International Trade Measures as an Alternative to Sanctions Serving Human Rights Protection in External Relations

• Autorzy: Bartosz Ziemblicki
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

Trade sanctions aimed at protecting and promoting human rights can no longer be considered (if they ever could have been) a proper instrument to fight human rights violation in other states. There appears to be a reasonable alternative in other international trade measures, which also may be applied in accordance with the law of the World Trade Organization. Those measures can be divided into two categories: trade incentives adopted under the Enabling Clause and obligation waivers. This article seeks to explore whether either of those legal instruments has the potential to play a significant role in enhancing human rights standards worldwide in terms of their availability and effectiveness. (original abstract)

Słowa kluczowe

EN

International trade; Human rights protection; Economic sanctions

PL

Handel międzynarodowy; Ochrona praw człowieka; Sankcje gospodarcze

• Czasopismo: Wroclaw Review of Law, Administration & Economics
• Rocznik: 2012
• Tom: 2
• Numer: nr 2
• Strony: 29--44

Twórcy

autor

Bartosz Ziemblicki

• Wroclaw University

Bibliografia

• Nadelmann E., Global Prohibition Regimes: The Evolution of Norms in International Society (1990) 44(4) "International Organization" 479, 491 and 497.
• Cortright D., Lopez G. A., The Sanctions Decade, Assessing UN Strategies in the 1990s (Washington 2000) 205-207.
• Hufbauer G. C., Schott J., Elliott K. A., Economic Sanctions Reconsidered: History and Current Policy (Washington 1990).
• Shagabutdinova E., Berejikian J., Deploying Sanctions while Protecting Human Rights: Are Humanitarian 'Smart' Sanctions Effective? (2007)6(1) "Journal of Human Rights" 59, 64-69.
• The law of the World Trade Organization consists of the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization signed in Marrakesh, Morocco, on 15 April 1995 and annexes to this agreement.
• Signed in San Francisco, United States, on 26 June 1945.
• General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, signed in Geneva, Switzerland, on October 30,1947.
• WTO cases US - Helms Burton [1996] WT/DS38 and US - Procurement [1997] WT/DS88 and WT/DS95.
• McDougal M. S., WM Reisman, Rhodesia and the United Nations: The Lawfulness of International Concern (1968) 62 (1) "American Journal of International Law" 1, 9.
• Tesón Fernando R., Humanitarian Intervention: An Inquiry into Law and Morality (Transnational 1997).
• Vera Gowlland-Debbas, Collective Response to Illegal Acts in International Law: United Nations Action in the Question of South Rhodesia (Dordrecht 1990) 471-472.
• Delbrück J., A More Effective International Law or a New 'World Law'? - Some Aspects ofthe Development of International Law in a Changing International System (1993) 68(3) "Indiana Law Journal", 705, 711.
• Jochen A Frowein, Article 39 in Bruno Simma (ed), The Charter of the United Nations (Oxford 1995) 612.
• Lee E., Globalization and Labour Standards: A Review of the Issues (1997) 136(2) "International Labour Review" 173.
• Denis MacShane, Human Rights and Labor Rights: A European Perspective in Lance A Compa, Stephen F Diamond (eds), Human Rights, Labor Rights and International Trade (1996 Philadelphia) 51.
• Unsanctioned Suffering: A Human Rights Assessment of UN Sanctions on Iraq (1996), <http://www.cesr.org/downloads/Unsanctioned Suffering 1996.pdf> accessed on 28 March 2012.
• Müller J., Müller K., Sanctions of Mass Destruction (1999) 78(3) "Foreign Affairs" 43, 49.
