Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Unfair Trade? Preferential Trade Agreements, Human Rights and Inequalities

  • Thematic Section
  • Published:
Development Aims and scope

Abstract

This article examines the implications for social inclusion, equality and the fulfillment of human rights of the recent proliferation of preferential trade agreements (PTAs). It considers the impact that PTAs have had on small and medium-sized enterprises, smallholder farmers and women. It also considers the limits on domestic policy space mandated by PTAs, and the implications this has for the ability of governments’ to regulate in the public interest.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/03/opinion/obamas-covert-trade-deal.html?_r=1 accessed 15 June 2015.

  2. https://wikileaks.org/tisa-financial/WikiLeaks-secret-tisa-financial-annex.pdf accessed 15 June 2015.

  3. The ILO estimates that globally and across all sectors of the economy, MSMEs account for the largest share of employment, including two-thirds of all formal jobs in developing countries: (ILO, GIZ, 2013).

  4. Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement between Japan and the Republic of India (16 February 2011) Annex I.

  5. Free trade Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Korea, of the other part (2011), Chapter 10.

  6. Canada-EU Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (2014), Article 18(3).

  7. United Nations, General Assembly, Report of the Independent Expert on the effects of foreign debt and other related international financial obligations of States on the full enjoyment of all human rights, particularly economic, social and cultural rights, A/67/304 (13 August 2012).

  8. http://world-psi.org/en/jakarta-court-cancels-worlds-biggest-water-privatisation-after-18-year-failure, accessed 15 June 2015.

  9. Free trade agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Korea, of the other part (2011), Article 7.38.

  10. United Nations, General Assembly, Report of the Commission of Experts of the President of the United Nations General Assembly on Reforms of the International Monetary and Financial System (2009): para.38.

  11. Ibid, paras. 82–83.

  12. United Nations, General Assembly, Report of the Independent Expert on the effects of foreign debt and other related international financial obligations of States on the full enjoyment of all human rights, particularly economic, social and cultural rights, A/67/304 (13 August 2012).

  13. Ibid.

  14. CMS Gas Transmission Company v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/8, Decision of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Application for Annulment of the Argentine Republic, 25 September 2007.

  15. Cem Uzan v Republic of Turkey (SCC) 2014.

  16. Occidental Petroleum Corporation et al. v. The Republic of Ecuador, ICSID Case No. ARB/06/11, Award, October 5, 2012.

  17. Suez, Sociedad General de Aguas de Barcelona SA and Vivendi Universal SA v Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/19, July 30, 2010.

  18. United Nations, General Assembly, Guiding principles on human rights impact assessments of trade and investment agreements: report of the Special Rapporteur on the right to food, A/HRC/19/59/Add.5 (19 December 201).

References

  • Baccini, Leonardo, Pablo M. Pinto and Stephen Weymouth (2015) The Dark Side of International Trade Agreements, working paper, http://wp.peio.me/wp-content/uploads/PEIO8/Baccini,%20Pinto,%20Weymouth%2031.1.2015.pdf.

  • Banga, Rashmi (2013) ‘Measuring Value in Global Value Chains’, Background Paper No. RVC-8, unpublished report, Geneva: UNCTAD.

  • Bloomberg Business (2015) ‘Suez wins $405 million arbitration ruling in Argentina dispute’, 19 April.

  • Bonnitcha, Jonathan (2011) ‘The Problem of Moral Hazard and its Implications for the Protection of ‘Legitimate Expectations’ under the Fair and Equitable Treatment Standard’, Investment Treaty News 3 (1): 6–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ecofair Trade Dialogue (ETD) (2011) Right to Food Impact Assessment of the EU-India Trade Agreement. Berlin: Heinrich Böll Stiftung, Third World Network, Miseroer, Anthra, Glopolis, Ecofair Trade Dialogue.

  • ETC Group (2013) Putting the Cartel before the Horse … and Farm, Seeds, Soil, Peasants, etc.; Who Will Control Agricultural Inputs, 2013? Ottawa: ETC Group.

  • European Commission (2015) How Trade Policy and Regional Trade Agreements Support and Strengthen EU Economic Performance. Brussels: European Commission.

  • FAO (2011) Women in Agriculture: Closing the Gender Gap for Development. Rome: FAO.

  • FAO, IFAD, WFP (2015) The State of Food Insecurity in the World. Rome: UN FAO.

  • French, J. (2014) ‘Investor-State Dispute Settlement – A cut above the courts?’, paper presented to Supreme and Federal Courts Judges’ Conference, unpublished report, Darwin.

