Trade Agreements And Labour Rights
The forum`s approach has been seen by academic commentators as a major difficulty in collecting success stories in the future.67 It has been argued that it is excessive to ask for “recurrent or persistent measures or inaction” for any job that is the subject of a complaint and not for an entire industry or cross-sectoral job. The auens crisis led to the American model. Senior politicians and trade unions have argued that the outcome of the procedure has shown that the working rules are not feasible69. Of the nearly 50 complaints filed to date under U.S. free trade agreements (the vast majority of them concern NAFTA), only Guatemala`s case has entered the dispute settlement phase.70 Like the EU`s free trade agreements, the U.S. government`s lack of political will has been identified as the reason for the failure to pursue other cases.71 Overall, the political will of the U.S. government has been identified. As a result of these problems, the crisis of confidence in U.S. labor rules is analogous to that of the EU regime.72 The case for the application of labor standards is strongest when it comes to fundamental human rights such as freedom of association or freedom of slavery and when it is based on moral reasons rather than economic considerations. If Washington wants to demand fundamental human rights from its trading partners, it must be prepared to accept the real costs it will impose on its own producers and consumers – and sometimes on the victims abroad it is trying to help.
Economic theory and evidence can be useful in calculating the potential cost of trade sanctions to the United States and its trading partners. It was not useful to determine whether the potential human rights benefits were worth the sacrifice of income. Nor is social science very indicative of the ability of a trade sanctions policy to improve victims` rights. “Does the inclusion of labour standards in free trade agreements (FTAEs) improve conditions for local workers? Beyond the traditional discussions on the “trade-labour link”, this much-needed book provides a concise answer by examining eu free trade agreements in the context of a broader labour regime. The authors` comparative analysis concludes not only that, in most cases, labour rules do not judiciously promote core labour standards, but also that they are ill-equipped to protect the well-being of workers who are negatively affected by trade. Those who echo the authors` call for a new approach to employment services will find this text an essential reading of such an effort. ” – Dr. Jennifer Bair, Department of Sociology, University of Virginia, USA While it`s easy to sympathize with Sweeney`s point of view, there is a big difference between workers` rights in another country and the IP rights of their own citizens in one country. If Burma denies its workers the right to organize independent trade unions, its actions are regrettable, but do not directly harm me.
If Burmese publishing houses and record companies allow me to reproduce my copyrighted books and songs without compensating me, the theft of my creative efforts hurts me directly. It`s hardly surprising that American voters insist that they remedy the wounds on their own before solving the problems of workers abroad. . . .