http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/political.htmGlobalization, a political and not simply an economic question
by Chakravarthi Raghavan
Geneva, 8 Aug 2001
* * * *
The major regimes of law implicated in the on-going processes of globalization mainly concern those related to international trade, investment and finance and, broadly speaking, they fall within the rubric of International Economic Law, which is primarily concerned with the principles and institutional mechanisms that undergird developments within the international economy. Some basic questions that arise are: Does a liberal regime of international trade, investment and finance especially that espoused by the dominant proponents of globalization always foster the promotion and protection of human rights? Is there a necessary synergy and mutuality of support between increased international trade, investment, finance and human rights? Are there situations in which the two regimes may conflict?
There is a general misconception that the two regimes of law exist in pristine, self-contained isolation. However, the same entities (states) have created and adopted the norms and standards of the two bodies of law. It is thus necessary to ensure that there is greater coherence between the two. Answers to the questions are not clear cut. On the face of it, International Economic Law has largely not paid much attention to International Human Rights, and vice versa.
* * *
he regime of law concerned with the promotion and protection of International human rights is itself not free of problems. Despite assertions about the universal character of human rights, several issues remain outstanding whether of a conceptual or an enforcement nature. Thus, the insidious categorization of international human rights law continues, despite the Vienna Declaration’s proclamation on the indivisibility, interdependence and interrelationship of human rights, and the considerable work by the CESCR in clarifying this category of rights. Sometimes couched in terms of implementation, resources, or their alleged non-justiciability, the net effect has been to downgrade the importance of economic, social and cultural rights while paying lip-service respect to civil and political ones. Secondly, the enforcement mechanisms of international human rights remain weak and perfunctory, unless there is an overriding interest of a political or economic nature that is driving the action.
Against the background of these tensions, the problem remains that some countries have not benefited from the new developments in the global economy. Neither have many individuals in such countries gained from the increased attention to international human rights.
The last decade has witnessed numerous countries especially developing and least developed ones (LDCs) adopt all the basic tenets of a liberalized economy, including free exchange rates, reduced regulations on prices and markets for goods (including farm produce), and the dismantling of trade and financial barriers, all in the name of deriving maximum benefits from the processes of globalization.
But, as brought out in UNCTAD’s most recent report on LDCs, most of the poorest countries’ economies have still fared badly, some even worse than before liberalization, partly on account of dependence on a single cash crop, insufficient donor support, and the intervention of wars and coups, and even further to the very conceptualization of the policies and programs of liberalization. There is thus a problem with both regimes of law. It is fairly obvious that resolving the tensions and bringing the two regimes of law closer together will be no small task.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
