AARONSON'S PLEA FOR A GLOBAL INSTITUTION TO ENFORCE HUMAN RIGHTS

How to right the human rights-trade imbalance? That is the subject of the book ‘Trade Imbalance: the Struggle to Weigh Human Rights Concerns in Trade Policy-Making’ by Prof. Dr. Susan A. Aaronson and Jamie M. Zimmermann. On October 6th, Prof. Aaronson presented the research and main findings during a captivating lunch seminar at K.U.Leuven’s law faculty.

The book is based on comparative field studies conducted by the two researchers on “how South Africa, Brazil, the United States (U.S.) and the European Union (EU) make trade policy, coordinate trade and human rights objectives, and resolve conflicts”. Through different examples, Aaronson and Zimmermann show the often conflicting relationship between trade and human right. In the U.S., for example, there is no general understanding yet about the linkages between the two issues. One of the few success stories there concerns trade in chocolate and more specifically child labour in the chocolate manufacturing industry. Given that fair trade labels are not used and promoted in the U.S., two Congressmen addressed the issue of forced child labour in cocoa producing countries. They demanded that [U.S.] multinationals took measures to end that practice. However, this non-trade policy strategy, that is categorised as Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), is non-committal and consequently not sufficient to resolve the problem.

ON THE MARKET

At the lunch seminar, Aaronson emphasized the problem of differentiated governance tracks and the insufficiency of already existing global institutions: the WTO (World Trade Organisation) deals with global trade while the UN is at least partially concerned with human rights. Hence, there is a global institution missing that deals with situations in which trade and human right issues intertwine. One of the obstacles to such an institution is the fact that there is no valid definition of what human rights are.

During the seminar, Aaronson emphasized that the discrepancy between trade objectives and respect for human rights implicitly creeps in in the WTO discussions. But Aaronson sees it as undesirable and impossible that the WTO, on top of all its other tasks, deals with human rights as well. Moreover, she suggested to create a market for human rights as an alternative. Policy should bolster the local inherent demand for human rights and citizens should be encouraged to buy products with a social label and to demand transparency on human rights labour standards. Aaronson stressed that ‘you and I, as citizens of the world, have a responsibility concerning human rights’.

COHERENT POLICIES

What is needed are incentives to change the behaviour of policymakers and of multinational companies active in the country. In the discussion, some students did not quite agree to only give incentives to multinationals, but find that they have to be held liable and punished for their wrongdoing abroad (for instance, the “name and shame” strategy can be very effective), since “transnational companies are not children” and some would see CSR as a mere “image campaign” exercise.

Stressing the importance of policy making puts forward specific difficulties. In their findings, the researchers point out that some trade agreements could also simultaneously enhance or undermine human rights. Using a loan of the World Bank, for example, enhances democracy but at the same time can undermine education because it motivates the government to disinvest. A second problem that occurs when the focus lies on action on the national level is that countries are concerned with rights at home, but care less when it concerns other nation’s interests.

The very satisfactory overview of the imbalance is a good starting point to be able to suggest solutions for the situation. Aaronson and Zimmerman were clearly more successful in analysing than they were in proposing alternative policies. A lot of work is yet to be done in that field. |