaborators at affiliated institutions, Kobe University alumni and their colleagues, and renowned scholars from around the world who have worked with academic staff at Kobe University. Although traditionally the research of Japanese scholars has been publicized mainly in the Japanese language, Kobe University strives to promote publication and dissemination of works in English in order to further contribute to the global academic community. Series Editor Takashi Yanagawa, Professor, Kobe University, Kobe, Japan Editorial Board Members Koji Yamazaki, Professor, Kobe University Kenji Yamamoto, Professor, Kobe University Yoshihide Fujioka, Professor, Kobe University Naoya Mori, Professor, Kobe University Masahiro Enomoto, Professor, Kobe University More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/16115 Piotr Szwedo Richard Peltz-Steele Dai Tamada • • Editors Law and Development Balancing Principles and Values 123 Editors Piotr Szwedo Law and Administration Jagiellonian University Kraków, Poland Richard Peltz-Steele School of Law University of Massachusetts Dartmouth Dartmouth, MA, USA Dai Tamada Graduate School of Law Kobe University Kobe, Hyogo, Japan ISSN 2524-504X ISSN 2524-5058 (electronic) Kobe University Monograph Series in Social Science Research ISBN 978-981-13-9422-5 ISBN 978-981-13-9423-2 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-9423-2 © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019, corrected publication 2019 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publishers, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publishers, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publishers nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publishers remain neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. The registered company address is: 152 Beach Road, #21-01/04 Gateway East, Singapore 189721, Singapore Introduction Development is a heavily loaded term. With the fast pace of scientific discovery and the deepening tendrils of globalisation that have become characteristic of contemporary social life across the globe, development has become a recurring and convenient shorthand term across a myriad of contexts. For instance, the term development is invoked to describe the maturation of the body and mind, the multiplication of social opportunity, the expansion of an economy, and innovation in art and science. The term is a particularly appealing semantic choice as it connotes progress. Development may be taken to insinuate that humanity is—or ought to be—fundamentally concerned with purposeful growth, realisation, and the incremental march towards Utopia. It is not uncommon for people to conceptualise the pursuit of their ambitions as development. In fact, who could, or would want to appear to, be against development? Yet experience has shown that the meaning of development is very much a subjective matter; it is a question of perspective. When one seeks to define development—a necessary task if policies must be devised to achieve it—suddenly the term proves curiously evasive. For, as it turns out, the development that tracks innocent infancy to weathered maturity may also describe the consuming proliferation of some malignancy. The development that fosters an economy from simple localised barter to sophisticated global trade is also a process that may enrich the elites yet crush the impoverished. The development that cultivates one’s social and cultural identity also may incite nationalism and tribalism. Etymologically, development has its roots in the Old French verb desveloper. The prefix des- within this context has the meaning of ‘apart’, and the root velop (or velup) signifies to wrap up.1 In Latin and Italian, viluppare means to enwrap/to bundle.2 However, the terms progress and growth, which in everyday use, may serve as synonyms of development, have different etymological origins: progress, 1 Walter W. Skeat, A Concise Etymological Dictionary of the English Language (Cosimo Classics, 2005) New York, p. 139. 2 The Compact Edition of the Oxford English Dictionary, vol. I, (Oxford University Press, 1971), pp. 279–280. v vi Introduction from Latin pro- meaning forward and gradi for to walk. Progress is thus to move forward.3 Growth is based on the verb to grow, having its roots in various Germanic languages, including Old English and various Scandinavian languages, and is related to the process of the production of shoots in plants.4 Interestingly, the above etymological analysis paints progress and growth as a one-way operation of increase—a rather linear process—whereas development seems to be a process of multidirectional character. It is therefore legitimate to expect that the term development as a normative and discursive concept may well be distinct and more complex and multifaceted than its synonyms in everyday use. What is more, development is a phenomenon that is often qualified by some descriptor. Invariably, there is a development of—e.g., human development, economic development, community development, or state development, and so on. The nature of the subject determines the character of the process. This statement leads to a distinction between personal development understood as self-realisation within the context of individual freedom, and the development of communities based on the idea of the common good or interest. The scope of what is defined to be common in particular cases determines the need to put aside or relegate particular interests and