• GATT, Trends in International Trade: Report by a Panel of Experts (1958) called the Haberler Report.
• Craig N Murphy, What the Third World Wants: An Interpretation of the Development and Meaning of the New International Economic Order Ideology in Paul F Diehl (ed), The Politics of Global Governance, (Boulder 2001) 266.
• Cole A. N., Labor Standards and the Generalized System of Preferences: the European Labor incentives (2003) 25 "Michigan Journal of International Law" 179, 185.
• Grossman G. M., Sykes A. O., A preference for development: the law and economics of GSP (2005) 4(1) "World Trade Review" 41, 43.
• Dos Santos N. B., Farias R., Cunha R., Generalized System of Preferences in General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade/Words Trade Organization: History and Current Issues (2005) 39(4) " Journal of World Trade" 637, 640 and 644.
• Waiver Decision on the Generalized System of Preferences, Ministerial Decision of 25 June 1971, L/3545.
• John Jackson, The Jurisprudence of GATT and the WTO (Cambridge 2000) 65-66 and 322-324.
• Decision of 28 November 1979 on Differential and More Favourable Treatment, Reciprocity and Fuller Participation of Developing Countries, L-4903.
• Article 2 of the Enabling Clause.
• Article 3 of the Enabling Clause.
• Article 4 of the Enabling Clause.
• Article 5 of the Enabling Clause.
• UNCTAD Report General System of Preferences: List of Beneficiaries, UNCTAD/ITCD/TSB/Misc.62/Rev.5, 1.
• Zagel G., The WTO and Trade-Related Human Rights Measures: Trade Sanctions vs. Trade Incentives (2004) 9 "Austrian Review of International and European Law" 119,123.
• Council Regulation no. 3835/90 of 20 December 1990, OJ 1990, L 370/126.
• Council Regulation no. 3900/91 of 16 December 1991, OJ 1991, L 368/11.
• Council Regulation no. 3281/94 of 19 December 1994, OJ 1994, L 348/1.
• Council Regulation no. 3282/94 of 19 December 1994, OJ 1991, L 348/57.
• Council Regulation no. 2820/98 of 21 December 1998, OJ 1998, L 357/1.
• Council Regulation no. 2501/2001 of 10 December 2001, OJ 2001, L346/1.
• Zhou W., Cuyvers L., Linking International Trade and Labour Standards: The Effectiveness of Sanctions under the European Union's GSP (2011) 45(1) "Journal of World Trade" 63, 64.
• Charnovitz S., The Appellate Body's GSP Decision (2004) 3(2) "World Trade Review" 239.
• Gregory Shaffer, Yvonne Apea, GSP Programmesand Their Historical-Political-Institutional Context in Thomas Cottier, Joost Pauwelyn, Elisabeth Bürgi (eds) Human Rights and International Trade (Oxford 2005) 488.
• Jane Bradley, The Enabling Clause and Applied Rules of Interpretation in Thomas Cottier,Joost Pauwelyn, Elisabeth Bürgi (eds)Human Rights and International Trade (Oxford 2005) 504.
• Bartels L., The WTO Enabling Clauseand Positive Conditionality in the European Community's GSP Program (2003) 6(2) "Journal of International Economic Law" 507, 513.
• US Trade Act of 1974.
• Office of the United States Trade Representative <http://www.ustr.gov/tradetopics/trade-development/preference-programs/generalized-system-preference-gsp>accessed 20 June 2012.
• Bartels L., The Appellate Body Report in European Communities - Conditions for Granting of Tariff Preferences to Developing Countries and its Implications for Conditionality in GSP Programmes in Thomas Cottier, Joost Pauwelyn, Elisabeth Bürgi(eds)Human Rights and International Trade (Oxford 2005) 467.
• Cullen H., The Limits of International Trade Mechanisms In Enforcing Human Rights: the Case of Child Labour (1999) 7(1) "The International Journal of Childrens Rights" 1, 11-12.
• Philip Alston, Labor Rights Provisions in US Trade Law: Aggressive Unilateralism? in Lance A Compa, Stephen F Diamond (eds) Human Rights, Labor Rightsand International Trade (Philadelphia 1996) 80.
