Table Of ContentMaria Rosaria Mauro
Federico Pernazza Editors
State and
Enterprise
Legal Issues in the Global Market
State and Enterprise
(cid:129)
Maria Rosaria Mauro Federico Pernazza
Editors
State and Enterprise
Legal Issues in the Global Market
Editors
MariaRosariaMauro FedericoPernazza
LawDepartment LawDepartment
UniversityofMolise UniversityofMolise
Campobasso,Italy Campobasso,Italy
ISBN978-3-031-10472-5 ISBN978-3-031-10473-2 (eBook)
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-10473-2
©SpringerNatureSwitzerlandAGandG.GiappichelliEditore2023
Thisworkissubjecttocopyright.AllrightsaresolelyandexclusivelylicensedbythePublisher,whether
thewholeorpartofthematerialisconcerned,specificallytherightsoftranslation,reprinting,reuseof
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
similarordissimilarmethodologynowknownorhereafterdeveloped.
Theuseofgeneraldescriptivenames,registerednames,trademarks,servicemarks,etc.inthispublication
doesnotimply,evenintheabsenceofaspecificstatement,thatsuchnamesareexemptfromtherelevant
protectivelawsandregulationsandthereforefreeforgeneraluse.
The publisher, the authors, and the editorsare safeto assume that the adviceand informationin this
bookarebelievedtobetrueandaccurateatthedateofpublication.Neitherthepublishernortheauthorsor
theeditorsgiveawarranty,expressedorimplied,withrespecttothematerialcontainedhereinorforany
errorsoromissionsthatmayhavebeenmade.Thepublisherremainsneutralwithregardtojurisdictional
claimsinpublishedmapsandinstitutionalaffiliations.
ThisSpringerimprintispublishedbytheregisteredcompanySpringerNatureSwitzerlandAG
Theregisteredcompanyaddressis:Gewerbestrasse11,6330Cham,Switzerland
Contents
GeneralIntroduction:StateandEnterpriseintheGlobalMarket. . . . . 1
MariaRosariaMauroandFedericoPernazza
PartI StateVersusEnterprise
TheNationalSecurityClausesinInternationalEconomicAgreements:
ALoopholeforStatestoEscapeTheirObligations?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
SaverioDiBenedetto
TheUSRegulationofForeignDirectInvestments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
AndreaGuaccero
GoldenPowersinStrategicSectors:AEuropeanPerspective. . . . . . . . . 93
GianlucaScarchillo
ThePRCRegulationofForeignDirectInvestments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
EnricoToti
PartII StateasEnterprise/EnterpriseasState
ManagementofPublicEconomicEntities:Fair,Accountable,and
Controlled. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
GuyHorsmansandGuillaumeHorsmans
TheRoleofState-OwnedEnterprisesintheEconomicTransnational
Relations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169
FedericoPernazza
TheEmergenceofSovereignWealthFundsasNew“Foreign
Investors”:ProblemsandPerspectives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215
MariaRosariaMauro
v
vi Contents
SustainableProcurement:TheActiveRoleoftheStateinBuilding
aSustainableandInclusiveEconomicGrowth. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 259
BarbaraDeDonnoandLiviaVentura
PartIII EnterpriseVersusState
TheRelationshipBetweenaHostStateandaForeignCorporate
Investor:AFewRemarksUnderInternationalandtheEULaw. . . . . . 285
PiaAcconci
AntitrustLawinDigitalMarkets. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 307
GianlucaContaldi
ClipTheirWings!Developmentsinthe“Fight”AgainstVulture
Funds. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 327
DomenicoPauciulo
WhentheProtectionofPrivateInvestorsPrevailsontheInterestof
theHostState(orAlmostSo):ThePerencov.EcuadorCase. . . . . . . . . 363
MartinaDiLollo
PartIV StateandEnterpriseinStateCapitalistEconomies
EmergingInternationalRulesonFairTradeandTheir
RevelationforReformofState-OwnedEnterprisesinChina. . . . . . . . . 387
QingjiangKong
WhiteStainsofStateSupportMeasuresforSmallandMedium-Sized
BusinessesinRussia. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 401
KseniyaTyurenkova
ReflectionsonForeignInvestmentandtheNewSubjectsontheCuban
Economy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 407
FreddyAndrésHungGil
PartV Conclusion
FinalRemarks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 419
DiegoCorapi
General Introduction: State and Enterprise
in the Global Market
MariaRosariaMauroandFedericoPernazza
Contents
1 StateandMarketintheInternationalOrderAfterWorldWarII............................ 2
2 TheTrendsofInternationalEconomicRelationsinthePost-WarScenarioandtheRole
ofMultinationalEnterprises(MNEs)inShapingInternationalTradeLaw................. 5
3 TheRiseandDemiseoftheRoleoftheStateintheMarket(1950–2000)................. 8
