The Canadian Council for International Co-operation (CCIC) is a coalition of
Canadian voluntary sector organizations working globally to achieve sustainable human development. The Council seeks to end global poverty and to promote social justice and human dignity for all.
Canadian Council for International Co-operation
1 Nicholas Street, Suite 300
Ottawa, Ontario K1N 7B7 Canada
Tel: (613) 241-7007
Fax: (613) 241-5302
Email: [email protected]
Web site: www.ccic.ca
Rights & Democracy is a non-partisan, independent Canadian institution created by an Act of Parliament in 1988 to promote, advocate and defend the democratic and human rights set out in the International Bill of Human Rights. In
cooperation with civil society and governments in Canada and abroad, Rights &
Democracy initiates and supports programmes to strengthen laws and democratic institutions, principally in developing countries.
1001 de Maisonneuve Blvd. East, Suite 1100
Montreal, Quebec H2L 4P9 Canada
Tel.: (514) 283-6073
Fax: (514) 283-3792
Email: [email protected]
Web site: www.dd-rd.ca
This report is also available online at www.ccic.ca and www.dd-rd.ca in
English, French, and Spanish. It may be freely excerpted or reproduced provided
the information is credited and a copy sent to CCIC and Rights & Democracy.
For more information:
Carole Samdup, Rights & Democracy, [email protected]
Gauri Sreenivasan, CCIC, [email protected]
Report Writer: Ann Simpson
Translation: François Lavallée
Production: Augie van Biljouw
Design: Still Graphics
Printed in Canada © 2007
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Welcoming Remarks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Keynote Speaker:
Martin Khor, Third World Network, Malaysia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Panel One: Protecting Human Rights in the Global Economy
• The Nature of State Obligations and Corresponding Responsibilities of the Private Sector . . . . . . 5
• Becoming Acquainted? International Trade and Human Rights. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
• Envisioning a Multilateral System that Prioritizes Human Rights:
Addressing Current Problems and Identifying Strategic Openings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Panel Two: Ensuring Policy Consistency at the National Level
• Bilateral Trade Agreements/EPAs and the Issue of Power in Bilateral Relations . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
• Tensions in Addressing Human Rights Obligations and Building a Development
Agenda in Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
• Consideration of Human Rights in the Formulation of Trade Policy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Keynote Speaker:
Olivier De Schutter, International Federation of Human Rights. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Workshops
• Right to Food and Trade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
• Right to Health and Trade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
• Right to Participation and Right to Information. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
• Labour Rights and Trade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
• Right to Liberty and Security of the Person. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
• Right to an Effective Remedy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Lessons for Future Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Appendices
• Appendix 1:
• Appendix 2:
• Appendix 3:
• Appendix 4:
Conference Agenda . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Speakers Biographical Notes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
List of Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
List of Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Reconciling Trade and Human Rights
Acknowledgements
T
he success of the international conference Reconciling Trade and Human Rights: The New
Development Agenda can be attributed to the important contributions made by the collaborating organizations during the planning process. Rights & Democracy and the
Canadian Council for International Co-operation gratefully acknowledge the valued guidance and
active participation of the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, Social Watch, Amnesty
International Canada and The North-South Institute.
The conference was supported by financial contributions from the International Development
Research Centre (Canadian Partnerships Program) and the Canadian International Development
Agency. The participation of international delegates was made possible in part by additional contributions from the Canadian Labour Congress, the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, the
International Federation of Human Rights and the University of Nottingham.
We would also like to thank all the speakers and participants for the high quality of the presentations
and discussions, which provided such a productive forum for exchange and debate.
Carole Samdup
Rights & Democracy
Gauri Sreenivasan
Canadian Council for International Co-operation
The New Development Agenda
1
Introduction
T
he repeated collapses and re-starts of the World Trade Organization (WTO) Doha
Development Agenda underscore a crisis in the legitimacy of the international trade regime.
The commitment by governments to put development at the centre of global trade negotia-
tions has been abandoned. Fundamental differences of vision have emerged among governments and
citizens around the world about the basic purposes of international trade.
The impasse in the WTO offers an opportunity for both governments and civil society to propose new
approaches to building a more just international trading system—approaches that may better encompass the needs of developing countries while respecting the interests of developed countries and the
obligations all states have to implement their human rights commitments.
In May 2007, the Canadian Council for International Co-operation (CCIC) and Rights & Democracy cohosted a two-day international conference to explore the ways in which the human rights framework
could inform new strategies for trade, development, and the eradication of poverty. The objectives of
this conference were to:
w Deepen overall knowledge and dialogue among civil society organizations (CSOs) on the use of
the human rights framework for advocacy on trade and other global economic justice issues.
w Explore the tensions of and opportunities for using a human rights framework in specific areas
of global economic justice work.
w Generate lessons and an overview of strategic entry points in the current global context for
continued work on trade, investment, and other economic issues using a human rights framework.
Approximately 120 participants from the Americas, Africa, Asia, and Europe attended the conference.
Key elements of the presentations and discussions are presented in this report. The rich discussions
highlighted both the possibilities and the urgency for developing a new approach to international trade
rules—one that reflects the obligations of the international community to human rights. CCIC and
Rights & Democracy look forward to the continuation of global dialogue on this theme and welcome
any feedback on this conference report.
2
Reconciling Trade and Human Rights
Welcoming Remarks
Gerry Barr
President-CEO, CCIC
The repeated crises in negotiations of the Doha Agenda demonstrate a breakdown of consensus on the
purpose of the international trade system. The challenge is to ensure that trade flows can help to reduce
the growing gap between rich and poor nations.
For CCIC, the goal of reducing poverty and inequality is fundamentally a matter of human rights. States
have formal obligations to define a development path that will respect, protect, and fulfill human rights.
Trade negotiations have a major impact on prospects for doing this and greatly affect citizens’ abilities to
hold states accountable to local development goals.
There is a need for a new framework for trade that is not built solely on the objective of market access.
The challenge is to move towards a trade system that supports the creation and redistribution of wealth
and permits diverse development strategies. The human rights framework provides a legal, political, and
ethical framework that can inform approaches to trade. Citizens can use this framework to mobilize and
press their governments for policies that better serve their needs and respect their rights.
Jean-Louis Roy
President, Rights & Democracy
There is no inherent conflict between the objectives of international human rights and of international
trade: both aim to improve the well-being of individuals and communities. What is important is to bridge
human rights and trade at the level of practice.
We must define and promote a development agenda that promotes fair trade as a positive force for the
realization of human rights. This might be accomplished with more dialogue between the human rights
and trade communities. As a country that benefits greatly from international trade and also enjoys a
strong human rights tradition, Canada can, and must, play a leading role in this reconciliation of trade
and human rights.
Trade should not trump human rights. The issue is not trade or human rights; it is trade and human
rights. The reconciliation of trade and human rights must be an important goal of Canadian foreign policy. There would be great value in Canada organizing an intergovernmental conference on reconciling
international trade and human rights.
The New Development Agenda
3
Keynote Speaker
Martin Khor
Director, Third World Network, Malaysia
Three concepts—trade, democracy, and development—need to be reconciled, and should be addressed
simultaneously. The division between them is a consequence of past political decisions.
During the colonial era, the economies of colonies
were shaped to supply commodities to the “mother”
countries. Colonies eventually struggled for political
independence and to reorient their economies to serve
the needs of their own people. In the 1970s and 1980s,
developing countries sought changes in world economic structures, such as agreements to raise commodity prices. In the Reagan/Thatcher era, these
efforts were overturned as multinational corporations
pushed a counter-agenda. In the space of two decades,
the WTO, the World Bank, and the International
Monetary Fund (IMF) replaced the United Nations
(UN) as the drivers of the international system. Faced
with the need for debt rescheduling, many developing
countries had to accept the conditions imposed by the
World Bank and the IMF, which included trade liberalization.
Some larger developing countries without debt crises
could not be forced by the IMF and the World Bank to
open their markets. The Uruguay Round of trade talks
and then the WTO were designed to bring non-trade
issues (such as investment, services, and intellectual
property) into the trading system, so that rules that
benefited multinational corporations could “discipline”
these larger developing countries. The trade system
was the preferred vehicle for this because of its
enforceable dispute settlement mechanisms.
The trade regime has become overloaded and the rules
are very unbalanced, particularly for agriculture: developed countries can maintain high subsidies but developing countries are continually required to reduce
agricultural tariffs. Public services that have an impact
on the enjoyment of human rights, such as the right to
water, will be negatively affected if there is a combination of pressures from the IMF, the World Bank, and
the WTO on countries that are subject to loan conditionalities. Under the General Agreement on Tariffs
and Trade (GATT), developing countries had considerable flexibility concerning industrial tariffs, but
proposals being negotiated in the Doha Round will
subject these countries to drastic tariff cuts, signifi-
4
Reconciling Trade and Human Rights
cantly curtailing their prospects for industrial development. Yet rich countries had very high tariffs when
they were developing their own industries.
Trade rules violate human rights principles. In a
human rights context, non-discrimination requires
positive discrimination in favour of the most vulnerable. In trade agreements, “non-discrimination” is
implemented as national treatment and most favoured
nation treatment. National treatment requires countries to treat foreign products at least as well as local
products: a country can treat a foreign product more
favorably than the local product, but not vice versa.
When national treatment is extended to services, intellectual property (IP), investment, procurement, and
competition, the most vulnerable (local companies,
small farmers) cannot be helped, even by their own
governments.
