Working on Workers’ Rights: How the USA and the EU Govern Labor Standards Abroad

  • Myriam Oehri
Part of the The European Union in International Affairs book series (EUIA)


“Working on Worker Rights: How the USA and the EU Govern Labor Standards Abroad” comparatively assesses US and EU external labor governance and illustrates their effectiveness in Mexico, Morocco, and the Dominican Republic. It furthermore provides theoretical reflections on the governance modes the USA and the EU opt for when promoting workers’ rights abroad. To that end, Oehri conducts a co-variational analysis which evaluates the effects of variables derived from the institutionalist and the power-based approaches. It includes the careful assessment of US and EU internal labor governance as well as the power relations between the USA and the EU, and Mexico, Morocco, and the Dominican Republic. The chapter appraises the comparative and co-variational analyses’ findings in light of extant literature and pertinent statements of interviewees.


  1. Aaronson, S. A., & Zimmerman, J. M. (2008). Trade imbalance: The struggle to weigh human rights concerns in trade policymaking. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Abbott, K. W., Keohane, R. O., Moravcsik, A., Slaughter, A.-M., & Snidal, D. (2000). The concept of legalization. International Organization, 54(3), 401–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Adriaensen, J., & González-Garibay, M. (2013). The illusion of choice: The European Union and the trade-labor linkage. Journal of Contemporary European Research, 9(4), 542–559.Google Scholar
  4. Aspinwall, M. (2013). Side effects: Mexican governance under NAFTA’s labor and environmental agreements. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bahaijoub, A. (1993). Morocco’s argument to join the EEC. In G. Joffé (Ed.), North Africa: Nation, state, and region (pp. 235–245). London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  6. Barbé, E., Costa, O., Herranz Surrallés, A., & Natorski, M. (2009). Which rules shape EU external governance? Patterns of rule selection in foreign and security policies. Journal of European Public Policy, 16(6), 834–852.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bartels, L. (2004). A legal analysis of human rights clauses in the European Union’s Euro-Mediterranean association agreements. Mediterranean Politics, 9(3), 368–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bartels, L. (2005). Human rights conditionality in the EU’s international agreements. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bartels, L. (2008). Cariforum-EU Economic Partnership Agreement. Comments, European Commission, available at (accessed January 2015).
  10. Befort, S. E., & Cornett, V. E. (1996). Beyond the rhetoric of the NAFTA treaty debate: A comparative analysis of labor and employment law in Mexico and the United States. Comparative Labor Law Journal, 17, 269–313.Google Scholar
  11. Behrens, M., & Janusch, H. (2012). Great “normative power:” The European and American trade approaches with Chile and Mexico. European Foreign Affairs Review, 17(3), 367–386.Google Scholar
  12. Benz, A. (2009). Combined modes of governance in EU policymaking. In I. Tömmel & A. Verdun (Eds.), Innovative governance in the European Union (pp. 27–44). Boulder and London: Lynne Rienner Publishers.Google Scholar
  13. Benz, A., Lütz, S., Schimank, U., & Simonis, G. (2007). Einleitung. In A. Benz, S. Lütz, U. Schimank, & G. Simonis (Eds.), Handbuch Governance: Theoretische Grundlagen und empirische Anwendungsfelder (pp. 9–26). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bernard, E. (2008). The state of U.S. labor & building union power. Democratic Left, Fall, 4–6.Google Scholar
  15. Bicchi, F. (2006). “Our size fits all:” Normative power Europe and the Mediterranean. Journal of European Public Policy, 13(2), 286–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Blanquet, F. (1992). L’Europe: vers l’harmonisation des législations sociales. Working Paper.Google Scholar