privileges. This statement is true for relations between both individuals and collectives/states. At the level of international law and international relations, development is also conceptualised as a meta-value that encompasses other legally entrenched values. More than sixty years ago the United Nations General Assembly observed that: ‘a balanced and integrated social and economic development would contribute towards the promotion and maintenance of peace and security, social progress and better standards of living, and observance of, and respect for, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all’.5 The underpinnings of a human right to development were conceptualised even earlier, in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948. Article 22 provides that: ‘[e]veryone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realisation, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organisation and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality’.6 The above-cited provision provides two relationships that are key in understanding the complexity of development: namely the connection of development with human dignity and with international cooperation. Development is instrumental to other values and has an important goal: namely the championing of human dignity. Our inherent dignity is at the same time the ‘foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world’, as the 1948 Declaration’s Preamble stipulates in its 3 Walter W. Skeat, A Concise Etymological Dictionary, fn. 1, p. 413. Icel. grōa, Dan. groe, Swed. gro; ibidem, p. 224. 5 United Nations General Assembly Resolution 1161 (XII), Balanced and Integrated Economic and Social Progress, UN Doc. A/3716 (1957). 6 United Nations General Assembly Resolution 217 (III), A Universal Declaration of Human Rights, UN Doc. A/811 (1948). 4 Introduction vii first sentence. The way of understanding human dignity influences the perception of other human rights and of development. As dignity is a multidimensional notion, the legal and normative conceptualisation of development still requires a comprehensive approach, which the present publication aspires to apply. Arguably, legal analyses that take place within rigid positivistic frameworks lead to inevitable reductions and circularities in thinking. Imprecise legal terms are defined by other, often blurry, legal concepts. In order to avoid ignotum per ignotuis approaches to such matters, legal methodology ought to be expanded by reference to other social and human sciences: history, economics, anthropology, and ethics.7 Most often dignity is only understood it its modern, Kantian, sense. However, its predominant understanding in international legal scholarship8 may be isolated from alternative achievements in the study of ethics. Dignity’s role in the approach to sustainable development gives it a strong anthropocentric character. Together with its inclinations towards human rights, it serves the re-theorisation of international law, which has traditionally been based on the paradigm of sovereign states. The idea of a global community of individuals that coexists in parallel with an international community of states gives rise to important arguments for the construction of a New Global Law.9 Article 22 of the 1948 Universal Declaration also states that development may necessitate cooperation. This statement also has both legal and ethical implications. The term ‘cooperation’ has its roots in the Latin prefix co- ‘together’ + operari ‘to work’.10 Development is therefore based on common action and may not be achieved differently but through work. On an ethical level, and according to the Book of Genesis, man was put in the Garden of Eden ‘to work’ (Lat. ut operaretur, Genesis 2, 15). Therefore, the obligation to work was not a punishment but an integral part of human convocation. Within such reasoning, the duty of states to cooperate with one another is merely a consequence of this very early and fundamental ethical imperative. Cooperation is not only an obligation but also a means of achieving other objectives such as addressing international problems of an economic, social, cultural, and humanitarian character (cf. arts. 1, 55 and 56 of the United Nations Charter). What is more, cooperation is also essential for the achievement of sustainable development.11 The Preamble to the United Nations General Assembly 1986 Declaration on the Right to Development states that: ‘[d]evelopment is a comprehensive economic, 7 Catholic Social Teaching refers to both concepts in key circulars such as Dignitatis humanae of the Second Vatican Council and Populorum progressio by Pope Paul VI. 8 Cf., Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law, available at: http://opil.ouplaw.com/ home/EPIL, paras. 5 and 6. 9 Rafael Domingo, The New Global Law (Cambridge University Press, 2010). 10 Oxford Dictionary of English, ed. by Angus Stevenson (Oxford University Press, 2010), p. 384. 