Купить СНПЧ А7 Архангельск, оперативня доставка

crosscheckdeposited

The Legality of Trade Sanctions Based on Human Rights Violations: An Analysis Through Law and Economics

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.18836/2178-0587/ealr.v3n2p260-280

http://portalrevistas.ucb.br/index.php/EALR/index 

downloadpdf

Gustavo F. Ribeiro1

 

Resumo: Podem os Estados adotar medidas retaliatórias unilaterais ou coletivas em caso de violações extraterritoriais de direitos humanos? O debate é muitas vezes obscurecido por um conjunto de argumentos jurídicos, políticos, econômicos e morais que produzem mal-entendidos. Enquanto se explora essa questão, este trabalho se desenvolve em três partes. Primeiro, usando-se a análise jurídica tradicional, demonstra-se que os Estados não adotaram qualquer doutrina robusta que os permitam aplicar medidas restritivas ao comércio em resposta a violações de direitos humanos ocorridas fora de seu território. Segundo, usa-se a metodologia de alocação de jurisdição regulatória - e seus respectivos custos (de soberania e de cognição) - para explicar porque estas doutrinas chegam ao mesmo ponto. Terceiro, defende-se que, em função dos custos apontados, a defesa dos direitos humanos em conexão com o comércio internacional ganha força em outras vias, como códigos voluntários de conduta, certificação social e rotulagem.

Palavras-chave: Comércio Internacional; OMC; Direitos Humanos; Direito e Economia; Sanções.

 

Abstract: Are states entitled to take unilateral or collective trade measures in cases of extraterritorial human rights violations? The debate is often blurred by a multitude of legal, political, economic, and moral arguments that have produced misunderstandings. While exploring the above issue, this paper unfolds in three parts. First, using traditional legal analysis, I demonstrate that states have not embraced any robust doctrine permitting states to apply restrictive trade measures as countermeasures against human rights violations abroad. Second, I use the framework of allocation of regulatory jurisdiction (ARJ) and its respective costs (sovereignty and cognitive) to explain why the rules across those doctrinal branches reach the same end point. Third, I argue that, because of those costs, human rights advocacy in connection with international trade gains traction in other ways, such as voluntary codes of conduct, social certification, and labeling.

Key words: International Trade; WTO; Human Rights; Law and Economics; Sanctions.

 

1 Centro Universitário de Brasília – UniCeuB. E-mail: gribeirobr@gmail.com.

 

Literatura Citada

Bartels, L. (2002). Article XX of GATT and the Problem of Extraterritorial Jurisdiction. J. World Trade, 36.

Bernstein S. & Hannah, E. (2008). Non-State Global Standard Setting and the WTO: Legitimacy and the Need for Regulatory Space, J. INT’L ECON. L., 11)(pagination in accordance with advanced access file. The final version of the article has been repaginated beginning in 575). http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jiel/jgn022

Brownlie, I. (2003). Public International Law. Byers, M. (1997). Conceptualising the Relationship between Jus Cogens and Erga Omnes Rules. Nordic J. Int’l L., 66.

Calabresi, G. & Melamed, A. D. (1972). Property Rules, Liability Rules, and Inalienability: One View of the Cathedral. Harv. L. Rev., 85. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1340059

Charnovitz, S. (1997-1998). The Moral Exception in Trade Policy. Va. J. Int'l L., 38.

Cleveland, S. (2002). Human Rights Sanctions and International Trade: a Theory of Compatibility. J. Int'l Econ. L., 5.1. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jiel/5.1.133

Dommen, C. (2001). Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights: A Treasure Chest of Support for Developing Countries ‘Concerns in the WTO’. Bridges Between Trade and Sustainable Development Monthly, 5.

Dunoff, J. & Trachtman, J. (1998). Economic Analysis of International Law: An Invitation and a Caveat. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=73688.

Haas, P. (1992). Introduction: Epistemic Communities and International Policy Coordination. Int’l Org., 46.1. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0020818300001442

Helfer, L. (2008). Nonconsensual International Lawmaking. U. Ill. L. Rev., 1.

