AnghieA (2005) Imperialism, Sovereignty and the Making of International Law. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
2.
AnghieAChimniBS (2003) Third world approaches to international law and individual responsibility in internal conflicts. Chinese Journal of International Law2: 77–103.
3.
ChimniBS (2004) International institutions today: An imperial global state in the making. European Journal of International Law15(1): 1–37.
4.
DezalayYGarthB (2002) The Internationalization of Palace Wars: Lawyers, Economists, and the Contest to Transform Latin American States. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
5.
FakhriM (2012) Questioning TWAIL’s agenda. Oregon Review of International Law14(1): 1–15.
6.
GathiiJT (2006) The high stakes of WTO reform. Michigan Law Review104: 1361.
7.
GathiiJT (2011) The neoliberal turn in regional trade agreements. Washington Law Review86: 421.
8.
HaskellJ (2015, forthcoming) TRAIL-ing TWAIL: Arguments and blind spots in third world approaches to international law. Canadian Journal of Law & Jurisprudence28(1).
9.
KennedyDa (2006) The ‘rule of law,’ political choices, and development common sense. In: TrubekDSantosA (eds) The New Law and Economic Development: A Critical Appraisal. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, pp. 95–173.
10.
LangA (2011) World Trade Law After Neoliberalism: Reimagining the Global Economic Order. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
11.
LangA (2014) World Trade Law After Neo-liberalism. Social & Legal Studies23(3): 408–426.
12.
MutuaM (2000) What is TWAIL?American Society of International Law Proceedings94: 31–38.
13.
RajagopalB (2003) International Law from Below: Development, Social Movements and Third World Resistance. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
14.
Steadman JonesD (2012) Masters of the Universe: Hayek, Friedman, and the Birth of Neoliberal Politics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
15.
ThomasC (2011) Law and neoclassical economic development in theory and practice: Toward an institutionalist critique of institutionalism. Cornell Law Review96: 967–1024.