11 The latter term has gradually displaced the ‘permanent sovereignty over natural resources’ in international legal documents, cf. 2005 World Summit Outcome, UN General Assembly Resolution A/RES/60/1, especially paras 48–56; cf., Nico Schrijver, Natural Resources, Permanent Sovereignty over, in Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law, fn. 10, para. 16. viii Introduction social, cultural and political process, which aims at the constant improvement of the well-being of the entire population and of all individuals on the basis of their active, free and meaningful participation in development and the fair distribution of benefits resulting therefrom’.12 Development is vital for international economic relations where the need for the harmonisation of economic progress and of other non-mercantile considerations is becoming essential. There has been an important shift in this field of international law following the entry into force of the 1994 Marrakech Agreement establishing the World Trade Organization. In its Preamble, the ‘expansion of production and trade in goods and services’ is balanced with ‘optimal use of the world’s resources in accordance with the objective of sustainable development’.13 A similar conceptualisation of sustainable development is also present in the 1987 Brudtland Report where is based on two elements: the concept of ‘needs’, in particular the essential needs of the world’s poor, to which overriding priority should be given; and the idea of the limitations imposed by the state of technology and social organisation on the environment’s ability to meet current and future needs.14 This definition assumes that development ought not to take place in isolation between different communities. It requires economic cooperation and aid, but, moreover, the creation of equitable opportunities for all.15 Development is therefore based on an ethical dilemma: either it takes place with due regard to the needs of others—namely the poor in other parts of the world and of future generations or no development takes place whatsoever. Sustainable development is not a fixed state of harmony; rather, it is a process of change striving to be consistent with the present and future needs.16 It is a process in which, although, law plays an important role; other normative orders are also implicated; therefore, development should not be analysed only in relation to one of them. Here, Ermanno Calzolaio counsels caution, invoking Javolenus’s maxim, omnis definitio in iure periculosa est (i.e. any definition in law is dangerous). Development has many faces. We err when we idolise development per se, placing it upon a pedestal as an axiomatic end in and of itself. Rather, our task should be the mastery of development as a pliant tool, a means to the ends that we choose— whether they be economic growth, environmental protection, human rights, or comprehensive human happiness. Mastery begins with understanding. If development is not reducible to some common meaning, then it can never be more than a vacuous rhetorical device of convenience. At the core of development, as a prerequisite to the realisation of its true potential, there must lie some universality of scope. 12 Adopted by General Assembly resolution 41/128 of 4 December 1986 (A/RES/41/128). Agreement establishing the World Trade Organization, adopted in Marrakesh on 15 April 1994 (UNTS, vol. 1867, at 154). 14 Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development (the Brudtland Report), Our Common Future (1987), p. 41. 15 Ibidem, p. 42. 16 Ibidem, p. 17. 13 Introduction ix The present publication represents neither the initial nor the final efforts of imbuing the term development with meaning, though we hope that it represents steps in the right direction. A proper study of the notion of development is, as Calzolaio argues, ‘multifarious and multidisciplinary’. Ours is the search for the universality that is required to turn the development construct into reality—even if the reality manifests differently in different cultural contexts. It cannot suffice to examine development from one perspective alone, whether a perspective of nationality, cultural identity, ideology, or discipline per se. Myopic approaches to development are often organised in silos, expanding a self-referential vernacular that is increasingly impenetrable and meaningless to others involved in the pursuit of development, albeit preoccupied with silos of their own. Rather, a universal language of development, and a path towards mastery of development as means to worthy ends, must be explored through a vibrant trade in ideas and intellectual engagement. In that vein, the scholarly interrogation of the notion of development in the present publication reveals a concept much older and much better known to the human experience than do modern treatments. The contemporary sustainability movement hardly invented the notion of public regulation to preserve the ‘common heritage of mankind’. Franck Duhautoy finds that state control of water resources in Plato’s Ancient Greece was justified by the public interest. Tomáš Gábriš credits— or, perhaps, blames—the Ancient Greeks for our very conception of development as an invariably linear process. At the same time, Duhautoy finds that the commodification of vital resources is equally ancient. He traces the tension between res communes and privatisation, with an intriguing balance struck at res nullius, from Antiquity (namely Ancient Rome) to the Middle Ages, to, in turn, the present, concerning the exploration of the solar system. The same public–private tension plays out across socio-legal and cultural traditions, as witnessed in the Talmud, the Quran, and the modern customary law of Libya. Concerning current discussions on development, these parallel conceptual streams—one grounded in human heritage and collective social rights, the other in commodification and private economic rights—whilst they have on occasion been complementary, they are often competitive. Christine Mengès-Le