IV Reunión de Comercio Justo

Estimados contertulios, adelantámos la IV REUNIÓN DE COMERCIO JUSTO para el martes 28 de octubre a partir de las 4:30 p.m. esta vez se trata del resumen de la primera parte del libro sobre Foro Público de la OMC 2007. La exposición estará a cargo de la Dra. Alexandra Castro y de Gonzalo Ramirez. Espero que podamos discutir. El SALÓN ES EL G - 101. Abrá galleticas...

Con aprecio,

Gonzalo A. Ramírez Cleves

III Reunión de Comercio Justo - Conferencia Dra. Yadira Castillo

Mañana la tercera reunión del grupo de Comercio Justo con la conferencia de la Dra. Yadira Castillo sobre ¨La Responsabilidad de la empresa por violación de los derechos humanos: caso Chiquita Brands". El salón es el G - 102, a la hora acostumbrada 5:00 p.m.

La Dra. Yadira Castillo obtuvó el pasado martes 14 de octubre la máxima calificación de la tesis con posibilidad de publicación. Los esperamos a todos.

Aqui pueden bajar el documento de Joseph Singer sobre RSC

Del blog de Lawrence Solum

Singer on Corporate Responsibility

Joseph William Singer (Harvard Law School) has posted Corporate Responsibility in a Free and Democratic Society (Case Western Reserve Law Review, Vol. 58, 2009) on SSRN. Here is the abstract:

Do corporations have any social responsibilities? Those who have argued both sides of this debate have failed to focus their attention sufficiently on the common law rules governing market relations, especially the law of torts, contracts, and property. This article argues that these three foundational legal institutions are all premised on a fundamental obligation of attentiveness. Actors are obligated to attend to the likely consequences of their actions on others and refrain from actions that impose unreasonable risks of harm or which impose harms that individuals are entitled to be protected against. If this is so, then the argument that corporations cannot reasonably respond to vague duties of social responsibility becomes less powerful, given the pervasive duties of all market actors to consider whether they could justify their harm-producing conduct to an impartial decision maker - in other words, whether they could explain their actions as reasonable. We want clear rules to give us guidelines about what we are and are not allowed to do. But we also want a fuzzy edge of substantive standards to induce us to think before we act - to be attentive to the ways in which our actions affect others. Such fuzzy edges create appropriate incentives to think about the effects of one's actions on others and to consider the judgments that others would make about the justice or appropriateness of our own conduct, given the impact it will have on others who, after all, have equal rights. And we care so much about this that we have enshrined it in the basic law governing the market system

José Antonio Ocampo en el Externado

En el marco de la especialización en finanzas de la Universidad Externado, el exministro de agricultura y economía José Antonio Ocampo dará una serie de conferencias sobre los temas de globalización y comercio, la reforma de los organismos internacionales y multilaterales (ONU - OMC) y regulación del sistema financiero tras la crisis de las subprime en Estados Unidos. Actualmente Ocampo se desempeña como asesor del Banco Mundial y viene de ocupar la Secretaria General de la Cepal (Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe). El salón donde dará las conferencias es el D - 604. Aquí su biografía. Informaremos al respecto

Battle in Seattle - la película

Este es el trailer de la película ¨Battle in Seattle¨

Algunas fotos de la Segunda Reunión

Se cumplió con éxito la II Reunión.. aquí algunas fotos, mientras elaboramos la relatoría...

Susan Ariel Aaron sobre comercio y derechos humanos

Marrying Trade and Human Rights By Susan Aaronson
	April 23, 2008 Pericles enacted the first trade embargo. Photo by Daniel Lobo (CC). In 432 BC, Athenian officials enacted one of the first peacetime trade sanctions, over a land dispute with neighboring Megara. The legislation warranted mention in Thucydides' History of the Peloponnesian War. Today the relation between trade and human rights makes front page news. Cambodia, Vietnam, Egypt, and India have restricted rice exports to ensure adequate affordable food for their citizens. Meanwhile, in the U.S. Congress, Democrats have postponed consideration of a U.S.–Colombia free trade agreement. The Democrats argue that because Colombia has not sufficiently protected union leaders from harassment and murder, the United States should not provide the incentive of a trade agreement. When human rights are violated, policymakers are under significant pressure to do something. They often respond by cutting off trade either to protest human rights abroad or to protect their citizens from harm. Despite the kneejerk politics, we still know very little about the relation between human rights and trade. We don't know if enhanced human rights protections lead to increased trade, or if increased trade leads governments to do more to protect human rights. And we have little insight as to how trade agreements and policies will influence the realization of human rights over time. But the dearth of information has not stopped policymakers from wedding human rights objectives to trade. For example, U.S. policymakers have used trade sanctions to punish Cuba for its violations of political, civil, and religious rights. But forty years of sanctions have done little to change this situation. The United States and other governments took a different approach to China. As China sought to join the World Trade Organization, they argued that more trade would encourage policymakers to do more to advance human rights. By including China in the framework of multilateral rules and obligations, they claimed, Chinese leaders would learn habits of good governance. These habits would gradually spill over into the polity as a whole, and more trade and cross-cultural interaction would expose the Chinese people to new ideas about their rights. The results have been mixed. China has provided more of its citizens with access to education, credit, travel, and other opportunities, and begun to allow public comment on laws and regulations. But China continues to suppress political and religious rights, as well as access to information. Policymakers respond differently to China because of its enormous market and political and economic clout. For China, the marriage of trade and human rights is not a marriage of equals. Trade has trumped human rights. So how should policymakers use trade to promote human rights abroad? Policymakers should think of human rights as a market. They can best increase the supply of human rights abroad with incentives such as increased market access, technical assistance and training, and funding for improved governance. Policymakers should also focus on ways to bolster the inherent demand for human rights among their developing-country trade partners. The European Union follows this approach when helping candidate countries join. Candidate countries are required to protect human rights, and the EU provides candidate countries with considerable foreign aid, financial assistance, and technical expertise. If candidate countries do not meet human rights objectives, they can't accede. In this way, the EU is able to bolster the supply and demand for human rights as it enhances trade. The United States tries to do this also by incorporating provisions for political participation and due process rights in its free trade agreements. Policymakers should also examine carefully the human rights impact of their trade policy decisions. Americans are just beginning to see how subsidies designed to reduce U.S. oil imports have affected the price and supply of basic foodstuffs at home and abroad. America's support for ethanol made from corn is one of several factors leading to the higher prices and declining supply of basic foods abroad. With careful deliberation, trade and human rights can be made coherent. Trade should not be wed to human rights simply because it provides a way for citizens of one country to express their displeasure over the human rights practices of other countries. Instead, if policymakers carefully assess the human rights impact of their trade policy choices, they may create an enduring and effective match, and not just a marriage of convenience. Susan Ariel Aaronson, Research Associate Professor at George Washington University, is the author (with Jamie Zimmerman) of Trade Imbalance: The Struggle to Weigh Human Rights in Trade Policymaking (Cambridge: 2007). Please visit her Trade and Human Rights Blog. This article is licensed under a Creative Commons License. Please read our usage policy. Related Resources: Trade Imbalance: The Struggle to Weigh Human Rights Concerns in Trade Policymaking (Audio) Trade Policy for Humanity (Commentary) United States Obligated to Promote Labor Rights (Commentary) Has Trade Run Aground? (Briefings) Let's Make a New Deal (Briefings) The Impulse to Truck and Trade (Commentary)