4 EnterpriseandInternationalTradeintheSecondHalfof20thCentury.................... 10
4.1 1950/1980:ThePredominanceoftheWesternMNEs................................ 10
4.2 1980/2000:Liberalization,Privatization,andRiseofFinancialMarketsandNew
Actors................................................................................... 11
5 TheEuropeanUnionApproachtotheState–EnterpriseRelation........................... 12
6 StateandMarketattheEndofthe20thCenturyandtheBeginningofthe21st
Century........................................................................................ 14
7 TheBusinessFirminthe21stCentury:FromtheShareholderValuePrincipletotheNew
RoleofSOEsandofSustainableMNEs..................................................... 18
8 TheImpactoftheCOVID-19PandemicandoftheRussia-UkraineConflicton
theInternationalEconomicRelations:fromtheSafeguardofNationalSecurityInterests
totheRiseofaSustainableGlobalEconomicGovernance................................. 24
Appendix.......................................................................................... 32
A.ValueofGlobalTradeinMillionsofUSDollarsatCurrentPricefrom1950to2019
(DataSource:UNCTAD)......................................................................... 32
B.ValueofGlobalFDIinMillionsofUSDollarsatCurrentPricefrom1970to2019
(DataSource:UNCTAD)......................................................................... 33
C.Trade:FlowofExports1950–1980(PercentageontheWorld’sTotal;DataSource:
UNCTAD)........................................................................................ 34
D.Trade:Imports1950–1980(PercentageontheWorld’sTotal;DataSource:
UNCTAD)........................................................................................ 35
E.FDI:Outward1970–1980(USDollarsatCurrentPricesinMillions;DataSource:
UNCTAD)........................................................................................ 36
F.FDI:Inward1970–1980(PercentageontheWorld’sTotal;DataSource:
UNCTAD)........................................................................................ 37
M.R.Mauroistheauthorof§§1,3,6,8;F.Pernazzaistheauthorof§§2,4,5,7.
M.R.Mauro·F.Pernazza(*)
LawDepartment,UniversityofMolise,Campobasso,Italy
e-mail:[email protected];[email protected]
©TheAuthor(s),underexclusivelicensetoSpringerNatureSwitzerlandAG2023 1
M.R.Mauro,F.Pernazza(eds.),StateandEnterprise,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-10473-2_1
2 M.R.MauroandF.Pernazza
G.Trade:Exports1980–2000(PercentageontheWorld’sTotal;DataSource:
UNCTAD)........................................................................................ 38
H.Trade:Imports1980–2000(PercentageontheWorld’sTotal;DataSource:
UNCTAD)........................................................................................ 39
I.FDI:Inward1980–2000(PercentageontheWorld’sTotal;DataSource:
UNCTAD)........................................................................................ 40
J.FDI:Outward1980–2000(PercentageontheWorld’sTotal;DataSource:
UNCTAD)........................................................................................ 41
K.Trade:Exports2001–2019(PercentageontheWorld’sTotal;DataSource:
UNCTAD)........................................................................................ 42
L.Trade:Imports2001–2019(USDollarsatCurrentPricesinMillions;DataSource:
UNCTAD)........................................................................................ 43
M.FDI:Inward2001–2019(PercentageontheWorld’sTotal;DataSource:
UNCTAD)........................................................................................ 44
N.FDI:Outward2001–2019(PercentageontheWorld’sTotal;DataSource:
UNCTAD)........................................................................................ 45
O.State-OwnedEnterpriseintheGlobalEconomy2005/2014............................. 46
P.SharebyRevenuesofSOEsIncludedinFortuneGlobal500List....................... 46
Q.SectoralDistributionofChineseCompaniesin2020.................................... 47
References......................................................................................... 47
1 StateandMarketintheInternationalOrderAfterWorld
War II
Theeconomiccircumstancesandthepoliticalbalancesexistingintheinternational
contexthavealwayshadafundamentalimpactnotonlyonthestate’sapproachtothe
marketbutalsoonthewayofconceivingtheenterprise.Therefore,therelationship
between state and enterprise has traditionally been influenced by the international
economicandpoliticalcontext,morphingfromaconditionofconflicttoacondition
ofsupportorevenofidentity.
