Human Rights Principles for Trade

IF 1.2 Q2 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS AJIL Unbound Pub Date : 2022-04-25 DOI:10.1017/aju.2022.16
Michael Fakhri
{"title":"Human Rights Principles for Trade","authors":"Michael Fakhri","doi":"10.1017/aju.2022.16","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Most trade scholars treat agriculture as a commodity, and in a sense, agriculture workers and their technological replacements as commodities as well. From a food sovereignty perspective, however, agriculture is part of a food system and what is at stake in trade law is people's way of life. Peasants' and Indigenous peoples’ (and workers’) resistance against the World Trade Organization (WTO) has been an existential struggle. Most trade law scholars, with notable exceptions, have ignored social movements’ demands, including their call to end the WTO. By in effect disregarding the costs and violence of the existing trade system against food producers, trade scholarship makes social movements’ language and political demands less cognizable in international law. In this essay, I provide some context and language that may encourage trade law scholars to engage with the food sovereignty movement. I first explain what is at stake in trade law for the food sovereignty movements. I then briefly describe the underlying three pillars supporting the Agreement on Agriculture, and highlight the limits of trade law. I conclude by offering three principles—dignity, self-sufficiency, and solidarity—that could open trade law to wider perspectives. These principles blur the line between trade and the right to food in order to ensure that neither one is dominant nor an “other.”","PeriodicalId":36818,"journal":{"name":"AJIL Unbound","volume":"116 1","pages":"119 - 123"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2022-04-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"AJIL Unbound","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/aju.2022.16","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Most trade scholars treat agriculture as a commodity, and in a sense, agriculture workers and their technological replacements as commodities as well. From a food sovereignty perspective, however, agriculture is part of a food system and what is at stake in trade law is people's way of life. Peasants' and Indigenous peoples’ (and workers’) resistance against the World Trade Organization (WTO) has been an existential struggle. Most trade law scholars, with notable exceptions, have ignored social movements’ demands, including their call to end the WTO. By in effect disregarding the costs and violence of the existing trade system against food producers, trade scholarship makes social movements’ language and political demands less cognizable in international law. In this essay, I provide some context and language that may encourage trade law scholars to engage with the food sovereignty movement. I first explain what is at stake in trade law for the food sovereignty movements. I then briefly describe the underlying three pillars supporting the Agreement on Agriculture, and highlight the limits of trade law. I conclude by offering three principles—dignity, self-sufficiency, and solidarity—that could open trade law to wider perspectives. These principles blur the line between trade and the right to food in order to ensure that neither one is dominant nor an “other.”
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
贸易人权原则
大多数贸易学者将农业视为商品,从某种意义上说,农业工人及其技术替代品也视为商品。然而,从粮食主权的角度来看,农业是粮食系统的一部分,贸易法中的利害关系是人们的生活方式。农民和土著人民(以及工人)对世界贸易组织(WTO)的抵抗一直是一场生存斗争。除了明显的例外,大多数贸易法学者都忽视了社会运动的要求,包括他们要求结束世贸组织的呼吁。贸易学术实际上无视现有贸易体系对粮食生产者的成本和暴力,使社会运动的语言和政治要求在国际法中不太被认可。在这篇文章中,我提供了一些背景和语言,可以鼓励贸易法学者参与粮食主权运动。我首先解释一下贸易法对粮食主权运动的利害关系。然后,我简要介绍了支持《农业协定》的三大支柱,并强调了贸易法的局限性。最后,我提出了三项原则——尊严、自给自足和团结——这些原则可以让贸易法有更广泛的视角。这些原则模糊了贸易和食物权之间的界限,以确保两者都不是主导者,也不是“另一个”
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
AJIL Unbound
AJIL Unbound Social Sciences-Law
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
40
审稿时长
8 weeks
期刊最新文献
How do States React to Advisory Opinions? Rejection, Implementation, and what Lies in Between Introduction to Symposium on the Contours and Limits of Advisory Opinions The Role of Advocates in the Conception of Advisory Opinion Requests Compliance with Advisory Opinions in the Inter-American Human Rights System Three Goals of States as They Seek Advisory Opinions from ITLOS
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1