Read on Twitter
I didn't feel this way at all. I'm very grateful for @ntinatzouvala's review:
https://academic.oup.com/ejil/article-abstract/31/3/1166/5921742. She gave me plenty to think about and my next papers are likely to reflect that (I hope!). Her critique of the book https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/world-trade-and-investment-law-reimagined/8F7EFB7CE697699691794B834D23CF58 is engaging and fair. https://twitter.com/AdHaque110/status/1359316498838401024
https://academic.oup.com/ejil/article-abstract/31/3/1166/5921742. She gave me plenty to think about and my next papers are likely to reflect that (I hope!). Her critique of the book https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/world-trade-and-investment-law-reimagined/8F7EFB7CE697699691794B834D23CF58 is engaging and fair. https://twitter.com/AdHaque110/status/1359316498838401024
In other words, her review is really a model. I want to read more of those. It's *helpful* to readers and, at least in may case, even the authors, who may see their work in a different light. It's, in this way, more than a review - it pushes the conversation forward.
Hold Ntina's review against @nicolas_lamp's narratives about winners and losers of globalization: https://academic.oup.com/ejil/article/30/4/1359/5822844?login=true Nicolas placed me and my chapter into the "critical" narrative and called the proposal even "radical" (or at least "more radical").
How radical really? I suggested that the beneficiaries of increasingly "comprehensive" trade and investment agreements should pay for these benefits to finance new compensatory mechanisms: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3775554 (still "under review" by @SSRN @approvemypaper).
However, I still framed this in terms of "re-embedding liberalism" as I felt that contemporary economic globalization had given rise to a "dis-embedded liberalism" (what @rodrikdani would call "hyper globalization").
I didn't question liberalism as such nor did I critically investigate capitalism and its complicated (or complicit?) relationship with international law, as Ntina has done in her masterful book: https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/capitalism-as-civilisation/F66ABF447B13A75739D4644A8674EAD9
In other words, my contribution might not be so "critical" or "radical" after all. It remained within certain parameters and paradigms in which international economic law has come to be taught, thought, and discussed.
Ntina, as I understand her review, invites us to revisit and reimagine international economic law instead of patching it up from the inside (however robustly). She acknowledges that the world would be a better place if the book's prescriptions were adopted (however unlikely).
But how much better really and for whom? Is it possible to confront climate change within the current parameters of the international economic order? These are good and hard questions that need to be asked. So thank you, @ntinatzouvala.
