Written by Abhinandita Biswas
Jindal Global Law School,
O.P. Jindal Global University,
Haryana, India.
Email: 23jgls-abhinandita@jgu.edu.in
Including non-trade values in global trade law has always been a contentious issue, especially from the standpoint of developing and the least developed countries (the “LDCs”). Non-trade values constitute social issues of public morals, women’s rights and the variables of gender, labour and environment. These provisions contend, and prima facie, appear to benefit the Global South’s developing and the least developed economies. However, a more nuanced understanding would reveal that it works the opposite way. The essay tries to take a socio-political dig into why the countries in the Global South suffer socio-economic vulnerabilities due to such inclusions. The essay also attempts to determine that often, the socio-political fabric of these countries ends up acting against their economic interests in global trade, and perhaps an intersectional approach in addressing these issues might help the Global South trading ecosystem.
Trade policies, largely, are economic and market-based, where it ignores the social effects a liberalised trading regime may pose (Choudhury,2008, p.113), prominently the discourses that link trade and non-trade issues (Bhagwati, 1998, p.241) like human rights, labour standards, environmental behaviour etc. For instance, the inclusion of gender variables in trade makes it imperative to note that none of the trade agreements label its impact on women (Randriamaro, 2006, p.15). While trade liberalization produces benefits for the majority, there are ‘losers’ in the business, which include the poor and vulnerable, often the women, who hardly have a share in these benefits (Harrison, 2007, p.45). This trail of arguments can be linked to labour standards as well. D. Leclercq (2022) explains this by using the metaphor of ‘invisible workers’ where she categorically determines how labour standards disproportionately affect the poor, particularly the women, who form a large part of the informal sector and are deprived of significant benefits. This prima facie reflects that perhaps the inclusion of non-trade values in the trading regime will support the needs of the deprived economies and that it will complement their inherent socio- economic and political vulnerabilities. However, they don’t.
A prominent contrary argument emphasising the challenges of including a ‘social clause’ in international trade agreements becomes relevant. It underlines the complexity and polarisation of such provisions and their exploitation by the developed countries, & their usage of it for protectionism and social dumping (Kabeer, 2004, p.4). Kabeer characterises this protectionism- that promotes skepticism and feeds from an unequal world that the WTO regime facilitates. Similar sentiments are echoed by Chimni when he discusses the integration of trade with environmental objectives (Chimni, 2000, p.1760), whereby third-world countries must be safeguarded against the veiled protectionism by the north under the garb of environmental protection in trade agreements. He argues for an independent and self-reliant path to sustainable development for the third world.
The arguments and propositions asserted and interpreted present the interplay of trade and social variables, whereby it promotes inequalities in an already divided world, stagnating the developmental prospects of the Global South, which continues to be at the behest of the North and its trade commitments & policies. An intersectional approach curated by the WTO law, focused on development, maybe in the form of a policy toolkit that aids the socio-economic implications of global trade policies for the developing countries and the LDCs, might help understand the issues at hand better.
References:
Barnali Choudhury, The Facade of Neutrality: Uncovering Gender Silences in International Trade, 15 Wm. & Mary J. Women & L. 113 (2008).
B.S. Chimni, (2000). WTO and Environment: Shrimp-Turtle and EC-Hormones Cases. Economic and Political Weekly, 35(20), 1752–1761.
D. Leclercq, Invisible Workers, AJIL Unbound, 2022, 107-112. Jagdish Bhagwati, Trade Linkages and Human Rights, in THE URUGUAY ROUND & BEYOND: ESSAYS IN HONOR OF ARTHUR DUNKEL, 1998.
James Harrison, THE HUMAN RIGHTS IMPACT OF THE WORLD TRADE ORGANISATION (2007).
Naila Kabeer (2004) Globalization, labor standards, and women’s rights: dilemmas of collective (in)action in an interdependent world, Feminist Economics, 3-35.
Zo Randriamaro, GENDER AND TRADE: OVERVIEW REPORT 9 (2006).
The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author (s). They do not purport to reflect the opinions or views of the Jindal Centre for the Global South or its members.
Global South Studies Series 