Howse, R. & Regan, D. (2000). The Product/Process Distinction – an Illusionary Basis for Disciplining ‘Unilateralism’ in Trade Policy. Eur. J. Int’l L., 11.2.

Howse, R. & Teitel, R. G. (2007). Beyond the Divide: the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the World Trade Organization, in 30 Dialogues on Globalization.

Howse, R. (1999). The World Trade Organization and the Protection of Workers’ Rights. J. Small & Emerging Bus., 3 (pagination in accordance with advanced access file. The final version of the article has been repaginated beginning in 131).

Hurd, I. (2001). Labor Standards through International Organizations: The Global Compact in Comparative Perspective.

Jennings, R. & Watts, A (1999).1 Oppenheim’s International Law § 136.

Kenneth, W. A. & Snidal, D. (2008). Strengthening International Regulation Through “Transnational New Governance”, http://works.bepress.com/kenneth_abbott/1

Keohane, R. O. & Nye, J. S. (1960). The Club Model of Multilateral Cooperation and Problems of Democratic Legitimacy (John Kennedy School of Government, Working Paper n. 4, 2001), http://www.hks.harvard.edu/visions/publication/keohane_nye.pdf.

Krasner, S. (1983). Structural Causes and Regime Consequences: Regimes as Intervening Variables, in Krasner, S. (ed.), International Regimes.

Krasner, S. (1999). Sovereignty: Organized Hypocrisy. Princeton University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/9781400823260

Lang, A.T.F. (2007). Re-thinking Trade and Human Rights. Tulane J. Int’l and Comparative L., 15.2.

Maier, H. G. (1996). Jurisdictional Rules in Customary International Law in Extraterritorial Jurisdiction in Theory and Practice, Meessen.

Mann, F. A. (1964). The Doctrine of Jurisdiction in International Law. Recueil des Cours, 82. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/ej.9789028614826.001-162

Mann, F. A. (1984). The Doctrine of International Jurisdiction Revisited after Twenty Years. Recueil des Cours, 186. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/ej.9789024731770.009-116

Paulus, A. (2005). Jus Cogens in a Time of Hegemony and Fragmentation - An Attempt at a Re-appraisal. Nordic J. Int'l L., 74. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/157181005774939904

Pauwelyn, J. (2003).Conflict of Norms in Public International Law: How WTO Law Relates to other Rules of International Law. Cambridge. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511494550

Polinsky, A. M. (2003). An Introduction to Law and Economics. Aspen.

Posner, R. (2002). Economic Analysis of Law. Aspen.

Ragazzi, M. (1997). The Concept of International Obligations Erga Omnes. Oxford.

Ruggie, J. G. (1983). International Regimes, Transactions, and Change: Embedded Liberalism in the Postwar Economic Order, Krasner (ed.), International Regimes.

Ruppel, O. C. (2008). Third-Generation Human Rights and the protection of environment, in Bösl & Horn (Eds.). Human Rights and the Rule of Law in Namibia. Windhoek: Macmillan Publishers.

Simma, B. (1993). Does the UN Charter Provide an Adequate Legal Basis for Individual or Collective Responses to Violations of Obligations Erga Omnes?, in Delbrück (ed.), The Future of International Law Enforcement.

Tams, C. (2005). Enforcing Obligations Erga Omnes in International Law. Cambridge Studies in International and Comparative Law – CSICL. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511494116

Trachtman, J. (2001-2002). Economic Analysis of Prescriptive Jurisdiction. Va. J. Int’l. L, 42.

Trachtman, J. (2002). Institutional Linkage: Transcending “Trade and [...]”. Am. J. Int’l L., 96. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2686126

Trachtman, J. (2007). Regulatory Jurisdiction and the WTO. J. Int’l Econ. L, 10.3. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jiel/jgm025

Vázquez, C. M. (2003). Trade Sanctions and Human Rights – Past, Present and Future. J. Int’l Eco. L., 6.4. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jiel/6.4.797