The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology
14
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajpslc
TYPE
Original Research
PAGE NO.
14-21
10.37547/tajpslc/Volume07Issue03-03
OPEN ACCESS
SUBMITED
11 January 2025
ACCEPTED
05 February 2025
PUBLISHED
18 March 2025
VOLUME
Vol.07 Issue03 2025
CITATION
Khidoyatov, M. . (2025). Legal Aspects of Structuring Cross-Border
Transactions in The Context of Changing International Regulation. The
American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology, 7(03), 14
–
21. https://doi.org/10.37547/tajpslc/Volume07Issue03-03.
COPYRIGHT
© 2025 Original content from this work may be used under the terms
of the creative commons attributes 4.0 License.
Legal Aspects of
Structuring Cross-Border
Transactions in The
Context of Changing
International Regulation
Miraziz Khidoyatov
Founding Member and CEO at Enexpan Wyoming, USA
Abstract:
This article examines the evolving legal
framework of cross-border transactions against the
backdrop of shifting international regulations and
diminishing traditional notions of state sovereignty.
Drawing upon doctrinal analysis and a comparative
perspective, it explores how emerging global
governance
structures,
regional
integration
mechanisms, and soft-law instruments influence the
design and implementation of transnational deals. Key
areas of focus include the choice of corporate structures
(holdings, SPVs, joint ventures), compliance with anti-
corruption and tax regulations, and the strategic use of
dispute resolution clauses, particularly in a context
where national, supranational, and private regulatory
regimes increasingly overlap. Empirical illustrations
from Europe, North America, and Asia underscore the
growing role of borderland cooperation and subnational
initiatives in shaping cross-border transactions. The
analysis highlights the need for practitioners to adapt
contractual mechanisms in light of complex global
norms and offers a multi-level approach to legal and
regulatory compliance. Ultimately, the article argues
that success in cross-border endeavors depends on
integrating national law with transnational standards,
leveraging innovative dispute resolution processes, and
proactively engaging with local/regional stakeholders to
foster legal certainty and minimize risk.
Keywords:
Cross-Border Transactions, Sovereignty,
Global Governance, Compliance, Regional Integration,
Transnational Law, Dispute Resolution.
Introduction:
The modern economy increasingly relies
on cross-border transactions, reflected in the growing
The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology
15
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajpslc
The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology
volume of international trade, foreign direct
investment, and the formation of global production
and distribution chains. Simultaneously, regulatory
frameworks are undergoing transformation at both
supranational and national levels, with the emergence
of new institutions, specialized regimes, international
agreements, and expanded powers of multinational
corporations, all of which contribute to a more
complex legal environment [1]; Brunet-Jailly E. [2]. At
the same time, competition among states to attract
capital and technology is intensifying, creating demand
for effective legal mechanisms to support transactions
[11, 58].
However, the interaction between different legal
systems
—
national, regional, and transnational
—
is not
always harmonized, leading to conflicts of norms,
regulatory gaps, and the increasing role of "soft law"
and private regulators, such as multinational
corporations and industry associations [3]; Tamanaha
B.Z. [4]. Under these conditions, the question of
optimal strategies for structuring cross-border
transactions, balancing the interests of businesses,
public authorities, and supranational institutions,
becomes increasingly pressing.
In recent years, extensive research has explored the
impact of globalization on state sovereignty and the
evolution of international law [9, 12]. E. Ip [1]
emphasizes that globalization is reshaping traditional
notions of state sovereignty, leading to the
development of specialized international legal regimes
in areas such as human rights, trade, and
environmental protection, as well as the emergence of
new forms of supranational and transnational norms.
In the field of cross-border cooperation, several
authors, including E. Brunet-Jailly [2] and M. Perkmann
[5], highlight that trade relations and joint
infrastructure projects create specific regional
"cluster" zones where national regulations are
integrated with multilateral agreements. Similar
trends are observed in studies of cross-border regions
within the EU (Diez T. et al. [6]) and North America
(Anderson B. et al. [7]), underscoring the decisive role
of local and regional structures in shaping a favorable
legal environment.