WTO rules need to be examined through the prism of
development and human rights. Developing countries
have made 150 proposals on how to reform the WTO
(the “implementation issues”), which were taken off the
table in the Doha Round but could help to reform the
system from a development point of view. There are
some human rights considerations in the current
Round. The Group of 33 has said there should be no
more liberalization of special products in agriculture
(which affect food security and the livelihoods of small
farmers—both human rights considerations). Considerable work has been done on the human rights
aspects of the IP provisions, and how the Agreement
on Trade-related Aspects of Intellectual Property
(TRIPS) can be modified or taken out of the WTO
entirely.
There is an emerging view in economics that maximum liberalization is bad for countries, as is maximum
protectionism. There is an optimum somewhere in
between. Rich countries should reduce their protections in agriculture, textiles, IP, and labour. Developing
countries should be allowed to protect to the extent
necessary and can be asked to reduce their protections
and to liberalize as they become stronger.
Bilateral FTAs (free trade agreements) are even more
problematic than WTO rules. At stake in developing
countries are not only human rights and development,
but also the very survival and viability of nations. If the
instruments that governments need to meet the needs
of their citizens are removed, nations risk collapsing
into “failed states”. WTO rules and bilateral FTAs are
eliminating the possibility for governments to encourage growth with greater equity through sophisticated
regulation. Trade rules need to be located within a
broader framework that takes into account the
requirements of development, political nationbuilding, equity between and within North and South,
and human rights.
It is up to us as civil society in the
“North
and the South not only to
provide intellectual leadership but
also to give governments the political will to do what they should be
doing. And that, I suppose, is the
meaning of democracy. Democracy
is us. We have to capture it. We
have to implement it.
”
Panel One: Protecting
Human Rights in the
Global Economy
The Nature of State Obligations and
Corresponding Responsibilities of the
Private Sector
Widney Brown
Senior Director of International Law, Policy
and Campaigns, Amnesty International, UK
Human rights are about the inherent dignity and equality of every human being. This concept should permeate
everything, including international trade. It is at the
heart of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, but
the cold-war led to a divided system that reflected a privileging of civil and political rights in the West and economic, social and cultural (ESC) rights in the East. In the
post cold-war era, the human rights community has
been working to redress this division.
The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
(ICCPR) is concerned with constraining the power of
the state (to torture, to arbitrarily detain, etc.). The
International Covenant on Economic, Social and
Cultural Rights (ICESCR) is about the positive obligations of the state to enable the realization of human dignity and equality. It covers rights such as the right to
work, the right to an adequate standard of living, and the
right to education. It is recognized that states have different levels of development and resources, but every
state party to the ICESCR takes steps, individually and
through international assistance and cooperation, to the
maximum of available resources, to progressively realize
the rights in the ICESCR.
States have often held that ESC rights are too vague to be
enforceable, and that there is no way to hold states
accountable if they fail to progressively realize these
rights. In the last 15 years, this idea has been effectively
challenged in many courts.
Several key principles underlie the legal obligations of
states regarding human rights. One is universality:
human rights apply to everyone, and no status claimed
by a person or imposed by a state can be used as a reason to deny access to those rights. Another is the indivisibility of rights, a concept that is key to developing a fair
system of trade. It is impossible to create a fair system if
people do not have access to information and to courts,
the ability to organize and speak freely, as well as food,
water, shelter and the ability to live a life of sufficient
autonomy to claim rights. Violations of civil and political
rights drive poverty as much as do violations of ESC
rights violations.
The human rights system is based on assumptions about
the power of the state and is grappling with how to deal
with powerful non-state actors that can deprive people
of rights or block the realization of their rights. These
actors include multilateral institutions that refuse to recognize their accountability under human rights law,
business entities (especially transnational companies),
armed groups that trade in natural resources to fund
conflicts, and foundations that are assuming a major role
in providing access to medicines but lack accountability
to principles of non-discrimination. One approach is to
press governments to hold non-state actors accountable
when they violate rights. Another is to find ways to hold
non-state actors accountable, for example by holding
corporations accountable for complicity in serious rights
violations.
A fair trade system must recognize the primacy of
human rights. The principle of progressive realization
needs to be better understood: everything in a fair system of trade should enhance the capacity of states to
progressively realize rights. The right to an effective
remedy is key. When rights are violated as a result of
trade agreements, those affected need to be able to make
a claim to a judicial body and obtain an effective remedy. This demands transparency in the content of trade
agreements, the participation of people whose lives are
affected by the agreements, and accountability for what
happens as a result of the agreements.
There is a need for strong, fact-based human rights
impact assessments. These require access to information and intensive on-the-ground work (talking to peoThe New Development Agenda
5
ple whose lives are affected by trade agreements).
Results need to be published so that patterns can be
detected and used to inform future negotiations. There
is a lot of resistance to human rights impact assessments—it is argued that the results are amorphous and
difficult to define—but the fact that something is challenging is no reason not to do it.
Becoming Acquainted?
International Trade and Human Rights
Peter Prove
Assistant to General Secretary, Office for
International Affairs and Human Rights,
Lutheran World Federation, Switzerland
Appropriate responses to the challenge of promoting
coherence between international trade and human
rights can be quite simple, and need to be taken primarily at the national level. In theory, government delegates
to trade meetings represent all the priorities and obligations of their countries. In practice, they rarely represent
more than the Trade Ministry. Adding human rights
advisors to trade negotiating teams—as Sweden did at
one point—can be part of an appropriate response.
At the international level, the challenge is greater.
Developing countries have consistently opposed the
linkage of trade and social issues. This opposition is due
largely to a distrust of developed country motivations
(concerns about protectionism) rather than a rejection
of the linkages between trade and social issues per se.
Recently, some developing countries have used human
rights arguments in support of their WTO negotiating
positions (e.g. Mauritius and Uganda have referenced
rights in the context of food security). In negotiations on
the TRIPS Agreement, more than 20 developing countries circulated a proposed declaration that referenced
state obligations to protect and promote the right to
health. During the Doha Ministerial Conference, a few
developing countries supported new collaborations
between the WTO and the International Labour
Organization (ILO). Increasingly, bilateral and regional
trade agreements incorporate labour clauses.
In 1998, the International NGO Committee for Human
Rights in Trade and Investment was formed to promote
the positive integration of human rights in international
economic policy and practice. It focused on the UN
human rights system as well as the WTO. Fruits of its
advocacy included a May 1998 statement by the
Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
(CESCR), which insisted that trade, finance, and investment are in no way exempt from human rights principles. Also significant was an August 1998 resolution
6
Reconciling Trade and Human Rights
passed by the Sub-Commission on the Protection and
Promotion of Human Rights, “Human rights as the primary objective of international trade, investment and
finance.” An August 1999 Sub-Commission resolution
spoke of the need to fully integrate human rights principles in processes of economic policy formulation at the
international level. The CESCR endorsed this resolution
and issued a statement prior to the Seattle Ministerial
Conference, urging WTO members to review all international trade and investment agreements and policies
to ensure their consistency with existing human rights
obligations.
In 2000 and 2001, the Sub-Commission adopted a series
of resolutions addressing sectoral issues including intellectual property, trade in services, and globalization.
Each of these led to studies or reports by SubCommission members or by the UN High
Commissioner for Human Rights (UNHCHR). The
WTO, IMF and World Bank began sending representatives to participate in human rights forums.
The most pressing challenge for the future is to demonstrate empirically the human rights impacts of specific
international trade agreements and policies. Solid data
must be produced and deployed in trade fora and
processes, including the trade policy review and dispute
settlement processes of the WTO, to establish precedents and jurisprudence. Attempts have been made to
introduce human rights in amicus curiae briefs to the
WTO Dispute Settlement Body, but these lacked the
empirical substantiation needed to make a compelling
case. It is important to show that a human rights
approach is not just new jargon for a knee-jerk antiliberalization agenda. It must be shown to be a considered response that recognizes the income-generating
potential of international trade while proposing frameworks and controls to keep trade from becoming the
enemy of the poor.
Envisioning a Multilateral System that
Prioritizes Human Rights: Addressing
Current Problems and Identifying Strategic
Openings
James Harrison
Head, Trade, Business, and Human Rights
Unit, School of Law, University of
Nottingham, UK
Human rights lawyers and advocates need to engage
with the WTO system. This is not a zero-sum game: if
WTO trade talks fail, the alternative is bilateral and
regional trade deals.
There is very little in the WTO system that explicitly
deals with human rights issues, and the term “human
rights” has never been used by a panel in a dispute settlement hearing. Some of the reluctance to include
human rights principles is due to a desire not to interfere
with a system that has been very successful in inducing
compliance between states on international legal obligations relating to trade.
In 2005, a panel of trade law and business specialists produced a report for the WTO Secretary General on the
future of the WTO system. It argued that there is no
need for explicit discourse about human rights, because
governments’ exposure to an open trading system will
ultimately lead to respect for rights. There are strong
grounds for disagreeing with this view. The pace of trade
liberalization is important to consider: if it is too rapid,
there could be negative impacts on human rights.
Simple arguments that liberalization on its own will
automatically lead to respect of human rights cannot be
justified. Furthermore, the WTO is much more than a
system of trade liberalization. Many of the recent developments in the WTO system, such as those related to
the TRIPS Agreement are not about liberalization but
about protecting the rights of investors.
The lack of a core, universally applicable ideological
basis for trade rules means that the rationale for those
rules is increasingly contested. Human rights provide a
legally recognized methodology for addressing some of
the key social impacts of the international trading system.
There are cases where explicit human rights arguments
have driven approaches to trade within the WTO system. In the debate on access to medicines, human rights
arguments raised by developing countries added
strength to their positions and to the final declaration.