  • Gallagher, Kevin P. (2010) ‘Policy Space to Prevent and Mitigate Financial Crises in Trade and Investment Agreements’, G-24 Discussion Paper No. 58, unpublished report.

  • Harrison, Ann, John McLaren and Margaret McMillan (2011) ‘Recent Perspectives on Trade and Inequality’, Annual Review of Economics 3 (1): 261–289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ILO, GIZ (2013) Is Small Still Beautiful? Literature Review of Recent Empirical Evidence on the Contribution of SMEs to Employment Creation. Berlin/Geneva: GIZ/ILO.

  • Indonesia Newsstand (2015) ‘Jakarta Plans to Reorganize Water Resource Management’, 30 March.

  • International Labour Organization (ILO) (2012) Global Employment Trends for Women. Geneva: ILO.

  • International Trade Centre (ITC) (2014) Empowering Women through Public Procurement. Geneva: ITC.

  • Jones, Doug (2011) ‘The Problem of Inconsistency and Conflicting Awards in Investment Arbitration’, paper presented to German-American Lawyers’ Association, unpublished report, Frankfurt.

  • Kabeer, Naila (2012) ‘Women’s Economic Empowerment and Inclusive Growth: Labour Markets and Enterprise Development’, SIG Working Paper 2012/1, unpublished report, London: School of Oriental and African Studies, UK Department for International Development and International Development Research Centre.

  • Kahale, George (2012) ‘Is Investor-State Arbitration Broken?’, Transnational Dispute Management 9 (7): 1–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maxwell, Daniel and Keith Wiebe (1999) ‘Land Tenure and Food Security: Exploring dynamic linkages’, Development & Change 30 (4): 825–849.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Municipal Services Project (MSP), CEO, Transnational Institute (2012) Remunicipalisation: Putting water back into public hands. Amsterdam: Transnational Institute.

  • Nomura, Ryoichi, Takao Ohkawa, Makoto Okamura and Makoto Tawada (2013) ‘Does a Bilateral FTA Pave the Way for Multilateral Free Trade? Review of International Economics 21 (1): 164–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • OECD (2004) Promoting SMEs for Development. Promoting Entrepreneurship and Innovative SMEs in a Global Economy: Towards a More Responsible and Inclusive Globalisation. Paper presented at the 2nd OECD Conference of Ministers Responsible for Small and Medium Sized Enterprises, Istanbul, 3–5 June, unpublished report, OECD.

  • OHCHR (2015) Secret Negotiations on Trade Treaties, a Threat to Human rights – UN Expert. Geneva: UN.

  • Third World Network (TWN) (2011) India’s Free Trade Agreements and Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises: Provisions, linkages and possible impact – a toolkit for MSMEs. Penang: TWN.

  • Tussie, Diana and Carlos Aggio (2006) ‘Economic and Social Impacts of Trade Liberalization’, in Sam Laird and Santiago Fernández de Córdoba (eds.) Coping with Trade Reforms. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • UN Inter-Agency Network on Women and Gender Equality (2011) Gender Equality and Trade Policy: Resource paper, 2011. New York: UN.

  • UNCTAD (2008) Report of the International Conference ‘Moving towards Gender Sensitization of Trade Policy’, Geneva: UNCTAD.

  • UNCTAD (2013) ‘World Investment Report 2013, Global Value Chains: Investment and Trade for Development’, Geneva: UNCTAD.

  • UNCTAD (2015) Recent Trends in IIAS and ISDS. Geneva: UNCTAD.

  • UNDP (2010) Intellectual Property, Agrobiodiversity and Gender Considerations: Issues and case studies from the Andean and South Asian regions. New York: UNDP.

  • Wamboye, Evelyn F. and Stephanie Seguino (2015) ‘Gender Effects of Trade Openness in Sub-Saharan Africa’, Feminist Economics 21 (3): 1–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • WTO (2012) World Trade Report 2011, The WTO and Preferential Trade Agreements: From co-existence to coherence. Geneva: WTO.

Download references

Authors
  1. Tessa Khan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

Examines the implications for social inclusion, equality and the fulfilment of human rights of the recent proliferation of preferential trade agreements

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Khan, T. Unfair Trade? Preferential Trade Agreements, Human Rights and Inequalities. Development 57, 423–432 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1057/dev.2015.23

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/dev.2015.23

Keywords

Search

Navigation