At the same time, as noted by H.H. Koh [3], alongside
classical public international law, "transnational law" is
actively developing, incorporating norms from various
legal systems. The legal force and enforceability of
such norms remain a subject of debate [4], prompting
new methodologies for structuring transactions,
including the use of offshore instruments, arbitration,
and multilateral framework agreements.
Despite the extensive div of research, key questions
remain regarding how transnational law and
supranational institutions influence specific legal
structures and mechanisms employed in cross-border
transactions. Most studies focus on isolated aspects,
such as tax or corporate law, while a comprehensive
analysis of the full legal toolkit involved in cross-border
deals
—
ranging from anti-corruption requirements to
risk allocation mechanisms
—
remains insufficiently
systematized. Furthermore, there is a lack of
comparative analysis of regional legal frameworks
governing such transactions, particularly in the context
of evolving global and local regulations.
In this context, the present study aims to elucidate key
legal strategies that multinational actors can adopt
when structuring cross-border transactions under
shifting international regulations. By exploring both
institutional changes at the global or regional level and
practical contractual devices
—
ranging from double
taxation treaties to advanced arbitration clauses
—
the
work endeavors to provide a comprehensive framework
for understanding and managing cross-border deals.
Specifically, the research seeks to answer how emerging
governance regimes, including novel forms of public-
private collaboration in border regions, influence risk
allocation and dispute resolution across different
sectors. A further objective is to highlight the role of
compliance obligations, such as anti-corruption
measures, and their increasing prominence in shaping
contract design.
PART I. THE TRANSFORMATION OF INTERNATIONAL
REGULATION AND THE SPECIFICS OF SOVEREIGNTY IN
CROSS-BORDER TRANSACTIONS
1. Evolution of sovereignty in the era of globalization
Since the seventeenth century, the “Westphalian”
notion of state sovereignty has served as a foundation
for international relations, treating each state’s territory
and governance as inviolable and absolute [1, 4]. In
recent
decades,
however,
global
economic
interdependence, rapid technological development,
and increased mobility of capital have accelerated the
transition toward a multi-level governance model.
Under this model, states no longer possess a monopoly
on rule-making [13, 59]. Instead, decision-making is
shared among international organizations, private
actors, and overlapping regulatory networks.
International institutions such as the World Trade
Organization (WTO), the International Monetary Fund
(IMF), and the World Bank have taken on broader
mandates, influencing national monetary and fiscal
policies and setting trade norms that member states
The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology
16
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajpslc
The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology
must adopt [1, 10, 48]. Meanwhile, transnational
corporations (TNCs) exert substantial economic clout;
through supply-chain standards, private certification
schemes, and self-regulatory agreements, they shape
legal expectations across borders [26, 57]. Various
network-based forms of self-regulation further dilute
the exclusivity of state sovereignty, as seen in global
finance, environmental management, and digital
services [2].
Overall, states remain indispensable actors, especially
in areas requiring coercive power
—
like national
defense or law enforcement
—
but the concept of
sovereignty has evolved. Governments are forced to
accommodate supranational and non-state influences,
thus revealing sovereignty to be more adaptive and
contingent than the classic Westphalian doctrine
suggests [11, 58]. Private regulatory frameworks and
intergovernmental cooperation increasingly coexist
with formal state law, blurring the boundaries
between the purely national and the genuinely global
[2, 49, 55].
2. Proliferation of specialized legal regimes
Globalization has spawned new regimes of public
international law encompassing human rights,
environmental standards, trade, and cross-border
investment [14, 16]. Human rights agreements
—
such
as the UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
—
reach
deep into domestic affairs, while trade-related treaties
often impose obligations that limit tariff autonomy [15,
50]. Environmental norms, from the Paris Agreement
on climate change to regional pollution-control
accords, also illustrate this expansion [1, 17, 60]. These
instruments can constrain states’ traditional authority,
compelling them to align with internationally agreed-
upon targets.
