Human Rights and Trading Rights

Human Rights and Trading Rights

An increasing number of preferential trade agreements (PTAs) play a significant role in influencing member states’ human rights statuses. Governments achieve this by supplying tight compliance standards, which member states must comply with to attain membership. The incentives, resources, and penalties issued force repressive governments to pursue conventional human rights compliance (Hafner-Burton, 2005). PTAs are so good at influencing member states’ compliance that they have proved to be more effective than ordinary human rights agreements (HRAs).

Proponents of PTAs’ role in influencing human rights governance argue that the approach has improved the general well-being of vulnerable people. There is a specific emphasis on the role of PTAs in areas prone to military conflicts. A common approach used in these territories is coercion, whereby repressive members are threatened with trade sanctions and membership denial if they do not prevent domestic human rights violations (Spilker & Böhmelt, 2012). For instance, the Economic Organization of West African Countries (ECOWAS) has been actively engaged in preventing bloodshed in some West African states. The ECOWAS recently prevented bloodshed and designed a framework for returning to democracy in Burkina Faso.

However, opponents of integrating human rights into PTA agreements argue that powerful countries use it as a tool to solicit favors. Others argue that stronger nations use PTAs as a tool to impose their values on relatively weaker nations (Sharma, 2010). For instance, the US has been on the receiving end of weaponizing trade agreements to impose its version of democracy on other countries. Also, there is a feeling that integrating human rights and trade agreements prevents exports from developing countries (Sharma, 2010). If allowed, such exports would dominate the world, considering the cheap production cost in developing countries.

As politics and trade are increasingly integrated, so is the powerful governments’ desire to control human rights practices. Most governments consider the human rights statuses of other partner countries before granting them PTAs. Proponents of the model argue that it helps prevent domestic human rights violations. However, opponents feel the requirement is a tool meant to oppress weaker nations.

References

Hafner-Burton, E. M. (2005). Trading Human Rights: How Preferential Trade Agreements Influence Government Repression. International Organization, 59(03). https://doi.org/10.1017/s0020818305050216

Sneh Sharma. (2010, April 14). Should human rights be considered before giving preferential trading? https://www.slideshare.net/onlinesneh/should-human-rights-be-considered-before-giving-preferential-trading-rights

Spilker, G., & Böhmelt, T. (2012). The impact of preferential trade agreements on governmental repression revisited. The Review of International Organizations, 8(3), 343–361. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11558-012-9155-8

ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE

We’ll write everything from scratch

Human Rights and Trading Rights

Do you think governments should consider human rights when granting preferential trading rights to countries? What are the arguments for and against taking such a position?

Submission Instructions:

Your initial post should be at least 200 words with at least 2 academic sources.