  17. Blatter, J., & Blume, T. (2008). In search of co-variance, causal mechanisms or congruence? Towards a plural understanding of case studies. Swiss Political Science Review, 14(2), 315–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Blatter, J., & Haverland, M. (2012). Designing case studies: Explanatory approaches in small-N research. Research Methods Series. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Börzel, T. A. (2010). European governance: Negotiation and competition in the shadow of hierarchy. Journal of Common Market Studies, 48(2), 191–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Börzel, T. A., & Risse, T. (2004). One size fits all! EU policies for the promotion of human rights, democracy, and the rule of law. Paper prepared for the Workshop on Democracy Promotion organized by the Center for Development, Democracy and the Rule of Law, Stanford University.Google Scholar
  21. Bourgeois, J., Dawar, K., & Evenett, S. (2007). A comparative analysis of selected provisions in free trade agreements. Brussels: European Commission, DG Trade.Google Scholar
  22. Bronstein, A. (2009). International and comparative labour law: Current challenges. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan/Geneva: International Labour Organization.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Brower, A. (2008). Rethinking NAFTA’s NAALC provisions: The effectiveness of its dispute resolution system on the protection of Mexican migrant workers in the United States. Indiana International and Comparative Law Review, 18(1), 153–188.Google Scholar
  24. Brunel, C. (2009a). Overview. In G. C. Hufbauer & C. Brunel (Eds.), Capitalizing on the Morocco-US Free Trade Agreement: A road map for success (pp.1–21). Washington, DC: Peterson Institute for International Economics.Google Scholar
  25. Brunel, C. (2009b). Morocco-EU trade relations. In G. C. Hufbauer & C. Brunel (Eds.), Capitalizing on the Morocco-US Free Trade Agreement: A road map for success (pp. 221–236). Washington, DC: Peterson Institute for International Economics.Google Scholar
  26. Church Albertson, P., & Compa, L. (2015). Labour rights and trade agreements in the Americas. In A. Blacket & A. Trebilcock (Eds.), Research handbook on transnational labour law (pp. 474–493). Cheltenham and Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Compa, L. (2001). NAFTA’s labour side agreement and international labour solidarity. A Radical Journal of Geography, 33(3), 451–467.Google Scholar
  28. Coppola, S. (2011). Social rights in the European Union: The possible added value of a binding charter of fundamental rights. In G. Di Federico (Ed.), The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (pp. 199–215). Berlin and Heidelberg: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Damro, C. (2012). Market power Europe. Journal of European Public Policy, 19(5), 682–699.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Damro, C. (2015). Market power Europe and new EU trade policies. In J. Wouters, A. Marx., D. Geraets, & B. Natens (Eds.), Global governance through trade: EU policies and approaches (pp. 19–42). Cheltenham and Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Dannin, E. (2009). The future of US labor law and the long struggle for labor rights. Employee Responsibilities & Rights Journal, 21(2), 139–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Dawar, K. (2008). Assessing labour and environmental regimes in regional trading agreements. Working Paper No. 55(8), Society of International Economic Law.Google Scholar
  33. Dawson, C. (2009). EU integration with North Africa: Trade negotiations and democracy deficits in Morocco. London and New York: Tauris Academic Studies.Google Scholar
  34. De Haas, H., & Vezoli, S. (2010). Migration and development: Lessons from the Mexico-US and Morocco-EU experiences. Working Paper, International Migration Institute, University of Oxford, available at (accessed January 2015).