When governments refused to sign on to the Kimberley
Process for diamonds without a guarantee that it did not
violate WTO non-discrimination rules, the WTO issued
the Kimberley Waiver, which referred explicitly to
human rights concerns associated with conflict diamonds.
increasingly demanding that states evaluate the impacts
of trade policies. There is an opening for human rights
advocates to identify and publicize the issues already
raised by the UN system. Assessments need to be conducted of impacts on the ground. Specific cases need to
be brought forward at the national and international
levels.
Human rights issues should also be raised in dispute settlement hearings. Governments must bring such cases,
but human rights advocates can provide them with
information and arguments. There must be more of a
meeting between the two legal systems of human rights
and international trade, because at the moment, very
important social issues are being decided in dispute settlement processes without reference to human rights.
Discussion
In the discussion following the presentations, it was
noted that states seldom pursue a proactive rights
agenda on their own: strong civil society pressure is
usually the impetus. Governments may implement
rights for some constituencies but withhold rights to
marginalize others. To hold governments to account on
the progressive realization of rights, it is important to
always return to the principles of universality and nondiscrimination.
Transparency was also noted as an issue. Civil society
needs to exert pressure for negotiation and adjudication
documents to be made available to the general public in
a more reviewable format. Participation is another issue.
Human rights impact assessments can provide a way to
bring stakeholders’ concerns to the negotiations.
Human rights advocates must deal with real-world
dilemmas, in which compromises will have to be made.
Two possible approaches for civil society are “front loading” (equipping government delegations with human
rights arguments to support their existing positions) and
“back loading” (bringing human rights arguments into
dispute settlement mechanisms).
These were ad hoc solutions where declarations or
waivers were used to specify that the legal systems of
human rights and trade were not in conflict in particular,
extreme situations. What is needed is a systematic
approach to address the human rights implications of
WTO rules. The legal framework of human rights must
be used more deliberately to add to the development and
moral arguments advanced by non-governmental
organizations (NGOs) about trade rules.
Governments have international legal human rights
obligations, and UN human rights committees are
The New Development Agenda
7
Panel Two: Ensuring
Policy Consistency at
the National Level
Bilateral Trade Agreements/Economic
Partnership Agreements and the Issue of
Power in Bilateral Relations
Valerie Traore
Pan African Program Manager, Agency for
Cooperation and Research in Development
(ACORD), Kenya
Certain principles underlie bilateral trade agreements
such as the Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs)
currently being negotiated between the European
Union (EU) and African, Caribbean, and Pacific (ACP)
countries. Most importantly, these agreements must be
compatible with WTO rules, in particular the “most
favoured nation” clause. All nations must be treated the
same, except in the cases of free trade areas and least
developed countries (LDCs). Bilateral trade agreements
tend to encompass much more than multilateral agreements because unequal power relations have much
more impact between two individual parties than they
do when several weaker states create groups and coalitions to increase their negotiating influence.
For more than 30 years, ACP countries have had trade
preferences from the EU. Some of these preferences
have been challenged at the WTO, particularly when
the country involved is not an LDC. The preferences
are being used as a reason to change the trade relations
between Europe and its former colonies. In 2000, the
Cotonou Agreement was signed between the EU and
ACP countries. This agreement set a timeline, a pace,
and a process for negotiating EPAs, which are supposed
to be in effect by 2008.
Almost all impact assessments of the EPAs, including
those commissioned by the EU, indicate that the
impacts on Africa will be negative. The loss in tariff
revenues will be substantial, leading to reduced budgets
for the delivery of government services. As many
government services respond to the state’s human
rights obligations (health care, education, access to
water), the capacity of states to implement these obligations will be reduced. African farmers will have to compete with heavily subsidized European farmers.
Agriculture employs more than 60 percent of the
population in sub-Saharan Africa, so there is great
potential for loss of livelihoods and violation of the
8
Reconciling Trade and Human Rights
rights to food, work and development. The EPAs
include locking and binding liberalization schedules
that constrain the ability of governments to adopt and
implement other economic policies designed to fulfill
their human rights commitments. This limiting of
policy space challenges the basic notion of sovereignty
and threatens the human right to self-determination.
There are inconsistencies between the negotiating positions and views of ministries of trade and other
ministries. There are African agriculture ministries and
parliaments that do not even know EPAs are being
negotiated. Although LDCs could pull out of the negotiations, they lack the capacity to conduct their own
analysis and are pressured by non-LDCs.
So why are African countries still at the negotiating
table? Some still think that trade liberalization will lead
to development. Some fear the loss of preferences.
Although the Cotonou Agreement states that no country should be worse off because of an EPA or because it
does not sign one, the EU has threatened to remove
preferences if EPAs are not signed by January 2008.
The lack of sufficient impact assessments—particularly
sectoral impact studies—is another factor. The low
human, financial, and technical negotiation capacity of
many African countries makes it difficult for countries
to assess what is involved. CSOs have been working primarily “inside” the negotiations, helping negotiators,
and providing research and policy briefs. As the deadline looms, there is a need for a more extensive “outside” strategy to inform and mobilize the maximum
number of parliamentarians and citizens.
What is happening is not just immoral and unfair; it is
also illegal, and civil society advocacy should focus on
this fact. Most of the countries involved in negotiating
EPAs have signed and adhered to international treaties
that require them to protect and respect rights. The
question is how to hold them accountable for violating
human rights, in terms of their legal obligations, and to
ensure that human rights prevail over trade.
Tensions in Addressing Human Rights
Obligations and Building a Development
Agenda in Mexico
Areli Sandoval
Equipo Pueblo and Social Watch, Mexico
Several months after the new president took power in
Mexico, a national plan of development was drafted.
This plan contains the principles, guidelines, and goals
for policy-making in all areas for the next six years.
According to the Mexican constitution, the planning
process should be democratic and the plan should be
developed with civil society participation. However, the
process is not truly participatory; rather, it has been for
many years a formal scheme to legitimate the government’s decisions.
CSOs such as Equipo Pueblo (the Social Watch focal
point in Mexico) have been trying to inform this
process from the perspective of ESC rights. However,
these efforts face great barriers: there is no coherence
between social and economic policy, no real room for
debate and no room for assessment of the development
model, which is based on economic liberalization. In
the 2006 shadow report to the UN Committee on
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR), submitted by Equipo Pueblo and hundreds of CSOs, attention was drawn to the impacts of economic policy on
ESC rights, presenting cases where foreign direct
investment and private national investments had
violated human rights. As Equipo Pueblo also
explained in the 2006 Social Watch Report, publicprivate partnerships fostered by the government and
the role of transnational corporations have been often
socially and environmentally irresponsible, affecting
the realization of human rights.
The tensions between economic development plans
and human rights can be seen in the Mexican government’s response to a CESCR recommendation that it
address the negative impacts of the North American
Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) on vulnerable sectors.
The government responded that the Plan PueblaPanama (PPP) is one of the solutions (a plan that
includes highway construction, energy connections,
among other strategies, between the South and
Southeast region of Mexico and seven Central
American countries). In the shadow report, CSOs
denounced some of the PPP’s large-scale projects,
which were imposed without consultation on local and
indigenous communities in violation of ILO
Convention 169, have had negative impacts on ESC
rights, and are opposed by a broad regional social
movement.
Mobilizing the international system of human rights
around development projects is very important, as
there is no room for dialogue in the PPP’s development
process. A coalition of CSOs for the promotion and
defense of ESC rights in Mexico called “Espacio DESC”
in which Equipo Pueblo participates is pursuing a
multi-dimensional strategy of local organization, media
outreach, and interaction with UN mechanisms, mobi-
lizing solidarity within Mexico and internationally. The
coalition has documented actual and potential violations of human rights from projects such as major
dams. The case of La Parota Hydroelectric Dam Project
has been reported to UN special rapporteurs and to the
CESCR. As a result, the special rapporteurs on the
human rights to adequate housing, to adequate food
and of indigenous populations have submitted letters of
concern to the Mexican government. The government
has responded that it is trying to carry out social and
environmental impact assessments. In its 2006 concluding observations and recommendations, the
CESCR urged Mexico to consult indigenous communities affected by large-scale projects, recognize the communities’ ownership rights of traditionally occupied
lands, provide compensation to indigenous communities and farmers affected by La Parota Dam Project and
other PPP projects, and protect their ESC rights.
In its conclusions, Equipo Pueblo concluded that to
address tensions between development projects and
human rights, it is important to examine the means as
well as the end results of projects. CSOs will continue
to insist that development projects be based on plans
developed with the participation of the population and
based on a human rights approach: “The human rights
framework, including the right to development, gives
us direction and courage to face these kinds of projects.”
Consideration of Human Rights in the
Formulation of Trade Policy
Anthony Burger
Chief Economist, Department of Foreign
Affairs and International Trade,
Government of Canada
In a globalized world, governments are facing increased
demands to intervene outside their borders. There is no
consensus on how far countries should go. The real area
of sensitivity concerns civil and political rights. Many
countries receiving aid will question the appropriateness of conditionality, even conditionality that human
rights advocates may think would encourage positive
behaviour.
In a trade context, the strongest intervention tool available to governments is economic sanctions. These have
been applied in extreme cases of violations of civil and
political rights, but not for economic and social rights.
Social and economic advancement requires political
will from the country itself as well as constructive
engagement and assistance from outside.
The New Development Agenda
9
Most trade agreements increase Gross Domestic
Product (GDP) but skew income distribution, so distributional policies are needed. It is important to consider
vulnerable sectors before completing a trade agreement
and to ensure a lengthy period of adjustment. With
globalization, change occurs more quickly, and poverty
increases during the adjustment period. There is a need
for longer structural adjustment periods, for programs
to help people adapt, and for negotiations that take into
account these needs. ACP countries negotiating new
agreements with the EU should seek a phase-in period
that is as long as possible, as well as an escape clause
that would enable them to pull out of the agreement if
alternative employment could not be developed for
those negatively affected. Structural adjustment loans
that lead to real employment should be sought from
regional development banks.