• EC - tariff preferences WT/DS246 (2002). The case European Communities - Generalized System of Preferences between Thailand and the EC, WT/DS242 (2001).
• Bartels L., The WTO Legality of the EU's GSP+ Arrangement (2007) 10(4) "Journal of International Economic Law" 869, 869.
• Complex article 9 of the Council Regulation no 980/2005 of 27 July 2005, OJ 2005, L169/1.
• Turksen U., The WTO Law and the EC's GSP+ Arrangement (2009) 43(5)"Journal of World Trade", 927, 967-970.
• Dollar D., Outward-Oriented Developing Economies Really Do Grow MoreRapidly: Evidence from 95 LDCs, 1976-1985 (1992) 40(3) "Economic Development and Cultural Change" 523.
• Sachs J. D., Warner A. M., Economic Reform and the Process of Global Integration (1995) 26(1) Brookings Papers on Economic Activity 1.
• Edwards S.,Openness, Trade Liberalization, and Growth in Developing Countries (1993) 31(3) "Journal of Economic Literature" 1358.
• Frankel J. A., Romer D., Does Trade Cause Growth (1999) 89(3) "American Economic Review" 379.
• James Harrison, The Human Rights Impact of the World Trade Organization (Hart Publishing, 2007) 78-81.
• Khor M., The World Trade Organization, labour standards and trade protectionism (1994) 41 "Third World Resurgence" 30, 30-34.
• Harrison J., GSP Conditionality and Non-Discrimination (2003) 9(6) "International Trade Law and Regulation" 159, 163.
• Regulated in Marrakech Agreement, Article IX (3).
• GATT Article XXV (5).
• Krista N Schefer, Stopping Trade in Conflict Diamonds: Exploring the Trade and Human Rights Interface with the WTO Waiver for the Kimberley Process in Thomas Cottier, Joost Pauwelyn, Elisabeth Bürgi (eds) Human Rights and International Trade (Oxford 2005) 400.
• A Rough Trade: The Role of Companies and Governments in the Angolan Conflict (1998) <http://www.globalwitness.org/library/rough-trade> accessed 20 June 2012.
• United Nations document A/RES/55/56.
• United Nations document A/RES/55/263.
• Kimberley Process Certification Scheme <http://www.kimberleyprocess.com> accessed20 June 2012.
• Data from the website <http://www.kimberleyprocess.com>accessed 20 June 2012.
• Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, signed in Marrakesh, Morocco, on 15 April 1994.
• Marrakech Agreement, Article IX (3)(b).
• Marrakech Agreement, Article IX (4).
• General Council Decision of 15 May 2003, WT/L/518. From 1 January 2003 to 31 December 2006.
• Annex 1A to the Marrakesh Agreement.
• Kevin R Gray, Conflict Diamonds and the WTO: Not the Best Opportunity to be Missedfor the Trade-Human Rights Interface in Thomas Cottier, Joost Pauwelyn, Elisabeth Bürgi(eds)Human Rights and International Trade (Oxford 2005)451-452.
• Partnership Agreement between the members of the African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States of the one part, and the European Community and its Member States, of theother part, signed in Cotonou, Benin, on 23 June 2000, OJ 2000, L 317/3.
• Waiver concerning the ACP-EC Partnership Agreement, Ministerial Decision of 14November 2001, WT/MIN(01)/15.
• Wolf S., The Cotonou Agreement and theChallenges of Making the New EU-ACP Trade Regime WTO Compatible (2001) 35(1) "Journal of World Trade" 123, 133-135.
• Nwobike J. C., The Emerging Trade Regime Under the Cotonou Partnership Agreement: Its Human Rights Implications (2006) 40(2) "Journal of World Trade" 291, 294.
• Action Aid International, Trade Traps: Why EU-ACP Economic Partnership Agreement pose a threat to Africa's development <http://www.actionaid.org.uk/doc_lib/trade_traps.pdf> accessed 20 June 2012.