AccessMyLibrary provides FREE access to over 30 million articles from top publications available through your library.
Create a link to this page
Copy and paste this link tag into your Web page or blog:
I. INTRODUCTION
This article was prompted by a collection of essays published by the International Institute for Labour Studies (IILS) at the International Labour Office (ILO) in Geneva in October 1994.(1) The publication, International Labour Standards and Economic Interdependence, forms part of the IILS's work on the role of labor standards in economic development, as well as the ILO's commemoration of its seventieth anniversary and the fiftieth anniversary of the Declaration of Philadelphia.
One of the main themes focussed on in the essays is "Labour Standards and International Trade," which revolves around the potential inclusion of a social clause in the GATT/WTO. Based upon the contributions of noted trade unionists, academics, and members of employers organizations and governments, it is clear that most employers and developing country governments regard a social clause as disguised protectionism, that would be aimed at cost-equalization. On the other hand, trade unionists and industrialized country governments argue that this is not the case. Rather, a direct link between the liberalization of trade and the spread and enforcement of fundamental standards is aimed at eradicating the most flagrant violations of working and living standards in all countries and sectors.
The ILO is also reluctant to take a stand on the social clause, because of a disagreement within the ILO over the contents of such a clause, as well as fear that, in pursuing the social clause jointly with GATT/WTO, the ILO would depart from its principles of volunteerism and political suasion.
This article tries to identify common ground between the antagonists and protagonists that could serve as a starting point to identify the aims of a social clause, its enforcement, and the role of the ILO in pursuing the matter. This is necessary because there are numerous misunderstandings in this regard, some that might even be deliberate. In order to give a clear picture, reference is also made to the historical background and the normative debate raging between "fair" and "free" traders. However, these elements do not form the focal point of evaluation.
II. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
The desire to establish links between international trade and labor standards is as old as the standards themselves. Jacques Necker, the banker and finance minister under Louis XVI, wrote in 1788 that if a country were to abolish the weekly day of rest, it would undoubtedly gain an advantage, provided it was the only one to do so; if others acted likewise the situation would be as before.(2)