Discussion
Trade agreements do not necessarily result in negative
outcomes for workers who are at a level where they can
adapt. The question is what happens to disadvantaged
groups, indigenous peoples, and others. Sometimes
there are unexpected outcomes of trade agreements. It
is necessary to look at the specifics of each situation to
determine what is really happening and to ensure that
the responsive policies will be effective. Often those
policies are related to domestic governance rather than
international trade.
With respect to adjustment, it was noted that indigenous peoples often do not want compensation for their
land but want to keep their land. CSOs working with
these communities need to convey the communities’
needs and desires.
All policies will have both positive and negative
impacts, and therefore policy adjustments are needed.
For example, if trade liberalization increases economic
growth, it will increase greenhouse gas emissions. The
answer is not to avoid trade agreements, but to seek to
reduce the ratio of emissions to industrial output. The
situation regarding ESC rights is similar. If a trade
agreement will increase the GDP but reduce incomes of
the poorest people, then adjustment measures must be
put in place to compensate. ACP countries should make
clear that if they sign an EPA, they expect assistance to
address negative impacts on the poor.
The fact that the WTO permitted derogation on access
to essential medicines suggests that if specific problems
with international trade agreements are identified,
remedies can be obtained. Greater progress in addressing ESC rights can be achieved by highlighting specific
examples rather than by looking at the overarching legal
framework, because the human rights framework
requires only that states make continuous progress
towards the implementation of ESC rights, not that
they meet a specific standard.
10
Reconciling Trade and Human Rights
There was considerable debate about Mr. Burger’s contention that developing countries could negotiate to
ensure that adjustment costs associated with trade
agreements and EPAs would be taken into account.
Noting that Article 19 of the GATT offers the possibility of an escape clause, Mr. Burger maintained that
through negotiation, modification clauses can be
included in legal agreements to suit the interests of both
parties. Adjustment issues can be addressed through
policy measures. A number of other intervenors disagreed with this assessment, noting the imbalance of
power between the parties in the negotiations, time
pressures, and threats of loss of preferences that constrain developing country negotiators from pressing for
such concessions.
The difficulties faced by CSOs working in countries in
authoritarian or conflict-affected states were touched
upon. In such contexts, trade agreements are reinforcing regimes that do not respect their citizens’ rights.
CSOs in such countries are looking to the international
community for support on human rights issues. The
importance of conducting and communicating the
findings of human rights impact assessments was reiterated.
Keynote Speaker
Olivier De Schutter
Secretary General, International Federation
of Human Rights (FIDH), France
Reconciling Trade and Human Rights: Lessons
from the Battlefield
There are six key difficulties in the dialogue between
the human rights and trade communities. There is the
“schizophrenia” of governments, which compartmentalize human rights and trade commitments in different
ministries. There is the lack of understanding of the
binding nature of ESC rights and of the international
dimension of obligations regarding these rights. There
is the failure to see the risk of conflict between trade
liberalization and human rights, such as when trade
rules reduce the policy space that states need to further
the realization of ESC rights.
Another difficulty is developing countries’ fear that
including human rights considerations in the trade
regime will deprive them of their comparative advantage in certain sectors or deny them access to the markets of industrialized countries. The lack of an institutionalized forum for systematic dialogue between the
trade and human rights communities is also a concern.
Finally, the most crucial challenge is the difference in
the cultures of the trade and human rights communities
and the way they frame the issues. The trade community focuses on the long term (comparative advantage
improving overall economic efficiency) and on aggregate benefits to the nation. It believes economic growth
will lead to an improved human rights record. The
human rights community focuses on the short term
(immediate impacts on less competitive sectors, costs
of adjustment), is concerned with distributional
impacts, and holds that economic growth should not be
at the expense of human rights.
A number of factors have fuelled suspicion among
CSOs and human rights lawyers. One is the restrictive
reading by the WTO Secretariat of flexibilities allowed
under WTO rules. Another is the negotiation of
“WTO-Plus” agreements through bilateral means. A
third is the secrecy of trade negotiations and the lack of
accountability to national parliaments and CSOs.
The right to health is potentially threatened by the protection of intellectual property rights under TRIPS.
The rights to water and education may be threatened by
General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) negotiations in combination with the structural adjustment
policies of the IMF, for example, if liberalization of
water services leads to price increases or diminished
availability. The right to food is affected by the
Agreement on Agriculture, which has a significant
impact on the policies that governments can use to
ensure food security. Trade liberalization may affect the
right to work by reinforcing inequalities between skilled
and low-skilled workers.
Given these challenges and risks to human rights, what
is the best strategy? Should we restrict our understanding of human rights to “core obligations,” or insist on
compliance with the full range of human rights? It may
be dangerous to focus only on “core obligations,”
because doing so essentially endorses the view that
states should accept decreased policy space for implementation of ESC rights if they have conflicting obligations under trade agreements.
It is possible to argue for the primacy of human rights,
using the UN Charter and the Vienna Convention on
the Law of Treaties, but when states have to choose
which obligations to follow, they tend to comply with
WTO agreements because of the fear of commercial
sanctions. Thus, it is easy to argue for the primacy of
human rights at a theoretical level, but more difficult at
the practical level.
Another approach is to use flexibilities and exceptions
to accommodate human rights. However, there are
risks in entrusting the WTO with evaluation of member state human rights compliance. Exception mechanisms would not be able to take into account the need
for policy space for the progressive realization of rights.
Human rights arguments could be used for protectionist purposes.
These difficulties might be overcome through more
systematic inclusion of CSOs and others as amici curiae; formal contributions from the ILO and the Human
Rights Council in dispute settlement proceedings and
trade policy review mechanisms; systematic reference
to the growing body of international human rights law;
and use of human rights impact assessments in the
early stages of trade negotiations and as needed to make
adjustments and invoke exceptions or flexibilities. The
objectives of such measures would be to build a bridge
between the trade and human rights communities and
to ensure that commitments under the WTO do not
provide an obstacle to state compliance with the full set
of human rights obligations.
The obstacles to dialogue between the human rights
and trade communities are a challenge to global
governance. There is a need for an institutionalized
The New Development Agenda
11
framework of cooperation between the WTO and
CSOs/international organizations. There is also a need
for reflection on the use of trade sanctions to combat
trade distortions that result from failure to comply with
fundamental human rights or implementation of environmental standards.
Discussion
It was noted that human rights advocates tend to compartmentalize their work (working on the right to food,
or the right to health), and this restricts the potential for
a broader vision. Bringing together work on various
rights makes the indivisibility of rights very clear. For
example, the violation of the right to food can lead to
conflicts that violate other rights.
The WTO should be regarded not as a separate body
but as a coming together of states. Civil society can take
action at the national level to promote the primacy of
human rights, so that their governments will reflect
that perspective at the WTO. Environmental organizations have brought cases to domestic courts that have
influenced the way states have been able to make
engagements at the international level.
There was discussion of ways to advance human rights
arguments in dispute and trade policy mechanisms.
The example of a World Bank tribunal on bilateral
investment treaties was noted; after one case presented
by a CSO, the secretariat modified one of the clauses of
the arbitration procedure, and amicus briefs by third
parties are now accepted. In the asbestos dispute at the
WTO, the appellate body defined clearly how amicus
curiae submissions can be made and treated. This has
inspired changes in NAFTA and EC tribunal rules.
12
Reconciling Trade and Human Rights
Workshops
Workshop participants were asked to address the following issues in their discussions:
The following suggestions were made for future strategies:
affected by trade rules or trade practices in the
North and South;
food sovereignty and human rights (the FoodFirst Information and Action Network, FIAN
International, has written on this).
w Specific ways in which the right under discussion is
w Specific examples of how a human rights strategy
has addressed the negative impacts of trade agreements;
w Proposals for future strategies.
Right to Food and Trade
w Develop better linkages between the concept of
w Develop better understanding of the corporate
dimension of right to food violations (privatization
of seeds, lands, water, and knowledge).
w Build on campaign experiences that indicate there is
a positive public response when food issues are used
to challenge agriculture and trade policies (for example, access to healthy, safe food).
Workshop Convenor:
Institute for Agriculture and Trade
Policy (IATP)
w Strengthen work at the national level, for example,
This workshop examined the right to food and how to
hold trade and investment policies accountable to ESC
rights. Carin Smaller of IATP reviewed the normative
content of the Right to Food and key documents that
have been developed to elaborate the nature of state
obligations, including General Comment 12 of the UN
Economic and Social Council on the Right to Adequate
Food, and the UN Food and Agriculture Organization
(FAO) Voluntary Guidelines on the Right to Food.
w Explore how FAO voluntary guidelines and CESCR
Valerie Traore of ACORD spoke from her experience as
an activist for the right to food in Africa. She noted that
the “food sovereignty” framework is the dominant
approach of civil society and peasant movements in
Africa; it incorporates and builds on the right to food.
The right to food is gaining some traction at the government level in Africa, for example in Mozambique.
There may soon be cases where CSOs bring governments to African courts for failures to uphold the right
to food.
w Incorporate gender equality considerations into
by mobilizing to counteract the corporate lobby and
taking violations of human rights to national courts.
general comments can help to strengthen advocacy.
w Engage in cross-sectoral advocacy by connecting
farmers’ groups, religious organizations, NGOs, and
others.
w Further develop human rights impact assessment
tools.
advocacy to illustrate, for example, the disproportionate impacts of trade on women’s labour in food
production, processing, and trading in both the
North and the South.
w Use World Food Day (October 16, 2007), with its
right to food theme, as a means to bring groups
together.