AftertheendofWorldWarII,thepathofintegrationbetweenthedifferentareas
of the globe—which had been interrupted by the world conflict—restarted, giving
risetoaprocessthathasbeendefinedas“re-globalization.”
In the post-war context, the United States assumed political, economic, and
militaryleadership,andthedollarbecamethereferencecurrencyoftheinternational
monetarysystem.Thisperiod—particularlytheyearsbetween1950and1973—was
characterized by a development of the world economy at a much more sustained
pace than in the past and on a much wider geographical scale. The growth was
particularlyledbybigmultinationalcompaniesfromindustrializedcountries.
Unlike the first elementary expression of the phenomenon of globalization—
dating back to the 19th century—in the second period of globalization, economic
cooperationbetweenstateswasbasedonaprecisepoliticalplandrawnupattheend
of World War II. The aim was to rebuild a well-founded post-war order on
GeneralIntroduction:StateandEnterpriseintheGlobalMarket 3
institutionalizedformsofcooperation,establishingadhocinternationalinstitutions.
Even before the war ended, the Allies, especially the United Kingdom, the United
States, and the Soviet Union, took part in some international summits, laying the
foundationsforthesystemofinternationalrelationsthatwouldhasbeenestablished
aftertheendoftheconflict.Thissystem,inspiredbyanapproachthatcanbedefined
as “guaranteed neoliberalism,” had to be based on institutionalized cooperation
through international organizations. Particularly, the United Nations Organization
(UN) was supposed to be the political fulcrum of the new world order and several
international economic organizations with specific sectoral competences had to be
the“operationalarm”oftheformerinthefieldsofeconomiccooperation.
In this new context, the laissez faire principle and the idea of the existence of
marketautomatismshadlosttherelevancethatclassicalliberalismattributedthem.
At the same time, the international organizations were entrusted with the task of
supervising the functioning of the system, placing limits of various kinds on the
state’sfreedomtointerveneintheregulationofeconomicrelations.Thisdetermined
theaffirmation,attheinternationallevel,ofthephenomenonknownas“multilater-
alism,” which is linked to the leading role of international (multilateral) organiza-
tions.Meanwhile,however,newformsofcooperationweredevelopedataregional
level that, in some cases (for instance, the European Communities), have been
characterized for the establishment of greater constraints between participating
states, giving rise to a model of closer cooperation, defined for this reason
“integration.”
TheyearsfollowingWorldWarII,therefore,weremarkedbythedevelopmentof
international economic cooperation, which took on three different forms: (1) the
neoliberal system of Bretton Woods; (2) the planned economy system based on
collectivismandstate-controlledproduction,atthebasisoftheCouncilforMutual
EconomicAssistance(COMECON);(3)theeconomicorderbasedondevelopment
cooperation,whichwasfeaturedbyastrongdirigismeclaimingthemodificationof
thepreviousinternationallegalframeworkforeconomicrelations.1
Among these, the neoliberal model of international economic cooperation—
whichformedthefoundationoftheneweconomicorderdefinedduringtheBretton
WoodsConference(July1–22,1944)—prevailed.
