The document discusses whether human rights should be considered when granting preferential trading rights to countries. It notes that the US and EU have increasingly included human rights protections in their trade agreements in recent decades. However, enforcing human rights standards through trade policy can be diplomatically disruptive, economically inefficient, ambiguous, and politically divisive for partner countries. While human rights are important moral principles, merging them with trade negotiations complexly impacts all parties and may not effectively protect rights.

1. Should Human Rights Be Considered Before Giving Preferential Trading Rights to a Country? By Sneh

2. Preferential Trade Agreement A Preferential trade area (PTA) is a trading bloc which gives preferential access to certain products from the participating countries. This is done by reducing tariffs but not by abolishing them completely.

3. Human Rights Human rights are "basic rights and freedoms to which all humans are entitled

4. Few Human Rights Gender Equality Right to Information Child Rights Race Equality Right to Education Women’s Right

5. Violation of Human Rights

6. What external pressure can Change?

7. Intriguing Aspect of this Phenomenon The inclusion of Human Right protection in trade agreement was concluded by the United States and the European Union(EU)

8. The inclusion was done mostly with the developing country partners

9. Why developed Nations use it?

10. What it means to Receiving Nations? Diplomatically Disruptive Economically Inefficient Ambiguous Politically Divisive Global Climate Crisis

11. Diplomatically Disruptive EU entered into an agreement with Nepal by providing special LDC quota for importing Nepali handmade carpets. This proved boon for Nepali economy, and huge local population Entered the industry. Few years later EU stopped the quota showing child right abuses which ended up in a major Economic disruption in Nepal

12. Economically Inefficient In India, 29% or 260 Mil still below national poverty line and 33% of children under 16 years are working. Government is working to end the use of child labor, but it is highly unlikely that external pressure fasten it. Out of 260 million poor, 20% might be children that corresponds to 52 million. For government to take care of these children, it requires to spend at least 52 Billion Rupees every month. This is economically not viable.

16. The stronger economic actor, will only gain from the creation

17. The drafting of such an agreement is going to be a long-term process, which developing countries should enter only after careful and intensive preparations.

19. Appendix

20. Few Questions: Why have the US and the EU decided to attach human rights conditions to their trade agreements? Why have the two powers designed their PTA’s differently, with US emphasizing on labor and children rights and EU emphasizing on voters and citizens rights. Why have their trading partners accepted these conditions? Have these agreements had the desired results on human rights in the partnering countries?

21. First PTA In the 1980s, the UnitedStates negotiated and signed preferential tradeagreements. with Israel (1985) and Canada (1988). Aimed to eliminate all duties and virtually all other restrictions on trade in goodsbetween the countries.

22. PTA and Human Rights The US negotiated and signed Free Trade Agreements with: Chile (2003), Singapore (2003), Australia (2004), Morocco (2004) Bahrain(2004).

23. Few Questions To date, a considerable number of theseagreements promise to defend human rights of one kind or another and provide waysto enforce those promises. Many more agreements are in the process of negotiation. Commerce, on the face of it, has never looked so principled!!! Why are powerful countries, once opposed to the idea, now regulating the protection of human rights through PTAs? Why does the design of these “fair” trade regulations vary considerably between America and Europe? Why are so many othercountries, especially the abusive ones, subscribing to trade regulations that seemdiametrically opposed to their interests? And is any of this rulemaking helping toprotect people’s rights?

24. What do these regulations look like? The US Free Trade Agreement with Singapore, which took effect in 2004, is one example. This agreement obliges parties to “strive to ensure” that human rights – in particular, the right of association, the right to organize and bargain collectively, labor protections for children, and acceptable minimum wages, hours of work and safe health conditions – “are recognized and protected by domestic law” (Article 17.1). It requires that both the US and Singapore effectively enforce these laws and promote public awareness of them (Articles 17.2, 17.3). To further advance common commitments to the protection of peoples’ rights, the trade agreement establishes a Labor Cooperation Mechanism (Annex 17A), procedures for consultations and a Joint Committee to oversee implementation

25. America is not alone. Europe’s Cotonou Convention with the African, Caribbean and Pacific group of countries (ACP), which took effect in 2003, is another example.viii The trade agreement commits “Parties [to] undertake to promote and protect all fundamental freedoms and human rights” (Articles 9, 13, 26). These principles are supported through a Political Dialogue designed to share information, to cultivate mutual understanding, and to facilitate the formation of shared priorities, including those concerning respect for human rights

26. “Fair” Trade is News Human rights have long been an aim of foreign policy for Western countries (Forsythe 2000; Mertus 2004; Sikkink 2004). But the way governments embed human rights regulations in PTAs today is quite different from past trade experience, when powerful countries, even the liberal ones, plainly rejected the marriage of trade agreements and protections for people. Even though trade agreements have governed trade relations for decades, “fair” PTA standards of conduct for protecting people’s human rights have only recently been incorporated – gradually since 1994 in America and almost universally here since 2002; gradually in Europe since 1990 and almost universally there since 1995. Not so long ago, human rights were purposely excluded from nearly all commercial agreements made by America or Europe.ix When they were invoked, standards for protecting human rights were typically linked to unilateral trade preference programs, such as the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) offered by America or Europe, or to national or sub-national laws (Aaronson and Zimmerman 2007), which place no obligations on the host governments to protect human rights at all. Most “fair” trade PTAs, by contrast, go both ways, creating shared obligations between countries to protect human rights.