There was a wide-ranging discussion on the interaction
between international trade and the enjoyment of the
right to food. Participants highlighted how food aid and
dumping have displaced production of local foods and
changed consumption patterns. In Ghana, the government is not respecting the right to food or the right to
life, by allowing cheap imports of chicken, tomatoes,
and rice from Europe and elsewhere to overwhelm local
producers. In the US, rural communities and family
farming have suffered because of agricultural policies,
which favour industrialized, corporate agriculture.
The New Development Agenda
13
Right to Health and Trade
Workshop Convenor:
The North-South Institute (NSI)
Two presentations explored examples of conflict
between the right to health and trade rules, and strategies that have been employed. In the first, Martin Khor
of Third World Network reviewed issues related to
access to medicines. Countries, such as Thailand, which
have used the limited flexibilities available under TRIPS
and issued compulsory licenses for some drugs, have
been subject to intense pressure from pharmaceutical
companies and the World Health Organization
(WHO). Abbott Laboratories is refusing to make a
number of medications available in Thailand because of
a dispute over compulsory licensing of one of its products. The WHO has changed from being the standardbearer for public health access to promoting the intellectual property agenda of pharmaceutical companies.
A recent controversy concerns unauthorized commercial patenting of avian flu virus samples provided to
WHO-approved labs. The patenting removes the
potential for countries to develop their own less
expensive vaccines.
Aniket Bhushan of NSI discussed the Framework
Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC). Smoking is
the leading cause of preventable deaths in the world,
and World Bank research has concluded that tobacco
trade liberalization has had a negative impact on public
health, particularly in low-income countries. Measures
such as taxation and advertising bans do not currently
fall under global trade law. The FCTC recognizes and
codifies these measures in international public health
law but has limitations. Its text contains no direct reference to international human rights law and it is law only
for contracting parties, which do not include major
tobacco exporters. Still, it is a counterweight to the
chilling effect of trade agreements. The WHO would
like to see tobacco excluded from trade agreements.
Other possible strategies are to ban tobacco exports just
as hazardous waste exports are banned under the Basel
Convention. An alternate approach might be to allow
exports only with prior informed consent, but the
FCTC is not strong enough to deliver on this.
From the group discussion, various possible strategies
to promote the right to health emerged. It was noted
that Canada is the chair of the inter-governmental
working group at the WHO and so Canadian civil society involvement would be particularly beneficial. Other
strategies included:
14
Reconciling Trade and Human Rights
w Support governments to use the flexibilities allowed
within the existing framework, including compulsory licenses.
w Use legal challenges.
w Use the right to health as a tool for advocacy and
mobilization.
w Highlight the right to health within constitutions to
put pressure on governments.
w Use human rights impact assessments.
w Continue public pressure and education.
w Highlight weaknesses in pharmaceutical company
claims and use the leverage of negative publicity.
w Work with those who challenge trade agreements
from perspectives other than human rights.
w Push for the removal of tobacco from free trade
agreements.
w Promote joint ventures to create production
facilities in developing countries and regions, where
medicines are needed (with care to get patent laws
right).
Right to Participation and Right to
Information
Workshop Convenor:
International Federation of Human
Rights (FIDH)
The WTO and, to a greater extent, bilateral negotiation
forums are characterized by a lack of transparency and
public participation in decision-making. Few formal
channels of participation exist, and major decisions are
made behind closed doors. The workshop addressed
the possibility for non-state actors to seek information
about trade issues, to be consulted on trade negotiations, and to participate in dispute settlement procedures.
Olivier De Schutter, Secretary General of FIDH, introduced opportunities for participation in negotiations
and dispute settlement at the WTO: monitoring of
intergovernmental negotiations at the WTO; learning
from the contribution of trade unions and NGOs to the
Trade Policy Review Mechanism; and the submission of
amicus briefs in dispute settlement proceedings. He
discussed mechanisms for participation in the
negotiation of trade agreements, both multilateral and
bilateral.
a need for training in order to build understanding of
trade policies and the ways in which civil society can
pressure governments. In addition, a suggestion would
be to train WTO staff on good practices with respect to
participation in trade negotiations.
The following ideas for future advocacy work were
identified:
w Encourage the Human Rights Committee to draft a
General Comment on Article 25 of the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)
including references to civil society participation in
economic decision-making.
w Produce shadow reports about labour and other
human rights impacts of trade, for submission to the
General Council’s trade policy review mechanism.
w Conduct human rights impact assessments to determine a need for the use of flexibilities or exceptions.
w Grant observer status to civil society organizations
at the WTO.
Latheefa Koya, a human rights lawyer with SUARAM,
Malaysia, introduced the experience of Malaysia in
bilateral and regional trade negotiations. She described
the informal and formal channels of participation for
civil society and their limits in the Malaysian context of
restrictions on civil and political rights, including the
right to assembly (any gathering of five persons or more
is dispersed), freedom of information (no formal
announcement was made), the right to participation (no
representatives of civil society were present at any level
of negotiation), and freedom of speech (no public discussions about trade agreements are allowed). Pressure
on Malaysia due to the “fast track requirement” led to
further compromises of citizens’ right to participation.
Despite these obstacles, mobilization continues.
Experiences of civil society participation were shared,
and participants discussed ways to make such participation more effective. Some mentioned the issue is not so
much about the right to participate but more about the
right not to be refused participation. One suggestion
referred to starting with UN bodies that exist to protect
citizens rather than focusing only on the WTO. The
importance of political pressure was noted by numerous participants, who claimed there is a need to
build civil society capacity for political action. There is
The New Development Agenda
15
Labour Rights and Trade
Workshop Convenor:
Canadian Labour Congress (CLC)
Two presenters examined ways in which trade and liberalization affect access to decent jobs and labour
rights. Salimah Valiani of the CLC reviewed the history
of attempts to include core labour standards in trade
agreements to address concerns that workers’ rights are
being violated as a result of trade liberalization.
Contrary to past positions, most unions now regard a
focus on inclusion of core labour standards in trade
agreements as insufficient. Internationally, there are
growing concerns among trade unions around the
greater global integration of labour markets. Labour
markets are one of the last frontiers of liberalization,
and the rights of increasing numbers of migrant workers are not being sufficiently protected. In Canada, the
Temporary Foreign Worker Program has been expanded, allowing employers to import temporary
migrant labour with very few obligations towards
workers. This policy shift is raising concern about the
rights of migrant workers and the rights of workers
already based in Canada. (See http://canadianlabour.ca/
index.php/salimah_valiani for more information).
Annie Geron, General Secretary of PSLink, a health
workers’ union in the Philippines, described the Public
Service International (PSI) Project on Women and
Migration in the Health Sector (see www.worldpsi.org/migration). Research revealed poor work conditions for health care workers in the North and South,
increased activity by international private recruitment
agencies that threaten worker protection, and high
social costs for migrating female health care workers.
Out-migration has contributed to nursing shortages in
the South that compromise quality health care and the
right to health. The project has addressed the threat to
rights through various strategies. Partnerships have
been developed between unions in sending and receiving countries to work for protection of rights. The PSI
Ethical Recruitment Campaign promotes ethical principles for recruitment of health care workers that
respect the right to health and quality health care, as
well as workers’ rights. PSI is also working with groups
including Consumers International to campaign for a
General Agreement on Public Services based on a
human rights approach to provision of public services.
16
Reconciling Trade and Human Rights
From the presentations and the discussion, the following strategies were identified:
w Broaden labour demands from “core labour stan-
dards” to all human rights for all workers. The
Decent Work campaign of the International Trade
Union Confederation is a strategy to promote workers’ rights in economic and social policies. However,
in many countries, the bulk of workers are not
unionized and are working in the informal sector. As
well, in several countries, unions are under attack. A
holistic approach is therefore needed; one rooted in
the right to work and the full range of human rights
of all workers.
w Improve formal collaboration between unions of
sending and receiving countries (that is, countries
sending migrant workers and those receiving
migrant workers), as is being done in the PSI
project, Women and Migration in the Health Sector.
Right to Liberty and Security of
the Person
information that led to the arrest of a human rights
lawyer. A legal case has been launched by the victim’s
family against Yahoo! in US courts.
Workshop Convenor:
Rights & Democracy
Michael To of Democracy China Ottawa presented various ideas for human rights activists in relation to the
international trade in ICTs. Exporting countries have a
critical role to play in providing oversight. Canada has a
responsibility to verify the end use of products sold by
Canadian companies and used by authoritarian states,
including China, to control political activity. This does
not suggest that there be restrictions on access to new
technology for developing countries, but rather that the
exporting states apply adequate checks and balances
when dual-use technology is exported.
Article 9 of the ICCPR states that “Everyone has the
right to liberty and security of the person. No one shall
be subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention.” The right
to security protects the exercise of other human rights,
including freedom of opinion and expression, freedom
of association and the right to privacy. While personal
security may not be directly affected by a specific trade
rule or negotiation, it is affected by trade practices, particularly those related to the international trade in
information and communications technologies (ICTs).
ICTs are often derived from military applications (security and surveillance technology) and when imported
by authoritarian states can be used to monitor and control legitimate political dissent.
Carole Samdup of Rights & Democracy explained that
innovations in ICTs have out-paced the export control
system designed to regulate them. Trade and investment liberalization have reduced states’ ability to discriminate between recipient countries when exporting
sensitive or dual-use technologies. A Canadian company exported the technology that enables the information security system used by the Government of China.
Its capacity was subsequently expanded by the export of
communications technology to the controversial Tibet
railway. Canada’s system of export controls did not
impose any restrictions to the export licenses. In fact,
considerable government resources were used to facilitate the company’s investment in China.
