View previous stories
	Mainstream human rights into trade agreements and WTO practice by Alfred de Zayas UN Independent Expert on the promotion of a democratic and equitable international order   13 September 2016   Mainstream human rights into trade agreements and WTO practice – UN expert urges in new report   The United Nations Independent Expert on the promotion of a democratic and equitable international order, Alfred de Zayas, today called on States and Parliaments to ensure that all future trade agreements stipulate the primacy of human rights. Existing treaties should be revised to ensure that they do not conflict with the duty of States to fulfill binding human rights treaties and meet environmental and health goals.   “Investors and transnational enterprises have invented new rules to suit their needs, rules that impinge on the regulatory space of States and disenfranchise the public”, Mr. de Zayas warned during the presentation of his latest report to the UN Human Rights Council.   “In case of conflict, priority must be given to advancing the public interest rather than continuing the current emphasis on profit expectations of investors and transnational corporations”.   “It is high time to mainstream human rights into all trade agreements and World Trade Organization (WTO) rules and regulations, so that trade representatives and dispute-settlers know that trade is neither a “stand alone” regime not an end in itself,” he observed.   “The WTO yearly ‘public forum’ is slowly but surely contributing to enhanced awareness of civil society concerns. Civil society including consumer unions, health professionals, environmental groups and other stakeholders must be part of the process of elaboration, negotiation, adoption and implementation of trade agreements.”   “A just, peaceful, equitable and democratic world order must not be undermined by the activities of investors, speculators and transnational enterprises avid for immediate profit at the expense of social and economic progress,” he added.   The report introduces the concept of R2A – responsibility to act in the public interest. The “R2A” reaffirms the ontology of governance and goes well beyond the better known “R2P”, Responsibility to Protect. “Governments, Parliaments and Courts must deliver on R2A and not compromise their constitutionally defined roles.”   The report illustrates how the investor-state-dispute settlement mechanism (ISDS), the recently proposed Investment Court System (ICS), and the WTO dispute settlement mechanism suffer from systemic business-bias and often fail to consider the human rights impacts in their awards and decisions.   The expert noted that a wide range of basic rights have been negatively impacted by trade agreements and arbitration awards; among them: the right to self-determination and sovereignty over natural wealth and resources (especially of indigenous populations), the right to life and health, e.g. when access to generic medicines is impeded, the right to work, the right to humane labour conditions, the right to access information - including on commercial treaties, the right to peaceful assembly and association, and the right to public participation.   “Civilization has taken centuries to build the rule of law and its system of transparent and accountable public courts, It is unconstitutional for countries to undermine the rule of law by establishing a competing system of pseudo-courts,” emphasized the expert, expressing concerns at the erosion of the rule of law through the privatization of dispute settlement.   Instead the domestic and regional court systems should be strengthened and expanded. “The path to a democratic and equitable order is through the expansion of public courts, not the creation of private courts with questionable transparency, accountability or independence”.   “Arbitrators and judges must be required by their terms of reference to interpret trade agreements in the light of binding human rights treaty obligations. Domestic courts must deny effect to investor–State dispute settlement awards and WTO dispute settlement decisions that violate human rights,” he stressed.   In his report, the Independent Expert also draws attention to the fact that the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA), the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP), the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) and the Trade in Services Agreement (TISA) have all been negotiated in secret, without consultation of key stakeholders and excluding public participation, thus in violation of articles 19 and 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.   “None of these treaties have any democratic legitimacy. None of them should be allowed to enter into force without public referenda, and if they do enter into force, their legality should be challenged before the constitutional courts of the countries concerned and before the regional human rights courts.   An advisory opinion by the International Court of Justice reaffirming the primacy of the UN Charter over trade agreements would be instructive” stated the expert.   Moreover, Mr. de Zayas called for the adoption of a legally binding treaty laying down enforceable obligations by investors and transnational enterprises. A systematic follow up by the Human Rights Council to monitor the implementation of the recommendations of UN working groups, rapporteurs and independent experts is necessary.   “Surely the Council did not intend to convene an assembly of Cassandras when it established the Special Procedures. We believe in the added value of our reports and expect States to take our recommendations seriously into account,” the expert concluded. “For this we also rely on People Power and civil society activism.”   * Access the report via the link below. Visit the related web page
