While Stiglitz’s appeal for a more internationally comprehensive means of holding transnational corporations responsible for their actions around the world, this seems highly unrealistic. After all, even right here in the U.S. we have tremendous difficulty doing domestically what Stiglitz is advocating globally. Moreover, issues surrounding the sovereignty of states and their respective legal systems that arise when trying to enforce laws internationally have yet to be resolved. As for Stiglitz frustration over lobbying practices, one could argue that the reverse would be a restriction of liberty (“Liberty is to faction what air is to fire, an aliment without which it instantly expires. But it could not be less folly to abolish liberty, which is essential to political life, because it nourishes faction, than it would be to wish the annihilation of air, which is essential to animal life, because it imparts to fire its destructive agency.” – Federalist No. 10).

Unimportant Footnote:
I also disagree with Stiglitz’s description of Microsoft's practices as being monopolistic: there are certain circumstances in which monopolies arise naturally (in an environment of intellectual property protection) that are not so sinister. Despite having firefox on my computer, I use Internet explorer and no one is holding a gun to my head. I understand the DOJ has looked into Microsoft and that Stiglitz is perfectly right for bringing it up in the context he did, I just disagree with the monopoly accusations against Microsoft.