The following recommendations for future action were
adopted:
w Conduct research on the definition of “complicity,”
in particular with respect to the export by western
companies of modern ICTs to authoritarian states or
to any country where such technology might reasonably be expected to violate human rights.
w Encourage the Government of Canada to review its
export control legislation from the perspective of
human rights.
w Identify test cases for litigation based on international human rights law.
Alan Cumyn of PEN Canada described the impact of
surveillance technology on the security and liberty of
human rights defenders in China. PEN Canada has documented a growing number of people detained for
expressing their views on the Internet, and many
activists have been arrested after trying to organize
events via mobile phones. Once arrested, these individuals do not enjoy any protection under the law or the
presumption of innocence and do not have sufficient
access to defence lawyers or fair trials. Increasingly,
western companies are complicit in such human rights
abuses. The Government of China requires that they
agree to monitor and report “suspicious” ISP activity in
exchange for lucrative contracts or licenses to operate
services. The US-based company Yahoo! provided
The New Development Agenda
17
Right to an Effective Remedy
Workshop Convenor:
Rights & Democracy
w Support legal and political training programs related
The human rights framework requires that states
ensure effective remedies for anyone whose rights are
violated, including through judicial process. Although
there is no judicial or quasi-judicial international
mechanism to resolve conflicts between trade rules and
human rights law, a number of proposals and initiatives
provide examples of avenues for advocacy.
w Emphasize work in networks and coalitions to
James Harrison of the University of Nottingham in the
UK discussed the potential value of using the general
exception clause to raise human rights issues in WTO
dispute settlement proceedings. Exception clauses
could be used to raise human rights arguments
to ensure appropriate interpretations of nondiscrimination provisions under WTO law. Recognition of human rights as a legitimate exception could
enable states to comply with both their human rights
obligations and their WTO commitments; however,
there are pitfalls, including the risk of raising human
rights in a process meant solely for settling trade
disputes.
Bruce Porter of the Social Rights Advocacy Centre in
Canada discussed how domestic constitutional provisions could be invoked to challenge the failure of trade
and investment agreements to protect human rights.
He outlined a case brought by the Charter Committee
on Poverty Issues, challenging the failure of investorstate provisions in NAFTA to protect human rights as a
violation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms. There is a campaign for the adoption of an
optional protocol to the ICESCR, which would bring a
complaint mechanism and give a voice to the people
whose rights have been violated.
Carolina Fairstein of the Centre for Legal and Social
Studies in Argentina presented the experience of
Argentinian human rights advocates who prepared an
amicus curiae brief about water privatization in Buenos
Aires. For the first time, the International Centre for the
Settlement of Investment Disputes, a tribunal linked to
the World Bank, accepted an amicus brief from CSOs.
In the brief, the CSOs explained that measures taken by
the Government of Argentina against the company were
based on its human rights obligations. They argued that
the tribunal must consider human rights as well as contractual obligations. The amicus curiae argued that no
government may sign contracts that threaten human
rights obligations. In the case of conflict between norms,
the primacy of human rights should be respected.
18
From the presentations and the discussion, the following ideas for future advocacy work were suggested:
Reconciling Trade and Human Rights
to the human rights that are at stake.
strengthen civil society action.
w Engage politicians, government officials, and parliamentarians.
w Use public education and media in addition to legal
cases.
Lessons for Future Strategies
Speaker:
Martin Khor
Director, Third World Network, Malaysia
The conference forged many linkages, including conceptual ones, between the North and South, South
and South, grassroots and global approaches, concepts and activities. It developed our collective
capacity to see the linkages between trade, human rights, and development so that work in each area can
be strengthened. Civil society organizations (CSOs) must continue to build linkages between grassroots
groups, trade unionists, activists, farmers, researchers, and lawyers, between global, national, regional,
and local levels. CSOs are very good at reacting against injustice and bad proposals, but they also need to
develop alternatives.
Civil society has built expertise in trade, development, and human rights and the linkages between them.
It is crucial also to include consideration of the environment. The basis for all this is the work at the grassroots level, with farmers who are resisting unfair trade agreements and with human rights activists who
risk their lives every day.
Except in the case of illegitimate regimes, CSOs need to interact with government. Sometimes this will
involve criticism; other times it will involve dialogue and provision of information and analysis.
Governments are under pressure from many sides and civil society needs to bring the issues forward. The
Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI) was defeated because of the pressure brought to bear by
civil society. The struggles on access to AIDS medications have reduced the inviolability of patents.
Unfortunately, the same bad ideas continue to come back at the WTO, in the African EPAs—and CSOs
must continue to resist them.
We need to link, not only the grassroots to the global, but also the North to the South. Southern groups
and movements cannot succeed by themselves because the power is in the North. However, the numbers
are in the South. Northern civil society cannot speak for the South, but the combination of the two is
strong.
Canadian CSOs need to work to educate the Canadian public on development and put pressure on governments to address human rights and trade issues. They must involve the media and help civil society
in the South build its capacity. Maintain a network in Canada to keep these efforts going. Join international networks such as those on trade, IP, and agriculture. And finally, propose viable alternatives.
“We have to fill this vacuum of what a new multilateral trading system is
going to look like. The critical mass that we have built as opposition has to be
turned into a positive force for what the alternative is going to be. And that is
now the new challenge facing us as civil society— no longer just to say what is
bad, but to say what is good. That is our historic task.
”
The New Development Agenda
19
Appendix 1: Conference Agenda
Day One: Human Rights in International Policy-Making
Monday, May 28, 2007
08:00 – 09:00
Breakfast and Registration
09:00 – 09:30
Welcoming Remarks
Gerry Barr, President-CEO, CCIC
Jean-Louis Roy, President, Rights & Democracy
09:30 – 10:30
Keynote Speaker
Martin Khor
Director, Third World Network, Malaysia
Discussion
10:30 – 10:45
Break
10:45 – 12:30
Panel 1: Protecting Human Rights in the Global Economy
Moderator: Razmik Panossian
Director of Policy, Programs, and Planning, Rights & Democracy
Widney Brown
Senior Director of International Law, Policy and Campaigns, Amnesty International, UK.
The Nature of State Obligations and Corresponding Responsibilities of the Private Sector.
Peter Prove
Assistant to General Secretary, Office for International Affairs and Human Rights, Lutheran
World Federation. Becoming Acquainted? International Trade and Human Rights.
James Harrison
Head, Trade, Business, and Human Rights Unit, School of Law, University of Nottingham, UK.
Envisioning a Multilateral System that Prioritizes Human Rights: Addressing Current Problems
and Identifying Strategic Openings
Discussion
12:30 – 14:00
Lunch: Courtyard Café
14:00 – 16:30
Panel 2: Ensuring Policy Consistency at the National Level
Moderator: Esperanza Moreno
Deputy Director, CCIC
Valerie Traore
Pan African Program Manager, Agency for Cooperation and Research in Development, Kenya.
Bilateral Trade Agreements/EPAs and the Issue of Power in Bilateral Relations.
Areli Sandoval
Equipo Pueblo and Social Watch, Mexico. Tensions in Addressing Human Rights Obligations and
Building a Development Agenda in Mexico.
Anthony Burger
Chief Economist, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, Government of
Canada. Consideration of Human Rights in the Formulation of Trade Policy.
Break and Discussion
20
16:30 – 17:00
Review of Day Two Workshop Process and Closing Remarks
Carole Samdup
Coordinator, Economic and Social Rights Program, Rights & Democracy.
17:30 – 19:00
Cocktail Reception: Courtyard Café
Reconciling Trade and Human Rights
Day Two: Using the HR Framework to Refocus Key Trade Issues
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
08:30 – 09:00
Breakfast
09:00 – 10:00
Keynote Speaker
Olivier De Schutter
Secretary General, International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH), France
Reconciling Trade and Human Rights: Lessons from the Battlefield
Discussion
10:00 – 12:00
Simultaneous Workshops
Each workshop will provide an overview of the obligations associated with each right and consider various campaign/advocacy experiences on these themes, including perspectives from the
North and South. Please see Web site and conference materials for workshop backgrounders.
Right to Food and Trade
Workshop Convenor:
Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP).
Right to Health and Trade
Workshop Convenor:
The North-South Institute (NSI).
Right to Participation and Right to Information
Workshop Convenor:
International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH).
12:00 – 13:00
Lunch: Courtyard Café
13:00 – 15:00
Simultaneous Workshops (Cont’d.)
Labour Rights and Trade
Workshop Convenor:
Canadian Labour Congress (CLC).
Right to Liberty and Security of the Person
Workshop Convenor:
Rights & Democracy.
Right to an Effective Remedy
Workshop Convenor:
Rights & Democracy.
15:00 – 15:30
Break
15:30 – 16:30
Lessons for Future Strategies
Moderator:
Gauri Sreenivasan
Senior Trade Policy Analyst, CCIC
Speaker:
Martin Khor
Director, Third World Network, Malaysia
Comments on Workshop Conclusions
Discussion
16:30 – 17:00
Conference Closing
Gauri Sreenivasan
Senior Trade Policy Analyst, CCIC
The New Development Agenda
21
Appendix 2: Speakers Biographical Notes
Widney Brown
Amnesty International (AI), UK
Widney Brown is the Senior Director of International
Law, Policy and Campaigns at Amnesty International's
International Secretariat. Prior to joining AI, Widney
worked for nine years at Human Rights Watch as an
advocacy director for the Women's Rights program
(1997 - 2003) and as Deputy Program Director (2003 2006). Widney was a lecturer at the Yale University
School of Epidemiology and Public Health where she
taught a course in Health and Human Rights in their
Global Health program (2000 - 2005). Widney is a graduate of the New York University School of
Law where she was a Root Tilden Kern Scholar.