Regional blocs like the European Union (EU), the
United States
–
Mexico
–
Canada Agreement (USMCA),
the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN),
and the Southern Common Market (MERCOSUR)
function as “locomotives” of legal change, harmonizing
rules among member states [2, 18, 51]. Within the EU,
for
instance,
supranational
regulations
—
on
competition policy or data protection
—
override
conflicting national laws. North America’s former
NAFTA (now USMCA) coordinates industrial standards,
while ASEAN’s agreements on trade facilitation reduce
regulatory divergence [6]. Such processes can
streamline cross-border transactions by providing
more predictable frameworks, though they also create
new compliance burdens when states must adopt
region-wide directives.
Another hallmark of contemporary regulation is the
rise of soft-law mechanisms and private codes of
conduct [3, 53]. Transnational corporations, industry
associations, and even local entities forge codes that
govern labor practices, environmental protections, and
commercial conduct [2]. These rules are typically
voluntary but gain de facto enforceability through
reputational pressures or supply-chain requirements
[26, 54]. Consequently, the classic distinction between
“public” and “private” law erodes, as cross
-border deals
might be governed not only by treaties or national
statutes but also by private standard-setting bodies.
This multiplicity of norms reflects what Ip [1] calls the
“new global law,” wherein public and private elements
converge.
3. The influence of transnational actors and local
institutions on cross-border deals
National governments are not the sole regulators
shaping cross-border transactions [8, 20]. In many
frontier regions
—
such as parts of Europe, North
America, and Southeast Asia
—
local governments and
business associations play a pivotal role [2, 6]. They
establish free trade
zones or enter into “sister city”
agreements that facilitate the movement of goods and
workers [19, 21]. These local innovations often
complement national policies, bridging gaps where
central authorities lack capacity or inclination to act. By
forging regional clusters or cross-border economic
corridors, local stakeholders create flexible spaces in
which business can flourish under more tailored rules
[5, 22].
Scholars observe a gradual judicial and administrative
assimilation of transnational norms into domestic legal
orders [1, 56]. Courts in many jurisdictions, for instance,
now reference foreign and international precedents on
matters such as corporate liability or human rights
compliance. Administrative agencies adopt global best
practices
—
e.g., the B
asel Committee’s banking
regulations or the OECD’s transfer pricing guidelines—
effectively elevating them to quasi-binding status. While
these norms may lack formal legislative origin, their
acceptance by national institutions cements them as
practical standards in cross-border transactions [2].
When conflicts arise over which national court has the
power to hear a case, parties often turn to international
arbitration (ICC, LCIA, ICSID) or quasi-judicial bodies to
circumvent lengthy litigation and conflicting rules [1, 3,
38, 52]. Choice-of-law clauses are commonly used in
cross-border contracts to preselect a favorable legal
system
—
be it English law, New York law, or another
well-established
venue
—
offering
predictability.
However, these clauses can be challenged if they violate
overriding mandatory provisions of a relevant
jurisdiction. Table 1 below summarizes key global
The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology
17
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajpslc
The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology
regulatory developments and their ramifications for cross-border transactions.
Table 1. Key global developments and their implications for cross-border deals [1, 2]
Development
Implications
Rise
of
supranational
organizations
States must comply with WTO rulings, IMF guidelines; sovereignty adjusted.
Regional
integration
Harmonized rules (EU, USMCA) streamline trade but add new compliance
layers.
Soft-law
and
private codes
Corporate and NGO standards shape contract terms (labor, environment)
beyond formal treaties.
Local–central
collaboration
Border regions create custom policies (e.g., special zones, local alliances)
enhancing trade networks.
Global law in
domestic courts
Transnational principles (human rights, investment protection) integrated into
national judgments.
Arbitration and
forum selection
Cross-border deals often prefer arbitration, enabling predictable outcomes
despite diverse jurisdictions.