Pape and George Garvey point to Pope Leo XIII’s 1891 Encyclical on the Rights and Duties of Capital and Labour (cf., Rerum Novarum), as a landmark effort to overcome this contradiction. The Vatican sought to temper the explosive economic growth of the Industrial Revolution with accountability for the social welfare of the workers who constituted the human engine of productive process. This demand—namely that development not forego humanity—became central to Catholic social teaching. Flavio Felice and Luca Sandonà examine the influence of this approach on the thought of Luigi Sturzo during his exile from fascist Italy, informing Sturzo’s conception of ‘constitutional economics’. More often than not, though, the social and economic emphases in development law and policy diverged in the twentieth century. Even when Sturzo was no longer persona non grata in post-war Italy, Christian Democratic economic planning embraced the European ordoliberalism of the day, enthroning competition, Felice x Introduction and Sandonà argue, as ‘the hermeneutical key of economic policy’. The exigency of post-war reconstruction threw the development needle full tilt in the direction of economics, drowning out the idealistic paeans of breakthrough human rights instruments such as the Universal Declaration—which, as Garvey observes, recently turned seventy. The ‘cultural decade’ of the 1960s brought to the fore the dichotomy of social and economic thinking concerning development. This tension can be detected in the World Bank’s investment dispute resolution treaty, a product of 1960s’ globalisation. In this vein, Tamada highlights the burgeoning controversy over whether social impact is relevant today to the legal interpretation of the term ‘investment’, as conceived half a century ago. Tracing a similar dynamic, Mengès-Le Pape and Garvey explain how the Vatican, with Pope Paul VI’s historic encyclical of 1967, Populorum Progressio, had championed the introduction of humanism into the global economic development agenda. This once bohemian notion of ‘integral humanism’ is now revived as perhaps humanity’s best chance for peace. For all the world’s efforts since the advent of the post-World War II world order, ‘the end of history’ seems to have never arrived. As Gábriš describes Fukuyama’s ultimate abandonment of the end-of-history thesis, neither the establishment of world government nor the neoliberal, post-Soviet ‘renaissance of constitutionalism’ has delivered the basic necessities of the world’s population, much less world peace. To generalise Gábriš’s analysis of Brian Tamanaha’s work, the simple equation development=modernisation has failed. The enterprise of development has turned out to be impossibly more complicated than any constituency had anticipated. Economic investment seems only to deepen economic dependence. Socialist planning seems unable to ignite ingenuity. Constitutional democracy seems only to aggravate inequality. Thus, Gábriš challenges us to consider that development is neither inevitably linear nor amenable to universal definition. To be sure, we may agree on universal ends, such as food security, shelter, clean air, and drinkable water. But development concerns means, not ends, and when speaking of means, one size does not fit all. In this vein, Zuzana Selementová discusses the concept of common but differentiated responsibilities (CBDR) as a necessary strategy in responding to climate change. Whilst the concept of CBDR still allows room for disagreement over the meaning of development, Selementová demonstrates that it is the traditional economic measures of development that fall short as they fail to account for human factors including access to education and health care. In fact, the failure of twentieth-century development policy, predicated principally on foreign aid, might have cleared the field for the conceptualisation and reconstruction of development in the very vein of integral humanism, as Mengès-Le Pape proposes, or, in Garvey’s terms, for an ‘integral development’. Today, there is much talk about sustainable development. Calzolaio explains the seemingly contradictory, if not arguably oxymoronic, nature of that term, as it seems intent on reconciling current economic growth and long-term environmental welfare. What is more, the term sustainable development sounds prospective, as it invokes the interests of future generations. But the term might as well be an effort to remedy our Introduction xi past failure to reconcile capitalism with humanism. Sustainable development has come to represent the far-ranging investigation of context that must inform our mastery of development from an integral perspective. If the meaning of development in the traditional economic context of investment disputes might be sufficiently elastic to accommodate factors including social welfare and cultural impact, as Tamada suggests, then the notion of sustainable development might be an apt vessel for a common but differentiated approach to development across the board. In fact, Daniel Zatorski proposes that sustainable development could do just that in relation to the world of commerce, as he links international sales law with corporate sustainability across the common ground of ethical values. Similarly, Adam Szafrański, Piotr Szwedo, and Małgorzata Klein reveal the tension that arises between free trade, on the one hand, and values in the area of Internet regulation, on the other. Unbridled capitalism, under the guise of free-market