Anthony Burger
Department of Foreign Affairs and
International Trade, Government of Canada
Anthony Burger joined the Department of External
Affairs in 1969 after completing an MA in Economics at
the University of British Columbia. He also has an
M.Sc. in the History of Political Thought from the
London School of Economics and a BA (Honours) in
Political Science and Economics from the University of
Toronto. Mr. Burger’s career has included postings as
Consul General in Hong Kong (2001-2003), Deputy
Permanent Representative to the OECD (1997–2001),
and Executive Director for Canada and five other countries at the Asian Development Bank (1990-1994). His
earlier foreign postings were: Washington, D.C. (19821986), Tokyo (1975-1979) and Kingston, Jamaica (197173). In Ottawa, Mr. Burger has worked in four government departments including the Department of
Finance as Director of International Finance and
Development (1988-90), the Department of Foreign
Affairs and International Trade as Director of North
American and Euro-Atlantic Security and Defence
Relations (1994-1997), and the Privy Council Office as
Assistant Secretary to the Cabinet for Global
He was appointed Chief
Affairs (2004-2006).
Economist of Canada’s Department of Foreign Affairs
and International Trade on September 6, 2006.
Olivier De Schutter
International Federation of
Human Rights (FIDH), France
Olivier De Schutter (LL.M., Harvard University; Ph.D.,
UCL), the Secretary General of the International
Federation of Human Rights (FIDH) on the issue of
globalization and human rights, is Professor at the
Catholic University of Louvain, where he is a member
22
Reconciling Trade and Human Rights
of the Centre for Legal Philosophy (Centre de philosophie du droit – CPDR), and at the College of Europe
(Natolin). He is also a Member of the Global Law
School Faculty at New York University and is Visiting
Professor at the University of Paris I-PanthéonSorbonne, at the Abo Akademi University and Institute
for Human Rights at Turku (Finland), at the University
of Coimbra (Portugal), and at Columbia University,
where he will be teaching on globalization and human
rights and governance in the EU in 2007-8. Formerly
the chair of the EU Network of Independent Experts on
Fundamental Rights, he is a member of the European
Group of Legal Experts on Discrimination. His main
areas of interest are the case law of the European Court
of Human Rights, the relationship between governance
issues and fundamental rights, globalization and
human rights, and anti-discrimination law. He is the
author and editor of numerous books, the most recent
being Monitoring Fundamental Rights in the EU: The
Role of the Fundamental Rights Agency (co-edited with
Philip Alston, Oxford, Hart, 2005) and Transnational
Corporations and Human Rights (editor), (Hart Publ.,
Oxford and Portland-Oregon, 2006).
James Harrison
Human Rights Centre, School of Law,
University of Nottingham, UK
Dr. James Harrison is Head of the Trade, Business, and
Human Rights Unit and Research and Programs
Coordinator at the University of Nottingham Human
Rights Law Centre. He is a human rights lawyer, who
specializes in the human rights impact of economic
laws and regulations. He directs a number of research
projects in this field. Dr. Harrison has worked as a consultant for a number of international organizations
including the Council of Europe on fair trade and ethical finance issues; the Office of the High Commissioner
of Human Rights on human rights approaches to the
World Trade Organization (WTO); Article 19, on corporate transparency policies; and Amnesty
International on the human rights impact of the international trading system. His book The Human Rights
Impact of the World Trade Organization published in
July 2007 comprehensively investigates the impact of
the WTO on the protection and promotion of human
rights. Dr. Harrison previously worked as a researcher
at the human rights organization Liberty, before qualifying as a solicitor at Bindman and Partners, one of the
leading human rights law firms in the UK. He completed his PhD at the European Institute in Florence.
Appendix 2: Speakers Biographical Notes
Martin Khor
Third World Network, Malaysia
Areli Sandoval Terán
Equipo Pueblo – Social Watch, Mexico
Martin Khor is the Director of the International
Secretariat of the Third World Network. He is a member of the United Nations Committee for Development
Policy, a member of the Steering Group of the Helsinki
Process, and a member of the NGO Advisory
Committee of the UNDP Administrator. He was also
formerly a Member of the Board of the South Centre
and Vice Chairman of the Expert Group on the Right to
Development of the UN Commission on Human
Rights. He was a member of and Consultant to the
Consultative Group on Globalization established under
the National Economic Action Council in the Prime
Minister’s Department in Malaysia. He has also been a
Consultant to UNCTAD, UNDP, UNEP and the UN
University. He coordinated a report of the Third World
Network for UNDP, The Multilateral Trading System:
A Development Perspective, which was published by
UNDP in January 2002. He is the author of
Globalization and the South, written for UNCTAD and
distributed at the South Summit in Havana in 2000. He
has also written several other books and papers on
trade and WTO issues, and on environment and development issues, including Intellectual Property,
Biodiversity and Sustainable Development. An economist trained at Cambridge University, UK, he has lectured in Economics at the Science University of
Malaysia.
Areli Sandoval Terán studied International Relations at
the National Autonomous University of Mexico
(UNAM) and has developed a specialization in the area
of human rights emphasizing Economic, Social and
Cultural Rights (ESCR). She has collaborated with
Mexican civil society organizations and worked at the
community level since 1994. In 1998, she joined Equipo
Pueblo, a Mexican NGO for the promotion of development founded in 1977, as a researcher in the areas of
development, human rights, and globalization and has
been responsible for ESCR issues in the Citizen
Diplomacy Program since 1999. From November 2002
until present, she coordinates the Citizen Diplomacy
Program of Equipo Pueblo, which monitors and conducts research, training, networking and advocacy on
issues related to international financial institutions, free
trade agreements, foreign investment, development,
and ESCR. She is the author of articles, papers, and
training materials on ESCR, poverty and development
issues. She has represented Equipo Pueblo at the
International Coordinating Committee of the Social
Watch Network since 2000 and coordinates the Social
Watch initiative in Mexico.
Peter N. Prove
Lutheran World Federation, Switzerland
Valerie Gnide Traore is the Pan African program manager at ACORD, the Agency for Co-operation and
Research in Development. Prior to joining ACORD,
Valerie worked at Oxfam America developing and
implementing advocacy and communications campaigns on fair trade in agriculture, arms trade and
extractive industries in West Africa. She also led Oxfam
America's learning process on the rights-based
approach to development. Valerie has a Bachelor's
degree in International Relations and Communications
and a post graduate degree in Diplomacy and Strategies
with a focus on international law.
Peter Prove staffs the Lutheran World Federation’s Office
for International Affairs and Human Rights in Geneva,
Switzerland, a position he has held since 1997. A lawyer
by profession, he holds a Masters of Law from the
University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia, with combined focuses on international trade law and international human rights law. He was a founding member of the
International NGO Committee on Human Rights in
Trade and Investment (INCHRITI), which undertook
pioneering advocacy on the intersections between human
rights law and trade law and policy in several international forums (including the UN human rights system and
forums associated with the World Trade Organization).
Prove is a member of the Ecumenical Advocacy Alliance’s
Global Trade Strategy Group. He has served since
February 2000 as President of the Special Committee of
NGOs on Human Rights (Geneva). Prior to taking up his
present role in Geneva, he had 11 years experience in private legal practice in Brisbane, Australia.