By acknowledging these shifts
—
toward multi-level
governance, specialized regimes, and hybrid forms of
regulation
—
participants in cross-border transactions
can better navigate complex legal frameworks.
Sovereignty, while still integral, now adapts to the
interplay of public and private regulatory power,
allowing states, transnational bodies, and local actors
to collaboratively shape the norms governing
international commerce.
PART II. KEY LEGAL ASPECTS OF STRUCTURING CROSS-
BORDER DEALS
1. Legal forms and mechanisms for protecting parties’
interests
A primary consideration in structuring cross-border
transactions is the choice of legal vehicles through
which parties will organize their commercial activities
[23, 25]. Commonly, multinational entities employ
holding companies, special purpose vehicles (SPVs), or
joint ventures (JVs), each offering distinct advantages
in terms of risk allocation, tax optimization, and
governance [1, 8].
●
Holding Companies. Frequently established in
jurisdictions with extensive tax treaty networks,
holding companies can centralize share ownership of
multiple subsidiaries, streamline dividend flows, and
minimize withholding taxes [24, 27]. They are
particularly effective if located in a country that has
bilateral tax treaties to reduce double taxation on
inbound or outbound investments [4, 8].
●
Special Purpose Vehicles (SPVs). Often formed
to isolate project-specific liabilities and assets, SPVs
enable sponsors to ring-fence financial risks and secure
project financing without exposing the entire corporate
group [2, 3, 28, 33]. This structure is popular in large-
scale infrastructure, energy, or real-estate deals.
●
Joint
Ventures
(JVs).
JVs
encourage
collaboration between local and foreign partners,
facilitating access to proprietary technologies or local
market knowledge [25, 26]. Equity-based JVs typically
require a detailed shareholders’ agreement specifying
profit-sharing, governance, and dispute resolution.
Contractual JVs, by contrast, may be preferred when the
parties wish to avoid creating a separate legal entity [1].
The choice between offshore and onshore jurisdictions
depends on tax stability, the robustness of legal
enforcement,
and
reputational
factors.
While
“offshore” hubs can offer confide
ntiality and reduced
tax burdens, heightened global scrutiny and evolving
anti-avoidance measures
—
such as the Base Erosion and
Profit Shifting (BEPS) project
—
may limit their
attractiveness [8].
Cross-border deals commonly leverage double taxation
The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology
18
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajpslc
The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology
treaties (DTTs) to mitigate tax liabilities on dividends,
interest, or royalties [24, 28]. These treaties, often
modeled on the OECD or UN frameworks, allocate
taxing rights between contracting states [1]. In
practice, investors may structure deals to take
advantag
e of “treaty shopping,” although many
jurisdictions have introduced anti-abuse provisions
that prohibit purely artificial arrangements.
Increasingly, transfer pricing rules
—
particularly under
the OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines
—
play a critical
role. Where related parties transact across borders, tax
authorities require documentary evidence that
intercompany pricing aligns with arm’s length
standards. Noncompliance may trigger audits or
penalties, prompting multinational groups to adopt
robust
internal
policies
and
maintain
contemporaneous transfer pricing documentation [2].
Compliance
obligations
extend
beyond
tax
considerations. Regulatory frameworks such as the
U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), the UK
Bribery Act, and analogous local statutes impose
stringent anti-bribery requirements on companies
engaging in international business [29, 30]. Cross-
border contracts often incorporate representations
and warranties regarding bribery and corruption to
allocate risk should a violation occur [2].
Similarly, AML/KYC protocols (Anti-Money Laundering
/ Know Your Customer) ensure financial transparency,
requiring parties to verify beneficial ownership and flag
suspicious transactions. Such obligations not only
shape the legal drafting of cross-border agreements
but can influence the actual transaction flow
—
for
instance, the selection of correspondent banks or
escrow arrangements [1].
2. The role of regional and local factors in shaping
deals
In addition to national legal regimes, border regions
and intergovernmental accords can crucially affect
deal structures. Many countries establish special
economic zones (SEZs), export processing zones, or
customs unions to reduce tariff barriers and streamline
administrative procedures [2, 3, 31, 32]. For instance,
the European Union’s customs union harmonizes
external tariffs, simplifying intra-EU trade, while the
USMCA (formerly NAFTA) offers a free trade
arrangement in North America [35, 34]. Such initiatives
can significantly reduce friction in cross-border goods
and capital movement, thus shaping corporate
preferences for where to locate production facilities or
distribution hubs [36, 37].
Global digital commerce introduces distinct legal
complexities, including data privacy, intellectual
property (IP) rights, and questions of cross-border
internet jurisdiction [1, 23, 49]. Regulations such as the
EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and
similar laws in other regions impose stringent rules on
data handling and international data transfers. IP
considerations
—
particularly software licensing, patent
protections, and online content rights
—
also drive
contract drafting for technology-driven deals [2].
In parallel, the extraterritorial application of certain
regulatory regimes, such as the U.S. Clarifying Lawful
Overseas Use of Data (CLOUD) Act or sector-specific
cybersecurity requirements, raises questions about
which forum’s laws apply to disputes arising from cross
-
border data flows. Companies must navigate
overlapping obligations to ensure compliance and
minimize litigation risk.
In many border regions
—
whether in Europe (through
INTERREG programs), North America (U.S.
–
Canada
bilateral accords), or Asia (cross-province agreements in
China and ASEAN states)
—
local governments and
business associations cooperate with national
regulators to customize regulatory frameworks [2, 19].
This multi-level approach can lead to preferential
policies, tax incentives, or expedited licensing for cross-
border projects, reflecting local economic priorities
while respecting overarching national legislation [1].
3. Risks and dispute resolution strategies
Cross-border transactions often rely on international
commercial arbitration (e.g., ICC, LCIA) to resolve
contract disputes [38, 41]. Arbitration clauses typically
specify the seat of arbitration, applicable rules, and
language. Because awards under major arbitral
institutions are widely enforceable under the New York
Convention, parties can avoid the uncertainties of
litigating in unfamiliar courts [2, 39, 42].
For investment disputes, the International Centre for
Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) provides a
forum under bilateral or multilateral investment
treaties. Disputes alleging expropriation, discriminatory
regulation, or unfair treatment frequently appear
before ICSID, where investors seek compensation from
host states [4, 6, 40, 45].
Most international contracts contain choice-of-law
clauses designating a single legal system (often English
or New York law) to reduce unpredictability [40, 45].
Forum selection clauses similarly identify a specific
arbitral institution or court. However, certain
mandatory rules
—
such as competition laws or
consumer protection regulations
—
may override these
choices if they conflict with fundamental public policy
[2].
Increasingly, parties also experiment with alternative
The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology
19
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajpslc
The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology
dispute resolution (ADR) methods like mediation or
neutral
evaluation
to
preserve
commercial
relationships and reduce legal expenses [46, 47].
Hybrid ADR procedures, incorporating elements of
mediation followed by binding
arbitration (“med
-
arb”), can further expedite conflict resolution while
maintaining some flexibility in negotiation.
Global jurisprudence in cross-border transactions
evolves through multi-polar influences, with domestic
courts referencing decisions from foreign jurisdictions
or international tribunals [1]. For instance, a landmark
U.S. judgment on cross-border corporate liability might
later inform a similar case in Canada or Singapore,
particularly where statutory language or treaty
obligations align. Such cross-fertilization underscores
the importance of tracking relevant judicial precedents
beyond a single jurisdiction and indicates how “global
law” penetrates local forums [2].
The choice of corporate vehicles also plays a significant
role in structuring cross-border transactions, influencing
liability, tax treatment, and regulatory compliance
(Table 2).