	How raising the minimum wage helps build an economy that works for all by Ford Foundation, agencies USA   September 2016   How raising the minimum wage helps build an economy that works for all, by Anna Shireen Wadia.   In the United States, we do have things to celebrate this Labor Day. By organizing on the job, in the streets, at the ballot box, in state houses and city halls around the country, workers have made significant gains in raising the minimum wage, guaranteeing paid sick days and paid family leave, and cracking down on wage theft.   Recently the Ford Foundation, in partnership with The New Press, SEIU 775, and our grantees the National Domestic Workers Alliance, the National Employment Law Project, and the Roosevelt Institute, hosted a discussion about The Fight for $15: The Right Wage for a Working America. Following are few highlights from that event.   The fight for a $15 minimum wage is everyone’s fight   Increasing the minimum wage puts more money in the pockets of people who need it the most. When people are able to buy their kids shoes, afford a stable place to live, and pay for education, it boosts the economy, helps create jobs, and contributes to thriving communities.   As Ford Foundation Vice President Xavier Briggs stressed, a fair, inclusive, and thriving economy is also essential to challenge xenophobia and scapegoating.   A new economy requires a strong, 21st century labor movement   As David Rolf emphasized, it is essential that the movement to raise the minimum wage remains part of a broader movement to build the collective power and voice of today’s working class. This will require labor unions and other worker and community organizations to work together to create new forms of labor organizing.   It will take new frameworks for collectively negotiating terms and conditions of work, and new, broader demands that respond to the changing needs and realities of workers and their communities in our increasingly globalized, digitized world.   A new economy also requires a social contract that fits today’s families and workplaces   The 20th century social contract was built on the premise of the one-income, two-parent household where the father worked outside the home, and the mother took on all of the caregiving responsibilities. That model, which never applied to African Americans and immigrants, now represents a tiny minority of American households.   Today, workers who have historically been excluded from labor protections—including people of color, women, and immigrant workers—are fast becoming America’s new working majority.   At the same time, millions of US workers are experiencing a shift from predictable, full-time, stable employment to work that is precarious, part-time, temporary, gig-to-gig, and otherwise unstable. And increasingly, every worker, regardless of their gender, is also a caregiver.   Our workplace policies and safety net programs must be updated to enable today’s workers and families to thrive.   Rutgers University Professor Janice Fine, an expert on labor studies and employment relations, argues that to make fair labor laws a reality, worker, civil society, and community organizations need to be given a formal role in enforcing the laws—and employers need to be at the table, too.   A new economy must be an inclusive economy   An inclusive economy is one in which opportunity and prosperity are widely shared—regardless of race, gender, or ethnicity. Business, government, and civil society all have a role to play in realizing this vision. Together with our partners, the Ford Foundation is encouraging these groups to rise to the occasion and work together to create an economy that benefits everyone.   * Watch the full event via the link below   Tackle income inequality, Lawrence Mishel, President, of the Economic Policy Institute.   Is America still the land of opportunity? Today in particular, it’s a question well worth asking. The United States has low rates of upward mobility compared to other advanced nations, and there has been no improvement in decades. So creating more opportunity—and perhaps a better chance at that mobility—is a worthy goal.   But, opportunity simply doesn’t thrive amid great inequalities. And so if “more opportunity” is offered as an alternative to addressing income inequality, it’s a dodge. It’s a hollow promise.   To understand why, it’s important to appreciate the difference between opportunity—that is, upward mobility—and income inequality. Concerns about mobility center on strengthening the chances that children who grow up with relatively low incomes will attain middle-class or higher incomes in adulthood.   Taking on inequality means focusing on whether low and middle-income households improve their share of the economic growth generated in the next two decades. These are different issues—although ultimately they are intimately related.   To grasp the reality of rising inequality, take a look at what’s happened to the share of the growth of household income received by the top 1 percent of our society. In 1979, this stratum received 9 percent of all income. Yet, between that year and 2007, the share of new income going to the 1 percent was 38 percent, according to the Congressional Budget Office—and estimates using tax data on new market-based incomes put it at 60 percent. In short, the top 1 percent received four to six times its expected share of all the income growth. http://bit.ly/2cj5UIZ   For politicians who don’t want to tackle income inequality, the opportunity dodge is very popular. Most conservatives consider income outcomes to be the result of meritocracy. “I don’t care about income inequality per se; I care about opportunity inequality,” Arthur Brooks, head of the American Enterprise Institute said last year.   Though left unsaid, this view rests on a perception that groups on the short end of income inequality haven’t exerted sufficient effort, have inadequate skills, or have made counterproductive choices. In other words, this perspective relies on blaming the victim.   Centrists sometimes address opportunity instead of income inequality to avoid confronting the top 1 percent’s capture of the lion’s share of income growth. Addressing soaring executive pay and a runaway financial sector—the main causes of the 1 percent’s income gains—is uncomfortable for centrists, as it necessarily involves redistribution; and besides, those folks are their donor base. And talking about opportunity allows a politician to avoid confronting ongoing wage suppression and the imbalance of bargaining power that has led to stagnant wages.   We can’t substantially change opportunity without changing the actual living circumstances of disadvantaged and working-class youth. Therefore, reducing income inequality is essential for improving upward mobility.   Income inequality and intergenerational mobility are closely linked. The so-called Great Gatsby Curve comparing opportunity with equality shows that mobility is less in countries with the greatest inequality. We won’t be able to foster more opportunity and mobility without also addressing income inequality.   If we’re serious about reducing inequality, we need to help people earn the kind of living that enables them to provide for their families and build a better future. Without that, promoting mobility and opportunity is simply empty posturing. http://www.epi.org/   * Focus on inequality. Why is it so bad for societies and what can be done about it? Social Europe Editor Henning Meyer discusses these questions and related issues with the economist Tony Atkinson from Oxford University. Tony is a world-leading scholar in this field and has researched issues around inequality for decades: http://www.socialeurope.eu/2016/09/inequality-can-done/ Visit the related web page
	View more stories