Valerie Traore
Agency for Co-operation and Research in
Development (ACORD), Kenya
The New Development Agenda
23
Appendix 3: List of Participants
Djifa AHADO
University of Quebec in Montreal, UQÀM
Trevor COOK
Development and Peace
Gwenaël APOLLON
YMCA in Haiti
Debby COTE
CUSO
Yolanda BANKS
Export Development Canada
Catherine COUMANS
Mining Watch
Gerry BARR
Canadian Council for International Co-operation
James CROMBIE
University of Sainte Anne
André BEAUDOIN
Union des producteurs agricoles
Alan CUMYN
PEN Canada
Sarah BÉLANGER
Public Service Alliance of Canada
Patricia DAIGLE
Rights & Democracy
Aniket BHUSHAN
The North-South Institute
Olivier DE SCHUTTER
International Federation of Human Rights (FIDH)
Chantal BLOUIN
The North-South Institute
Jeanne DESSUREAULT
Student
Gordon BREEDYK
Civilian Peace Service Canada
Annie DJIOTSA
Department of National Defense
Caroline BRODEUR
Rights & Democracy
Mary DURRAN
Development and Peace
Chris BROWN
Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada
Elizabeth EILOR
African Women Economic Policy Network, Uganda
Shannon BROWN
TransFair Canada
Carolina Paula FAIRSTEIN
Centre for Legal and Social Studies Argentina
Widney BROWN
Amnesty International Secretariat
Leilani FARHA
Centre for Equality Rights in Accommodation
Anthony BURGER
Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada
Delta FAULKNER
Canadian Nurses Association
Danilo CHAMMAS
Catherine FOISY
Regroupement pour la responsabilité sociale et l’équité
Eric CHAURETTE
Inter Pares
24
Reconciling Trade and Human Rights
John W. FOSTER
The North-South Institute
Appendix 3: List of Participants
Peter FRANKENTAL
Amnesty International Secretariat
Lindsey FREEMAN
Women’s Edge Coalition
Tania GAMACHE
Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada
Annie GERON
Public Sector Labour Independent Confederation of
the Philippines (PSLINK)
Leah GARDINER
Social Justice Committee
Katia GIANNESCHI
Canadian Council for International Co-operation
Oxana GOLOVKINA
Inuit Circumpolar Council Canada
Daniela GORBOUNOVA
Bulgarian Gender Research Foundation
Janice HAMILTON
Manitoba Council for International Co-operation
Micaela HARDY-MOFFAT
Student, Concordia University
James HARRISON
University of Warwick
Chantal HAVARD
Fair Trade and Ethical Consumption Consultant
Evert HOOGERS
Canadian Union of Postal Workers (CUPW)
Kristen HOPEWELL
University of Michigan
Hamid JAVED
Saskatchewan Council for International Co-operation
Tenzing JIGME
France JONCAS
Canadian Council for International Co-operation
Peter JULIAN
Canadian Member of Parliament (NDP)
Molly KANE
Inter Pares
Willemijn KEIZER
Royal Military College
Sara KEMP
Canadian Council for International Co-operation
Martin KHOR
Third World Network, Malaysia
Latheefa KOYA
SUARAM, Malaysia
Annie LABAJ
Canadian Auto Workers
Ronald LABONTE
Professor, University of Ottawa
Mooña LAHBABI
Parliamentary Assistant to Peter Julian, M.P. (NDP)
Charles LA SALLE
Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada
Éric LEFRANÇOIS
Canadian International Development Agency
Jean-Charles LE VALLÉE
Food Security Guide-Development Gateway
Alexandra LOPOUKHINE
Oxfam Canada
Konstantin LOUKINE
Canadian International Development Agency
Rusa JEREMIC
KAIROS Canada
The New Development Agenda
25
Appendix 3: List of Participants
26
Faith MANSFIELD
Canadian Hunger Foundation (CHF)
Kingsley OFEI-NKANSAH
General Agricultural Workers Union, Ghana
Stephanie MANSON
Canadian International Development Agency
Alan OKROS
Royal Military College of Canada
Jim MARSHALL
The United Church of Canada
Kristen OSTLING
Canadian Council for International Co-operation
Odette MCCARTHY
Canadian Crossroads International
Peter PADBURY
Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada
Errol MENDES
Professor, University of Ottawa
Razmik PANOSSIAN
Rights & Democracy
Ted MENZIES
Parliamentary Secretary to Ministers of International
Trade and International Cooperation
Nancy PECKFORD
Canadian Feminist Alliance for International Action
Fiona MEYER COOK
Canadian Council for International Co-operation
Sylvie PERRAS
Africa-Canada Forum Canadian Council for
International Co-operation
Kinda MOHAMADIEH
Arab NGO Network for Development
Don PETERS
Mennonite Central Committee Canada
Suzilah MOHD SIDEK
High Commission of Malaysia
Bruce PORTER
Social Rights Advocacy Centre
Rita MORBIA
Inter Pares
Jean-Paul PRÉVOST
Student, University of Ottawa
Esperanza MORENO
Canadian Council for International Co-operation
Peter N. PROVE
The Lutheran World Federation
Mia MOUELHI
Canadian International Development Agency
Tasmin RAJOTTE
Quaker International Affairs Programme
Jeff NANKIVELL
Canadian International Development Agency
Ravi REBBAPRAGADA
Hyderabad Office, India
Alex NEVE
Amnesty International Canada
Jean-Louis ROY
Rights & Democracy
Anna NITOSLAWSKA
Canadian Labour Congress
Bushra SAEED
Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada
Faustin NTEZILYAYO
Consultant
Carole SAMDUP
Rights & Democracy
Reconciling Trade and Human Rights
Appendix 3: List of Participants
Areli SANDOVAL
Equipo Pueblo/Social Watch Mexico
Augie VAN BILJOUW
Conference Coordinator/Communications Consultant
Shehryar SARWAR
Canadian International Development Agency
Emily WATSON
National Aboriginal Health Organization
Mike SHIELDS
Canadian Auto Workers Union
Ann WESTON
The North-South Institute
Ann SIMPSON
Canadian Council for International Co-operation
Sarah WHITMORE
CUSO
Carin SMALLER
Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP)
Stephen WILLIAMSON
Student
Stephen SMITH
Rights & Democracy
Rebecca WOLSAK
Inter Pares
Alexandra SPIELDOCH
Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP)
George WRIGHT
Consultant/Researcher
Gauri SREENIVASAN
Canadian Council for International Co-operation
Irene ZHOU
Human Resources and Social Development Canada
Michael STEPHENS
Canadian Council for International Co-operation
Margaret SUMADH
United Church of Canada
Susanne TAMÁS
Bahá'í Community of Canada
Michael TO
Democracy China – Ottawa
Brian TOMLINSON
Canadian Council for International Co-operation
Valerie TRAORE
Agency for Co-operation and Research in
Development (ACORD), Kenya
Salimah VALIANI
Canadian Labour Congress
The New Development Agenda
27
Appendix 4: List of Resources
Background Documents
Achieving Women’s Economic and Social Rights: Strategies and Lessons from Experience, Association for Women’s
Rights in Development (AWID), Toronto: 2006, 47 pages, http://www.socialrights.org/spip/IMG/pdf_ESCR-english.pdf
Hong Kong: Demise of the Development Agenda? Canadian Council for International Co-operation, Background
Briefing Paper, November 2005, 16 pages, http://www.ccic.ca/e/docs/002_trade_2005-11_wto_hong_kong_briefing_note.pdf
Sreenivasan, Gauri and Ricardo Grinspun, Global Trade/Global Poverty : NGO Perspectives on Key Challenges
for Canada, Introduction, Paper 1, Canadian Council for International Co-operation, Trade and Poverty Series,
May 2002, 24 pages, http://www.ccic.ca/e/docs/002_global_trade_paper_1.pdf
Howse, Robert and Mutua, Makau, Protecting Human Rights in a Global Economy. Challenges for the World Trade
Organization, Rights & Democracy, 2000, http://www.dd-rd.ca/site/publications/index.php?subsection=catalogue&lang=en&id=1271
Howse, Robert and Teitel, Ruti G., Beyond the Divide : The Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and
the World Trade Organization, N° 30, Geneva: Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung, April 2007, 32 pages, http://www.fesgeneva.org/publications/OccasionalPapers/FESOccPapers30.pdf
Human Rights: WTO’s Missing Development Agenda. Rights & Democracy, 2003, 8 pages, http://www.ddrd.ca/site/_PDF/publications/globalization/pamphlet.pdf
Right to Food and Trade
Trade Reforms and Food Security, FAO. 2006
Slow Trade, Sound Farming: A Multilateral Framework for Markets in Agriculture, Ecofair Trade Dialogue, 2007.
Planting the Rights Seed: A Human Rights Perspective on Agriculture Trade and the WTO, IATP and 3Dtradehuman rights-equitable economy, 2006.
A Row to Hoe: The Gender Impact of Trade Liberalization on our Food System, Agricultural Markets and Women’s
Human Rights, IATP and IGTN, 2007.
Trade Invaders –The WTO and Developing Countries’ Right to Protect, ActionAid International, 2005.
Right to Participation and Right to Information
Understanding Global Trade and Human Rights, FIDH, http://www.fidh.org/IMG/pdf/wto423a.pdf
Jagers, Nicola, “Mainstreaming Human Rights in International Economic Organizations: Improving Judicial
Access for NGOs to the World Trade Organization,” N.Q.H.R., 2006, vol. 24/2, pp. 231- 270.
“The Future of the WTO: Addressing Institutional Challenges in the New Millennium,” Transparency and
Dialogue with Civil Society, Chapter 5, Report by the Consultative Board (dir. P. Sutherland) to the former
Director-General Supachai Panitchpakdi, www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/10anniv_e/future_wto_e.htm
Ratton Sanchez, Michelle, “Brief observations on the mechanisms for NGO participation in the WTO,”
Sur, International Journal on Human Rights, 2006, N°4, pp. 103-125.
Zambelli, M. “L’amicus curiae dans le règlement des différends de l’OMC: État des lieux et perspectives,” R.I.D.E.,
2005, p. 197-218.
28
Reconciling Trade and Human Rights
Appendix 4: List of Resources
Labour Rights and Trade
Who Cares – Women Health Workers in the Global Labour Market, http://www.worldpsi.org/Content/ContentGroups/English7/Publications1/Who_Cares.pdf
CLC Submission to the Parliamentary Committee Study on Employability Issues,
http://canadianlabour.ca/index.php/Briefs_to_Parliament/1081
Analysis, Solidarity, Action – a Workers’ Perspective on the Increasing Use of Migrant Labour in Canada,
http://canadianlabour.ca/index.php/salimah_valiani
Right to Liberty and Security of the Person
Walton, Greg, China’s Golden Shield: Corporations and the Development of Surveillance Technology in the People’s
Republic of China, Rights & Democracy, 2001, www.dd-rd.ca
Human Rights at Risk on the Cyber-battlefield: The Sales of Security and Surveillance Technology to China, Rights
& Democracy, 2004, www.dd-rd.ca
Digital Security and Privacy for Human Rights Defenders, Dimitri Vitaliev, Frontline Defenders, 2007.
www.frontlinedefenders.org
Right to an Effective Remedy
Using the General Exception Clauses to Protect Human Rights, Office of the High Commissioner for Human
Rights, Geneva, 2005.
Application for Leave to Appeal (Pursuant to Section 40 of the Supreme Court Act, R.S.C. 1985 c.S.-26, as amended), Charter Committee on Poverty Issues.
“Canadian Constitutional Challenge to NAFTA Raises Critical Issues of Human Rights in Trade and Investment
Treaties,” Housing and ESC Rights Law Quarterly, March 2006.
Amicus Curiae Submission: (ICSID case No. ARB/03/19) between Suez, Sociedad General de Aguas de Barcelona,
S.A. and Vivendi Universal, S.A. and the Republic of Argentina.
Resource page on the Optional Protocol to the ICESCR, http://www.escrnet.org/resources/resources_show.htm?doc_id=431553
The New Development Agenda
29