According to the Bretton Woods paradigm, post-war economic order was sup-
posedtobebuiltonthreemainpillarsofeconomiccooperationbetweenstates:the
financial, the monetary, and the commercial. Moreover, an international organiza-
tionwithspecificcompetenceswasenvisagedforeachsinglepillar,respectively:the
International Monetary Fund(IMF);theInternational Bank forReconstructionand
1Fromthismodelofcooperation,internationaldevelopmentlawhasoriginated,whichrecognizes
theparticularpositionofcertainstates,generallyreferredtoas“developingcountries,”inconsid-
erationoftheireconomiccondition.Sometimes,internationaleconomiclawenvisagesspecificlegal
rules forthesecountries, basedontheprinciple of“non-reciprocity”—suchas,for example,the
possibility of granting them special commercial treatment by derogating from the principles of
theWTO.
4 M.R.MauroandF.Pernazza
Development(IBRD);andtheInternationalTradeOrganization(ITO).Onlythefirst
two organizations were actually established based on the Bretton Woods prospect,
while the ITO has never come to life, particularly due to the decision of the US
Congressnottoratifyitsfoundingtreaty,theso-called“HavanaCharter.”2
However, the newly born international economic order found an alternative
instrument for multilateral trade cooperation in the General Agreement on Tariffs
andTrade(GATT),whichwassignedonOctober30,1947.SincetheGATTwasan
executive agreement, the problem of ratification by national legislative bodies was
bypassed.3Originally,theGATTwasconceivedforthereductionofcustomsduties
pendingtheestablishmentoftheITO;then,thissupersededtheplannedorganization
over the years becoming itself an international de facto organization through a
gradual institutionalization and the development of rules in successive “rounds”
(cycles)ofnegotiations.
Inthepost-warworldsystem,thestate-enterprise(orbetter,state-market)relation
was conceived according to four different models: the liberal model, within the
Anglo-Americanspheresofinfluence;thesocialrightsmodelofsomeindustrialized
countries which are normally indicated as “welfare states”;4 the developmental
modelofEastAsia;and,thesocialistmodel,particularlyofRussia,EasternEurope,
andChina.Excludingthesocialiststates,eachofthesevariantswereencasedinan
international liberal order, although they adopted a different attitude towards the
market.Inliberalregimes,thestatepromotedtheprevalenceofthemarket.Insocial
rights systems, the state limited the market, intervening with specific measures to
benefitthesociety.Accordingtothedevelopmentalapproach,thestatetriedtoenter
in the international liberal order, by promoting national development, sometimes
alsoapplyingmeasuresagainstforeignenterprises.Onthecontrary,socialistcoun-
tries wanted to be outside the international liberal order, positioning the economy
underthestatecontrol.
Therefore,aparticularsetofrelationsbetweenstateandmarketwasestablishedat
the international level, determining an international order of “embedded liberal-
ism,”5 founded on a system of relatively stable national economies. These econo-
mieswerelinkedtoeachotherthroughanegotiatedregimeofmultilateraltradeand
operatedininternationalmarketswithinstitutionsregulatingtradeandcapitalflows.
Thedistinctivetraitofthepost-warsystemwasthetendencytowardsuniversal-
ism,withthediffusionofWesterneconomicandpoliticalvalues.Inthiscontext,the
relevantenterprisesfromthepointofviewofeconomictransnationalrelationswere
particularlythebigmultinationalenterprises(MNEs)fromindustrializedcountries.
2TheUnitedKingdomandmanyotherstatesdecidednottoratifytoo.
3The Agreement entered into force quickly, on January 1, 1948, thanks to the Protocol of
ProvisionalApplication,towhichnumerousstatessubsequentlyjoined.
4Some authors define these countries as “social rights states,” see, for instance: Block (1994),
pp.691–710.
5SeeRuggie(1982),pp.379–415.