  35. Dimitrova, A., & Dragneva, R. (2009). Constraining external governance: Interdependence with Russia and the CIS as limits to the EU’s rule transfer in the Ukraine. Journal of European Public Policy, 16(6), 853–872.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Doumbia-Henry, C., & Gravel, E. (2006). Free trade agreements and labour rights: Recent developments. International Labour Review, 145(3), 185–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Durán, E. (1992). Mexico’s relations with the European Community. Madrid: Instituto De Relaciones Europeo-Latinoamericanas.Google Scholar
  38. Ebert, F. C., & Posthuma, A. (2011). Labour provisions in trade arrangements: Current trends and perspectives. ILO Discussion Paper No. 205, Geneva.Google Scholar
  39. Elliott, K. A., & Freeman, R. B. (2003). Can labor standards improve under globalization?. Washington, DC: Institute for International Economics.Google Scholar
  40. European Commission. (1995). The inclusion of respect for democratic principles and human rights in agreements between the Community and third countries. COM (95) 216, May 23.Google Scholar
  41. European Commission. (2001). Promoting core labour standards and improving social governance in the context of globalisation. COM (2001) 412, July 18.Google Scholar
  42. European Commission. (2003). Reinvigorating EU actions on human rights and democratisation with Mediterranean partners: Strategic guidelines. COM (2003) 294, May 21.Google Scholar
  43. Falkner, G., Treib, O., Hartlapp, M., & Leiber, S. (2005). Complying with Europe: EU harmonisation and soft law in the member states. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Finbow, R. G. (2006). The limits of regionalism: NAFTA’s labour accord. Burlington, VT: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  45. Freeman, R. B. (2007). America works: The exceptional U.S. labor market. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  46. Freyburg, T., Lavenex, S., Schimmelfennig, F., Skripka, T., & Wetzel, A. (2009). EU promotion of democratic governance in the neighbourhood. Journal of European Public Policy, 16(6), 916–634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Frundt, H. J. (1998). Trade conditions and labor rights: U.S. initiatives, Dominican and Central American responses. Gainesville, FL: Florida University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Galtung, J. (1972). Eine strukturelle Theorie des Imperialismus. In D. Senghaas (Ed.), Imperialismus und strukturelle Gewalt: Analysen über abhängige Reproduktion (pp. 29–104). Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  49. García, M. (2013). From idealism to realism? EU preferential trade agreement policy. Journal of Contemporary European Research, 9(4), 522–541.Google Scholar
  50. Gerring, J. (2007). Case study research: Principles and practices. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  51. Gibb, R. (2000). Post-Lomé: The European Union and the South. Third World Quarterly, 21(3), 457–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Granados, J., & Cornejo, R. (2006). Convergence in the Americas: Some lessons from the DR-CAFTA process. The World Economy, 29(7), 857–891.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Hafner-Burton, E. (2009). Forced to be good: Why trade agreements boost human rights. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  54. Hartlapp, M. (2009). Extended governance: Implementation of EU social policy in the member states. In I. Tömmel & A. Verdun (Eds.), Innovative governance in the European Union (pp. 221–236). Boulder and London: Lynne Rienner Publishers.Google Scholar
  55. Hartlapp, M., & Leiber, S. (2010). The implementation of EU social policy: The “southern problem” revisited. Journal of European Public Policy, 17(4), 468–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Héritier, A. (2002). New modes of governance in Europe: Policy-making without legislating. In A. Héritier (Ed.), Common goods: Reinventing European and international governance (pp. 185–206). Lanham, Boulder, New York, and Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  57. Héritier, A., & Lehmkuhl, D. (2008). Introduction: The shadow of hierarchy and new modes of governance. Journal of Public Policy, 28(1), 1–17.Google Scholar
  58. Hiessl, C. (2012). Basics on European social law. Wien: Linde Verlag.Google Scholar
  59. Horn, H., Mavroidis, P. C., & Sapir, A. (2010). Beyond the WTO? An anatomy of EU and US preferential trade agreements. The World Economy, 33(1), 1565–1588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Humphrey, E., & Cossy, M. (2011). Implementing the economic partnership agreement: Challenges and bottlenecks in the CARIFORUM region. Discussion Paper No. 117, Maastricht: European Centre for Development Management.Google Scholar
  61. Hurt, S. R. (2003). Co-operation and coercion? The Cotonou Agreement between the European Union and ACP states and the end of the Lomé Convention. Third World Quarterly, 24(1), 161–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. International Labor Organization. (2013). Social dimensions of free trade agreements. IILS Studies on Growth with Equity, Geneva: ILO.Google Scholar