Table 2. Illustrative corporate vehicles and their impact on cross-border transactions [1, 2]
Vehicle
Key Purpose
Main Legal/Tax Benefits
Potential Drawbacks
Holding
Company
Consolidate ownership
of
subsidiaries;
optimize dividends
Access to treaty network,
reduced withholding taxes
(OECD, 2020)
Risk of “treaty shopping”
scrutiny by tax authorities
SPV
Isolate specific project
risks/assets
(infrastructure)
Ring-fence
liabilities,
facilitate project financing
May require guarantees
from
parent
entity;
complex structuring
Equity JV
Partner
with
local
investor
for
resource/market access
Shared risk/reward, local
market expertise
Governance
issues,
potential
deadlock,
cultural conflicts
Contractual
JV
Collaborative projects
without creating new
entity
Flexibility,
simpler
dissolution
Less formal structure,
uncertain
legal
personality
In conclusion, the successful structuring of cross-
border transactions depends on an integrated
approach that addresses corporate form, tax
efficiency, regulatory compliance, local and regional
institutional factors, and robust dispute resolution
strategies. By recognizing the interplay of international
treaties, soft-law standards, and local practices,
businesses and governments alike can craft legal
frameworks that safeguard interests while fostering
the economic potential of transnational collaboration.
CONCLUSION
Recent decades have witnessed a profound
transformation in the legal environment surrounding
cross-border transactions [9, 48]. As global and
regional
institutions
proliferate,
traditional
Westphalian concepts of state sovereignty continue to
evolve, adapting to the demands of transnational
commerce and multi-layered governance structures.
States retain considerable influence but must
increasingly
share
regulatory
space
with
intergovernmental organizations, private standard-
setting bodies, and local or regional authorities [12, 57].
This complex overlay of norms has redefined how
parties negotiate, structure, and enforce cross-border
contracts.
The findings underscore that legal adaptability is
paramount. Practitioners must navigate a wide array of
instruments
—
from double taxation treaties to
specialized arbitration rules
—
while simultaneously
managing compliance obligations such as anti-
corruption and data protection. Furthermore, the rise of
specialized
economic
zones
and
cross-border
cooperation initiatives exemplifies how local contexts
can either streamline or complicate transactional
frameworks [31, 33]. This multi-level interplay fosters
opportunities for more tailored, efficient deal structures
but also magnifies the intricacy of risk allocation and
conflict resolution.
The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology
20
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajpslc
The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology
Ultimately, success in cross-border ventures relies on
embracing an integrated approach that considers the
interplay of national laws, regional agreements, and
soft-law standards. The evolution of dispute
resolution, including more widespread reliance on
arbitration and hybrid ADR methods, also reinforces
the need for flexible contractual arrangements capable
of operating across jurisdictions [38, 46]. By
synthesizing diverse regulatory regimes and focusing
on
institutional
cooperation,
transnational
transactions can balance the pursuit of global market
advantages with the need for robust legal safeguards.
In
doing
so,
they
illuminate
the ongoing
reconfiguration of law in a globalizing world
—
one
where the adaptive power of national legal systems
and the emergence of transnational norms continue to
redefine the boundaries of commercial activity.
REFERENCES
Eric C. Ip, Globalization and the Future of the Law of
the Sovereign State, 8 Int’l J. Const. L. 636 (2010).
Emmanuel Brunet-Jailly, Cross-Border Cooperation: A
Global Overview, 47 Alternatives 3 (2022).
Harold Hongju Koh, Why Transnational Law Matters,
24
Penn
St.
Int’l
L.
Rev.
745
(2006),
https://elibrary.law.psu.edu/psilr/vol24/iss4/4.
Brian Z. Tamanaha, Understanding Legal Pluralism:
Past to Present, Local to Global, in Legal Theory and the
Social Sciences 447 (Routledge 2017).
Markus Perkmann, Cross-Border Regions in Europe:
Significance and Drivers of Regional Cross-Border
Cooperation, 10 Eur. Urb. & Reg’l Stud. 153 (2003).
The European Union and Border Conflicts: The Power
of Integration and Association (Thomas Diez, Mathias
Albert & Stephan Stetter eds., Cambridge Univ. Press
2008).
Barry Anderson, The Border and the Ontario Economy
(Cross-Border Transp. Ctr., Univ. of Windsor 2012),
https://cbinstitute.ca/wp-
content/uploads/2015/09/The-Border-and-the-
Ontario-Economy.pdf.
OECD/SWAC, Cross-Border Cooperation and Policy
Networks in West Africa (OECD Publishing 2017),
https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publica
tions/reports/2017/01/cross-border-co-operation-
and-policy-networks-in-west-
africa_g1g71c6a/9789264265875-en.pdf.
M. A. Ganaie, Globalization and State Sovereignty, 5
Int'l J. Hum. & Soc. Sci. Invention 1 (2016).
Jacalyn Goldzweig Panitz, Globalisation and State
Sovereignty: A Mixed Bag, LSE Undergraduate Pol. Rev.,
Jan.
10,
2019,
https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/lseupr/2019/01/10/globalisatio
n-and-state-sovereignty-a-mixed-bag/.
David Held, Globalization/Anti-Globalization (Polity
Press 2003).
Saskia Sassen, Losing Control? Sovereignty in an Age of
Globalization (Columbia Univ. Press 1996).
John Agnew, Sovereignty Regimes: Territoriality and
State Authority in Contemporary World Politics, 95
Annals Ass’n Am. Geographers 437 (2005).
Joost Pauwelyn, The Proliferation of International
Tribunals and the Interaction of Regimes: Implications
for the WTO, 103 Am. J. Int'l L. 201 (2009).
Benedict Kingsbury, The Concept of 'Law' in Global
Administrative Law, 20 Eur. J. Int'l L. 23 (2009).
Anne-Marie Slaughter, A New World Order (Princeton
Univ. Press 2004).
Martti Koskenniemi, The Politics of International Law, 1
Eur. J. Int'l L. 4 (1990).
Karen J. Alter, The New Terrain of International Law:
Courts, Politics, Rights (Princeton Univ. Press 2014).
UNDP, Border Area Development in the Greater
Mekong
Subregion
(2014),
https://www.undp.org/publications/border-area-
development-greater-mekong-subregion.
Thomas Risse, Governance Without a State? Policies
and Politics in Areas of Limited Statehood (Columbia
Univ. Press 2011).
James N. Rosenau, Along the Domestic-Foreign Frontier:
Exploring Governance in a Turbulent World (Cambridge
Univ. Press 1997).
Michael Zürn, Global Governance as Multi-level
Governance, in The Oxford Handbook of Governance
730 (David Levi-Faur ed., Oxford Univ. Press 2012).
Peter Muchlinski, Multinational Enterprises and the Law
(2d ed., Oxford Univ. Press 2007).
Reuven S. Avi-Yonah, Tax Competition, Tax Havens, and
the European Union, 24 Fordham Int'l L.J. 255 (2000).
John H. Dunning, Multinational Enterprises and the
Global Economy (2d ed., Edward Elgar Publishing 2008).
Claire Cutler, Private Power and Global Authority:
Transnational Merchant Law in the Global Political
Economy (Cambridge Univ. Press 2003).
Sol Picciotto, International Business Taxation: A Study in
the Internationalization of Business Regulation
(Weidenfeld & Nicolson 1992).
OECD,
OECD Transfer
Pricing
Guidelines
for
Multinational Enterprises and Tax Administrations
The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology
21
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajpslc
The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology
(2022),
https://www.oecd.org/tax/transfer-
pricing/oecd-transfer-pricing-guidelines-for-
multinational-enterprises-and-tax-administrations-
20769717.htm.
U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Foreign Corrupt Practices Act: An
Overview,
https://www.justice.gov/criminal-
fraud/foreign-corrupt-practices-act.
United Nations, United Nations Convention Against
Corruption
(2004),
https://www.unodc.org/documents/treaties/UNCAC/
Publications/Convention/08-50026_E.pdf.
World Bank, Special Economic Zones: An Overview
(2011),
https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986
/2264.
UNCTAD, Transnational Corporations Journal, Special
Issue on Special Economic Zones: Progress, Emerging
Challenges, and Future Directions, Vol. 26, No. 2
(2019),
https://unctad.org/system/files/official-
document/diaeia2019d2_en.pdf.
Farok J. Contractor, Special Economic Zones and
International Business, 4
9 J. Int’l Bus. Stud. 197 (2018).
Deborah Brautigam & Xiaoyang Tang, China’s
Investment in African Special Economic Zones, 36
World Dev. 217 (2012).
European Commission, The EU Customs Union,
https://taxation-customs.ec.europa.eu/customs-
4_en.
USMCA Secretariat, United States-Mexico-Canada
Agreement, https://www.trade.gov/usmca.
ASEAN, ASEAN Economic Community Blueprint 2025
(2015),
https://asean.org/wp-
content/uploads/2021/08/AEC-Blueprint-2025-
FINAL.pdf.
Gary B. Born, International Commercial Arbitration (2d
ed., Kluwer Law Int’l 2014).
William W. Park, Dispute Resolution in International
Business Transactions, 27 Colum. J. Transnat'l L. 1
(1989).
Jeswald W. Salacuse, The Law of International Business
Transactions, 35 Harv. Int’l L.J. 1 (1994).
Nigel Blackaby et al., Redfern and Hunter on
International Arbitration (6th ed., Oxford Univ. Press
2015).
United Nations, Convention on the Recognition and
Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (New York
Convention)
(1958),
https://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/texts/arbitratio
n/NY-conv/XXII_1_e.pdf.
ICSID, ICSID Convention, Regulations and Rules,
https://icsid.worldbank.org/resources/publications/icsi
d-convention-regulations-and-rules.
Susan D. Franck, The Legitimacy Crisis in Investment
Treaty Arbitration, 73 Fordham L. Rev. 1521 (2005).
Thomas W. Wälde, The Future of International
Investment Law, 5 J. World Inv. & Trade 507 (2004).
Margaret Moses, The Principles and Practice of
International
Commercial
Arbitration
(3d
ed.,
Cambridge Univ. Press 2017).
Catherine A. Rogers, Ethics in International Arbitration
(Oxford Univ. Press 2014).
Robert O. Keohane & Joseph S. Nye, Power and
Interdependence (4th ed., Longman 2012).
Jan Klabbers, International Law (2d ed., Cambridge Univ.
Press 2017).
Beth Simmons, Mobilizing for Human Rights:
International Law in Domestic Politics (Cambridge Univ.
Press 2009).
Andrew Guzman, How International Law Works: A
Rational Choice Theory (Oxford Univ. Press 2008).
Laurence R. Helfer, Overlegalizing Human Rights:
International Relations Theory and the Commonwealth
Caribbean Backlash Against Human Rights Regimes, 102
Colum. L. Rev. 1832 (2002).
Philip C. Jessup, Transnational Law (Yale Univ. Press
1956).
Harold Hongju Koh, Transnational Legal Process, 75
Neb. L. Rev. 181 (1996).
Günther Handl, The Legal Mandate of Multilateral
Development Banks as Agents of Change, 92 Am. J. Int’l
L. 168 (1998).
David Kennedy, The Dark Sides of Virtue: Reassessing
International Humanitarianism (Princeton Univ. Press
2004).
Saskia Sassen, Globalization and Its Discontents: Essays
on the New Mobility of People and Money (The New
Press 1998).
Stephen Krasner, Sovereignty: Organized Hypocrisy
(Princeton Univ. Press 1999).
Michael Byers, Custom, Power and the Power of Rules:
International Relations and Customary International
Law (Cambridge Univ. Press 1999).
Dinah Shelton, International Human Rights Law: A
Practical Approach (2d ed., Oxford Univ. Press 2011).