fundamentalism, threatens the deontological particularities and social fibre of disparate societies. For instance, the choice of a society to protect its minors from harm through exposure to adult content could be undermined by neoliberal demands to pare down regulation. They propose that the law of development can remedy such tensions by ensuring that economic prosperity does not demand as its price the debasement of social values. Perhaps unsurprisingly, this leveraging of economic advantage with integral humanism is strikingly reminiscent of Pope Leo XIII’s efforts to impart economic actors with the responsibility for human welfare. It was that very ‘logic of Christianity’, in Garvey’s words, through which Pope Francis has enfolded ‘human ecology’, namely by the inclusion of environmental sustainability into Catholic doctrine through the 2015 encyclical, Laudato Si’—124 years after the Rerum Novarum and by way of the Populorum Progressio. Is integral development within reach at last? There are rare examples, such as the case of South Africa, where the law has sought to command that development strives for worthy social goals while maintaining constitutional democracy. Arguably, South African efforts are reminiscent of Sturzo’s thought about the role of constitutional economics in real-world practice. Richard Peltz-Steele and Gaspar Kot explain that the post-apartheid constitutional process has been designed to radically shift power from governing institutions to human constituents, in part by transcending the classical divide between public and private sectors. As a result, the private sector is subject to public scrutiny. For instance, large-scale projects purported to be developmental are scrutinised to ensure that they are genuinely beneficial to communities and are not only likely to make the rich richer at the expense of the poorer layers of society. Peltz-Steele and Kot argue that the same mechanism might be equally useful in Europe, where states are wrestling with public investments aimed at stimulating private development. In the South African experience, the potential of sustainability to promote integral development is well demonstrated by the emergent complexity of problems in natural resource management. Jan Glazewski and Wojciech Bańczyk both demonstrate how South African legislators and jurists are thinking broadly about xii Introduction competing policies that purport to effect development. Similar to those who advocate a progressive approach to the interpretation of investment treaty obligations, South African authorities, in considering whether to approve commercial activity such as mineral extraction, often reject purely economic considerations. According to Bańczyk, these analyses properly consider the collateral impact on discrimination, poverty, labour, and civic participation, as well as the conservation of the environment. At the same time, Glazewski demonstrates that customary subsistence fishing can pit environmental conservation against social values such as cultural identity and reparation for past injustices. Unsurprisingly, deriving sound policy and replicable principles from such mélange of concurrent and competing priorities is easier said than done. So we find ourselves feeling our way forward in new territory, searching for a definition of development that will work hard enough to accomplish all we ask of it. When modern international institutions were born after World War II, we were content with development as an idealised path that emanated from the experience of the world’s most industrialised and prosperous nations. Foreign aid for aggressive modernisation was the requisite catalyst. Later, in a fit of neoliberalism, we reimagined development as a natural progression—an inevitable consequence of social and economic systems when left to their own devices. We redirected resources to facilitate free markets and personal responsibility. Neither of those strategies delivered us the better world we had imagined. And all the while, humanists from the sidelines had decried the fever pitch of economic drivers that seemed to churn social ruin in their wake. By the end of the twentieth century, a more nuanced approach to development began to emerge—one that rejects panoramic and panacean policymaking in favour of qualitative legal intervention in human, economic, and social activity. International institutions have assumed the ambitious agenda of mapping the highly interdependent economic, social, and cultural conditions that must be navigated to integrate a wide range of competing for policy priorities. Is there a new, pliant understanding of development, imbued with humanism, capable of placing us back on course towards the ‘end of history’, or placing our diverse humanity on many courses towards the ‘end of history’? As discussed earlier in this introduction, the term development comes to modern usage by way of Old French. Referring to the undoing of containment, or envelopment, developing is a ‘cousin’ to such terms as unfurling and unwrapping. As recently as the eighteenth century, the notion of a slow and steady progression was central to conceptualising development. Thus, the term suggests the gradual revelation of something within: something as yet unknown; something that, once revealed, is capable of changing our circumstances and our very nature. Therein lies the universality of development: not in its meaning as an ultimate end or destination, but our journey in its pursuit. We differ over methodology—over course. But we labour together to unfurl the revelation of our deliverance. Contents 1 “Law & Development” in the Light of Philosophy of (Legal) History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tomáš Gábriš 1 2 Populorum Progressio: Development and Law? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Christine Mengès-Le Pape 3 Luigi Sturzo’s Socio-economic Development Theory and the Case of Italy: No Prophet in His Homeland . . . . . . . . . . . . Flavio Felice and Luca Sandonà 31 International Financial Aid, Catholic Social Doctrine and Sustainable Integral Human Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . George Garvey 51 Common but Differentiated Responsibilities for Developed and Developing States: A South African Perspective . . . . . . . . . . . Zuzana Selementová 75 Must Investments Contribute to the Development of the Host State? The Salini Test Scrutinised . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dai Tamada 95 4 5 6 19 7 Water: The Common Heritage of Mankind? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115 Franck Duhautoy 8 Private-Sector Transparency as Development Imperative: An African Inspiration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131 Richard Peltz-Steele and Gaspar Kot 9 Between Economic Development and Human Rights: Balancing E-Commerce and Adult Content Filtering . . . . . . . . . . . 159 Adam Szafrański, Piotr Szwedo and Małgorzata Klein xiii xiv Contents 10 A Comparative Law Approach to the Notion of Sustainable Development: An Example from Urban Planning Law . . . . . . . . . . 179 Ermanno Calzolaio 11 Challenges Concerning ‘Development’: A Case-Study on Subsistence and Small-Scale Fisheries in South Africa . . . . . . . . 191 Jan Glazewski 12 Economic and Social Development in the Republic of South Africa’s New Model of Mineral Rights: Balancing Private Ownership, Community Rights, and Sovereignty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209 Wojciech Bańczyk 13 Sustainable Development as a New Trade Usage in International Sale of Goods Contracts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227 Daniel Zatorski Correction to: Between Economic Development and Human Rights: Balancing E-Commerce and Adult Content Filtering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Adam Szafrański, Piotr Szwedo and Małgorzata Klein C1 About the Editors Piotr Szwedo is Associate Professor (Dr. Habil) in the Department of Public International Law at Jagiellonian University (JU) in Krakow. He has authored and co-authored books in Polish (‘Środki odwetowe w prawie Światowej Organizacji Handlu’, Wolters Kluwer Poland 2008), English (‘Cross-Border Water Trade: Legal and Interdisciplinary Perspectives’, Brill 2018) and French (‘Injusticiabilité’, Mare et Martin 2014, ‘Les sources de droit dans les pays européens et francophones’, Mare et Martin 2017). He also published in the Journal of World Trade, I.CON International Journal of Constitutional Law, Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law, Denver Sports and Entertainment Law Journal, Catholic University Law Review and others. He also has been Visiting Lecturer at the universities of Kobe (2010, 2019), Nantes (2012), Marburg (2012), Kaunas (2013), Orléans (2013, 2014, 2016, 2017, 2018), Macerata (2017, 2018), Paris-Sorbonne University Abu Dhabi (2016, 2017) and China University of Political Science and Law (2019). His main areas of research are international economic law, water law and legal aspects of sustainable development. Richard Peltz-Steele is Chancellor Professor at the University of Massachusetts Law School in the USA. He teaches torts and comparative law and researches in information law and policy, and development and human rights. He has authored or co-authored a treatise on access to information and legal education casebooks on access to information and tort law. He has published on information law, data rights, and torts in US law reviews, most recently Villanova, Oklahoma, and Indiana International and Comparative; in the Punjab Research Journal Social Science (India); and in books in the USA and Europe. He serves on the editorial board of the Journal of Media Law and Ethics (USA) and has done peer review for journals in India, Netherlands and South Africa. He blogs at TheSavoryTort.com and tweets @RJPeltzSteele. Before moving to New England in 2011, he taught and advised on access to information law and policy in the state of Arkansas, holding appointments by the governor, the chief justice, and the legislature. xv xvi About the Editors Dai Tamada is Professor of International Law at the Graduate School of Law, Kobe University. He holds LL.M. (Kyoto University 2000) and Ph.D. (Kyoto University 2014). His research areas cover international dispute settlement, international investment law, law of treaties, and law of the sea. He has been Research Committee Member in several Government organs, including MOFA, METI and MOJ. His recent publications include Malgosia Fitzmaurice and Dai Tamada (eds.), Whaling in the Antarctic: Significance and Implications of the ICJ Judgment (Brill/Nijhoff, 2016), Dai Tamada and Philippe Achilleas (eds.), Theory and Practice of Export Control: Balancing International Security and International Economic Relations (Springer, 2017), and Dai Tamada, “The Japan-South Korea Comfort Women Agreement: Unfortunate Fate of a Non-Legally Binding Agreement”, International Community Law Review, vol. 20, no. 2 (2018), pp. 220–251.