  63. Kahn-Nisser, S. (2014). External governance, convention ratification and monitoring: The EU, the ILO and labour standards in EU accession countries. European Journal of Industrial Relations, 20(4), 383–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Kay, T. (2005). Labor transnationalism and global governance: The impact of NAFTA on transnational labor relationships in North America. American Journal of Sociology, 111(3), 715–756.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Kay, T. (2011). NAFTA and the politics of labor transnationalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Kearns, J. (2009). United States-Morocco Free Trade Agreement. In S. Lester & B. Mercurio (Eds.), Bilateral and regional trade agreements: Case studies (pp. 144–191). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Kerremans, B., & Martins Gistelinck, M. (2009a). Interest aggregation, political parties, labour standards and trade: Differences in the US and EU approaches to the inclusion of labour standards in international trade agreements. European Foreign Affairs Review, 14(5), 683–701.Google Scholar
  68. Kerremans, B., & Martins Gistelinck, M. (2009b). Labour rights in EPAs: Can the EU-CARIFORUM EPA be a guide?. In G. Faber & J. Orbie (Eds.), Beyond market access for economic development: EU-Africa relations in transition (pp. 304–321). London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  69. Keune, M. (2009). EU enlargement and social standards: Exporting the European social model? In J. Orbie & L. Tortell (Eds.), The European Union and the social dimension of globalization: How the EU influences the world (pp. 45–61). London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  70. Kohler-Koch, B., & Rittberger, B. (2006). The “governance turn” in EU studies. Journal of Common Market Studies, 44(1), 27–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Lavenex, S. (2008). A governance perspective on the European neighborhood policy: Integration beyond conditionality? Journal of European Public Policy, 15(6), 938–955.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Lavenex, S. (2014). The power of functionalist extension: How EU rules travel. Journal of European Public Policy, 21(6), 885–903.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Lavenex, S., & Schimmelfennig, F. (2009). EU rules beyond borders: Theorizing external governance in European politics. Journal of European Public Policy, 16(6), 791–812.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Lavenex, S., Lehmkuhl, D., & Wichmann, N. (2009). Modes of external governance: A cross-national and cross-sectoral comparison. Journal of European Public Policy, 16(6), 813–833.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Lazo Grandi, P. (2009). Trade agreements and their relation to labour standards. Issue Paper No. 3, Geneva: International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Levy, D. C., & Bruhn, K. (2001). Mexico: The struggle for democratic development. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  77. Lichtenstein, N. (2011). Labour, liberalism, and the Democratic party: A vexed alliance. Industrial Relations, 66(4), 512–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Lijphart, A. (1975). The comparable-cases strategy in comparative research. Comparative Political Studies, 8(2), 158–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Lipset, S. M. (1996). American exceptionalism: A double-edged sword. New York and London: W.W. Norton.Google Scholar
  80. Mahoney, J., & Goertz, G. (2006). A tale of two cultures: Contrasting quantitative and qualitative research. Political Analysis, 14, 227–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Manners, I. (2009). The social dimension of EU trade policies: Reflections from a normative power perspective. European Foreign Affairs Review, 14, 785–803.Google Scholar
  82. Mayer, F. (1998). Interpreting NAFTA: The science and art of political analysis. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  83. Meunier, S., & Nicolaïdis, K. (2006). The European Union as a conflicted trade power. Journal of European Public Policy, 13(6), 906–925.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Milner, H. V. (1997). Interests, institutions, and information: Domestic politics and international relations. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  86. Nolan García, K. A. (2011a). The evolution of United States-Mexico labor cooperation (1994–2009): Achievements and challenges. Politics & Policy, 39(1), 91–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Novitz, T. (2005). The European Union and international labour standards: The dynamics of dialogue between the EU and the ILO. In P. Alston (Ed.), Labour rights as human rights (pp. 214–241). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Novitz, T. (2009). In search of a coherent social policy: EU import and export of ILO labour standards. In J. Orbie & L. Tortell (Eds.), The European Union and the social dimension of globalization: How the EU influences the world (pp. 27–44). London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  89. Orbie, J. (2011). Promoting labour standards through trade: Normative power or regulatory state Europe?. In R. G. Whitman (Ed.), Normative power Europe: Empirical and theoretical perspectives (pp. 160–183). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  90. Orbie, J., & Babarinde, O. (2008). The social dimension of globalization and EU development policy: Promoting core labour standards and corporate social responsibility. European Integration, 30(3), 459–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Orbie, J., Vos, H., & Taverniers, L. (2005). European Union trade policy and a social clause: A question of competences? Politique Européenne, 17, 159–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Peels, R., & Fino, M. (2015). Pushed out the door, back in through the window: The role of the ILO in EU and US trade agreements in facilitating the decent work agenda. Global Labour Journal, 6(2), 189–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Poiares Maduro, M. (1999). Striking the elusive balance between economic freedom and social rights in the EU. In P. Alston (Ed.), The EU and human rights (pp. 449–472). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  94. Pollack, M. A. (2012). Realist, intergovernmentalist, and institutionalist approaches. In E. Jones, A. Menon, & S. Weatherill (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of the European Union (pp. 3–17). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  95. Regent, S. (2003). The open method of coordination: A new supranational form of governance? European Law Journal, 9(2), 190–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Riedel, E., & Will, M. (1999). Human rights clauses in external agreements of the EEC. In P. Alston (Ed.), The EU and Human Rights (pp. 723–754). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  97. Rose, G. (1998). Neoclassical realism and theories of foreign policy. World Politics, 51(1), 144–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Rynning, S. (2005). Return of the Jedi: Realism and the study of the European Union. Politique Europénne, 17(3), 10–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Sachs, B. I. (2007). Labor law renewal. Harvard Law & Policy Review, 1, 375–400.Google Scholar
  100. Scharpf, F. (2002). The European social model: Coping with the challenges of diversity. Journal of Common Market Studies, 40(4), 645–670.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Schukat, P. (2008). CARIFORUM EPA and beyond: Recommendations for negotiations on services and trade related issues in EPAs. GTZ Study on Social Aspects and Environment, German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ) Working Paper.Google Scholar
  102. Sciarra, S. (1999). From Strasbourg to Amsterdam: Prospects for the convergence of European social rights policy. In P. Alston (Ed.), The EU and human rights (pp. 473–501). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  103. Seawright, J., & Gerring, J. (2008). Case selection techniques in case study research. Political Research Quarterly, 61(2), 294–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Siebert, O., & Lorz, H. (2006). Außenwirtschaft. Konstanz und München: UVK-Verlagsgesellschaft.Google Scholar
  105. Simma, B., Aschenbrenner, J. B., & Schulte, C. (1999). Human rights considerations in the development co-operation activities of the EC. In P. Alston (Ed.), The EU and human rights (pp. 571–626). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  106. Smith, M. (2004). Between two worlds? The European Union, the United States and world order. International Politics, 41(1), 95–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. Stallings, B. (2010). Globalization and labor in four developing regions: An institutional approach. Studies in Comparative International Development, 45(2), 127–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. Szymanski, M., & Smith, M. E. (2005). Coherence and conditionality in European foreign policy: Negotiating the EU-Mexico Global Agreement. Journal of Common Market Studies, 43(1), 171–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Thüsing, G. (2011). Europäisches Arbeitsrecht. München: Beck.Google Scholar
  110. Tinbergen, J. (1962). Shaping the world economy: Suggestions for an international economic policy. New York: The Twentieth Century Fund.Google Scholar
  111. United States Department of Labor. (2012). Progress in implementing Chapter 16 (Labor) and capacity-building under the Dominican Republic-Central America-United States Free Trade Agreement. Second Biennial Report submitted to Congress.Google Scholar
  112. Van Hüllen, V. (2012). Europeanisation through cooperation? EU democracy promotion in Morocco and Tunisia. West European Politics, 35(1), 117–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. Vogt, J. (2015a). The evolution of labor rights and trade: A transatlantic comparison and lessons for the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership. Journal of International Economic Law, 18, 827–860.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. Washington Office on Latin America. (2009). DR-CAFTA and workers’ rights: Moving from paper to practice. available at (accessed February 2014).Google Scholar
  115. White, G. (1996). The Mexico of Europe? Morocco’s partnership with the European Union. In D. Vandewalle (Ed.), North Africa: Development and reform in a changing global economy (pp. 111–128). New York: St. Martin’s.Google Scholar
  116. White, G. (2005). Free trade as a strategic instrument in the war on terror? The 2004 US-Moroccan Free Trade Agreement. Middle East Journal, 59(4), 597–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. Young, A. R., & Peterson, J. (2006). The EU and the new trade politics. Journal of European Public Policy, 13(6), 795–814.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. Youngs, R. (2009). Democracy promotion as external governance. Journal of European Public Policy, 16(6), 895–915.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (2009). Investment Policy Review Dominican Republic, available at (accessed August 2014).

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Myriam Oehri
    • 1
  1. 1.Global Studies InstituteUniversity of GenevaGenèveSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations