![\"logos](\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/carola\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/29\/2019\/02\/Logos_WritingCompetition-1.jpg\")
<\/p>\nOrganized by:<\/p>\n
In much of the developed world, a backlash against globalization has gained momentum. The United Kingdom has decided to leave the European Union and the United States has pulled out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement. Meanwhile, a renegotiation (or withdrawal?) of NAFTA is brewing. The moment is ripe to rethink the course that globalization has taken and to offer alternative paths.<\/p>\n
Currently, however, the two dominant positions in the global economic debate consist largely of a wholesale rejection of globalization or, conversely, a defense of the existing liberal globalization as the enlightened economic path that needs to be softened and better explained. This binary choice is too narrow. Can a different type of globalization be imagined? One that recognizes the gains that societies may accrue from economic integration but that at the same time deals seriously with dislocation and negative distributional consequences? Does this require a reform of our existing global institutional arrangements? More concretely, are there specific rules or policies that can be revisited or introduced to respond to these challenges?<\/p>\n
![\"First](\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/carola\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/29\/2019\/02\/CAROLA_Avery_Kelly.jpg\")
In the U.S., like in many other developed countries, a nationalist, anti-immigrant response to economic troubles is on the rise. Rather than discerning and addressing the root causes of migration, approaches to migration have focused on criminalizing individuals who cross borders in pursuit of work. An imaginative response to migration calls for a systemic approach focused on human and labor rights enforcement in the source countries, which could help improve living standards and help make migration a choice, not a necessity.<\/p>\n