Alexander D. Beyleveld, Ph.D. in Law (2020), University of Bern, is a Senior Researcher at the Mandela Institute, University of the Witwatersrand and an admitted attorney of the High Court of South Africa.

• AcknowledgementsList of FiguresAbbreviations1 General Introduction2 The Distribution of Income and Wealth within States Since the Beginning of the Twentieth Century Changes and Effects1 Introduction2 Changes to the Distribution of Income and Wealth within States Since 19002.1 Definitions and Methodologies2.1.1 Definitions2.1.2 Methodologies2.1.3 Clarifications and Critiques2.2 A (Very) Brief Overview of Distributional Changes within the States Since 19002.2.1 North America2.2.2 East Asia and the Pacific2.2.3 South Asia2.2.4 Europe and Central Asia2.2.5 Sub-saharan Africa2.2.6 Latin America and the Caribbean2.2.7 The Middle East and North Africa2.2.8 Concluding Summary3 The Effects of Changing Distributions of Income and Wealth within States3.1 Economic Growth, Poverty Reduction and Mobility3.2 Climate Change3.3 Conflict, Violence and Civil War4 Conclusions3 Recognising the Distribution of Income and Wealth within States as a Common Concern of Humankind1 Introduction2 Economic Sovereignty and the Distribution of Income and Wealth Since ‘Globalization’s Second Unbundling’2.1 ‘Globalization’s Second Unbundling’ and the Distribution of Income and Wealth within States2.2 Conceptualising the Distributive Aspects of Contemporary Economic Sovereignty2.2.1 An Outline of ‘Economic Sovereignty’ and Its Relation to the Provision of Public Goods2.2.2 Towards a Contemporary Concept of the Distributive Aspects of Economic Sovereignty3 The Recognition of Common Concerns of Humankind as Sovereignty Redefined3.1 The Development of the Common Concern of Humankind Concept in International Law3.2 The (Non-)recognition of a Common Concern of Humankind and Its Legal Implications3.2.1 The Substance of, Space Covered by, and Location of Common Concerns of Humankind3.2.2 The Temporal Elements of Common Concerns of Humankind3.2.3 The (non-)Recognition and Mode of Recognition of Common Concerns of Humankind3.2.4 The (Potential) Legal Implications of Common Concerns of Humankind: An Overview3.3 Towards a General Theory for the Recognition of Common Concerns of Humankind in International Law3.3.1 Framing a Common Concern of Humankind3.3.2 The Threshold Question: Does State Sovereignty Need Redefinition?3.3.3 Recognition of the Common Concern of Humankind through a Process of Law4 Changes in the Distribution of Income and Wealth within States: to Recognise as Common, as Concern or as Common Concern?4.1 Framing Changes in the Distribution of Income and Wealth within States as a Common Concern of Humankind4.2 Illustrating That the Distribution of Income and Wealth Requires a Cooperative Conception of Sovereignty5 ConclusionsAcknowledegments4 Recognising a Distributional Common Concern in the Area of Corporate Taxation1 Introduction2 The Multinational as Global Institution and Use of the Corporate Form2.1 Multinationals and Power2.1.1 Instrumental Power2.1.2 Structural Power2.1.3 Discursive Power2.2 Multinationals and Authority2.3 The ‘Relative Autonomy’ of Multinationals3 The Multinational as the Most Direct Institutional Actor: The Example of Changing Distributions of Income and Wealth within States3.1 Multinationals and Within-firm Economic Inequality3.2 Multinationals and Between-firm Economic Inequality3.3 The Inseparability of Within-firm Inequality and Between-firm Inequality3.3.1 Technological-enabled Economic Globalization3.3.2 Technological Change Per Se3.3.3 Market Power: Product Market Concentration, Corporate Consolidation, Monopolies and Monopsonies3.3.4 Executive Compensation3.3.5 Taxes4 Parsing State Responsibility in Respect of a Distributional Common Concern into Multinational Action4.1 To Change or Not to Change the Multinational and Corporations? Framing the Purpose of Corporate Law and Corporations4.2 Taming the Multinational through Imposing Corporate Responsibility through Cooperative Regulation5 Taxation of Multinational Firms and the Distribution of Income and Wealth within States6 Tax Sovereignty as Cooperative Sovereignty6.1 The Positive Elements of Tax Sovereignty6.2 The Normative Elements of Tax Sovereignty7 Recognition of a Distributive Common Concern: Utility and Implications8 Conclusions5 Concluding RemarksBibliographyTable of MaterialsIndex