Well, for the most part he doesn't. He says:
When international cooperation does “succeed,” it spawns rules that are either toothless or reflect the preferences of only the more powerful states. The Basle rules on capital requirements and the World Trade Organization’s rules on subsidies, intellectual property, and investment measures typify this kind of overreaching. We can enhance the efficiency and legitimacy of globalization by supporting rather than crippling democratic procedures at home.
and:
We should ... accept that countries may uphold national rules – tax policies, financial regulations, labor standards, or consumer health and safety rules – and may do so by raising barriers at the border if necessary, when trade demonstrably threatens domestic practices enjoying broad popular support.
and:
Using restrictions on cross-border trade or finance to uphold values and regulations at home must be distinguished from using them to impose these values and regulations on other countries. Globalization’s rules should not force Americans or Europeans to consume goods that are produced in ways that most citizens in those countries find unacceptable.
But then he says this:
But nor should [globalization's rules] allow the US or the EU to use trade sanctions or other pressure to alter foreign countries’ labor-market rules, environmental policies, or financial regulations. Countries have a right to difference, not to imposed convergence.
So if I'm reading that correctly, there should be policy space for subsidies, IP, investment measures, domestic practices enjoying broad popular support, and values and regulations at home. By contrast, no policy space should be allowed for (most?) trade sanctions and similar measures. Basically, no policy space for telling others what to do with their own laws.
