07.08.02
Statements
Sub-Commission: OMCT and LWF intervention on economic, social and cultural rights
Joint Oral Intervention by the World Organisation against Torture (OMCT) and the Lutheran World Federation (LWF)
The United Nations Sub-Commission on the Protection and Promotion of Human Rights
Item 4: Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
August 6, 2002
Mr. Chairman,
In recent years, considerable attention has been given to the impact of economic globalisation on human rights. In particular, the human rights implications of trade-related agreements, as well as policies and programmes of international financial institutions (IFIs) have become central to the work of the Sub-Commission, as well as to other human rights mechanisms such as the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and United Nations Special Rapporteurs working on issues related to economic, social and cultural rights. In this regard, OMCT and LWF regret very much that the final report by the Special Rapporteurs on Globalisation and its Full Impact on Human Rights is not being presented in this session of the Sub-Commission, due to their non re-election as members of the Sub-Commission. We therefore continue to await this report and hope that it can be presented at the next session of the Sub-Commission and that the Special Rapporteurs mandate will be extended accordingly.
Furthermore, OMCT and LWF welcome the report submitted by the High Commissioner for Human Rights on the Liberalisation of Trade in Services and Human Rights (U.N.Doc.E/CN.4/Sub.2/2002/9). Last year, OMCT welcomed Sub-Commission resolution 2001/4 (E/CN.4/SUB.2/RES/2001/4) on liberalisation of trade in services and human rights, which reaffirmed the fundamental importance of the delivery of basic services as a means of promoting the realisation of human rights and recognised the potential human rights implications of liberalisation of trade in services, including under the framework of the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) of the WTO.
However, despite increased attention devoted to trade-related issues by international human rights mechanisms, two parallel regimes continue to develop separately, with a risk of marginalisation of human rights principles, instruments and mechanisms. The High Commissioner’s report on Liberalisation of trade in services and human rights, along with discussions during the Social Forum, have highlighted, for instance, the distinction in the application of the non-discrimination principle by human rights law and trade law. This distinction underlines the risk that the non-discrimination principle, as understood in trade law, might well prevent States from putting affirmative action in place, to ensure that the poor, the marginalized and the vulnerable access basic services such as education, safe drinking water and health, on an equal basis.
In this respect, OMCT and LWF believe that further action is needed in order to guarantee that a human rights approach to the liberalisation of trade in services is indeed followed, without being considered or used as conditionality or disguised protectionism. Amongst other things, clarification is needed with regard to the meaning and impact of the non-discrimination principle in trade law and human rights law. Concurrently, means and ways have to be found in order to ensure that negotiations surrounding the GATS’ implementation, the ongoing assessments of the GATS and the implementation of the agreement itself, fully take human rights into account.
Mr. Chairman,
Of particular relevance to the liberalisation of trade in services is the increased flow of foreign direct investment (FDI). Indeed, as a key element of the globalisation process FDI is, today, one of the main modes of delivering trade in services. In this respect, and when not carefully regulated, FDI can have a detrimental effect with regard to the enjoyment of all human rights, as highlighted by past privatisation of basic services. For instance, the 1999 privatisation of the Cochabamba water and sanitation system by the Bolivian Government, who awarded a 40-year concession for the water and sanitation system to an international consortium, led to a massive price hike, which then provoked popular uprising and social unrest, which was met by State repression. In April 2000, given the degradation of the situation and ongoing clashes between the population and the security forces, the government revoked the concession. This example highlights that FDI, when not carefully regulated, can directly lead to restricted access to basic services for the most vulnerable groups of the population – preventing therefore the enjoyment of economic, social and cultural rights such as the right to health- and indirectly to the upsurge of violence and State repression as the main answer to the demands raised by the population to guarantee access to these services.
In this regard, Mr. Chairman, OMCT and LWF would like to recommend the following points to the Sub-Commission:
- To endorse the recommendations made in the High Commissioner for Human Rights’ report on Liberalisation of Trade in Services and Human Rights;
- To recommend that the High Commissioner for Human Rights widely disseminate this report to all relevant actors and bodies of the WTO, including the WTO General Council, the Dispute Settlement Body, the Council for Trade in Services and to the governments’ delegates to the WTO;
- To recommend, through the High Commissioner for Human Rights, that the WTO (1) adopts a human rights approach to the liberalisation of trade in services; (2) includes considerations of the human rights implications of the liberalisation of trade in services when conducting GATS assessment and engaging in services related capacity building and technical assistance activities;
- To request the High Commissioner for Human Rights to hold briefing sessions on human rights approaches to trade liberalisation for trade policy makers, and in particular services negotiators;
- To request the High Commissioner for Human Rights to submit a report on ‘human rights, trade and investment’;
- To conduct further studies, either through the Social Forum or through the Sub-Commission itself, on the different meanings of the non-discrimination principles.
The United Nations Sub-Commission on the Protection and Promotion of Human Rights
Item 4: Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
August 6, 2002
Mr. Chairman,
In recent years, considerable attention has been given to the impact of economic globalisation on human rights. In particular, the human rights implications of trade-related agreements, as well as policies and programmes of international financial institutions (IFIs) have become central to the work of the Sub-Commission, as well as to other human rights mechanisms such as the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and United Nations Special Rapporteurs working on issues related to economic, social and cultural rights. In this regard, OMCT and LWF regret very much that the final report by the Special Rapporteurs on Globalisation and its Full Impact on Human Rights is not being presented in this session of the Sub-Commission, due to their non re-election as members of the Sub-Commission. We therefore continue to await this report and hope that it can be presented at the next session of the Sub-Commission and that the Special Rapporteurs mandate will be extended accordingly.
Furthermore, OMCT and LWF welcome the report submitted by the High Commissioner for Human Rights on the Liberalisation of Trade in Services and Human Rights (U.N.Doc.E/CN.4/Sub.2/2002/9). Last year, OMCT welcomed Sub-Commission resolution 2001/4 (E/CN.4/SUB.2/RES/2001/4) on liberalisation of trade in services and human rights, which reaffirmed the fundamental importance of the delivery of basic services as a means of promoting the realisation of human rights and recognised the potential human rights implications of liberalisation of trade in services, including under the framework of the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) of the WTO.
However, despite increased attention devoted to trade-related issues by international human rights mechanisms, two parallel regimes continue to develop separately, with a risk of marginalisation of human rights principles, instruments and mechanisms. The High Commissioner’s report on Liberalisation of trade in services and human rights, along with discussions during the Social Forum, have highlighted, for instance, the distinction in the application of the non-discrimination principle by human rights law and trade law. This distinction underlines the risk that the non-discrimination principle, as understood in trade law, might well prevent States from putting affirmative action in place, to ensure that the poor, the marginalized and the vulnerable access basic services such as education, safe drinking water and health, on an equal basis.
In this respect, OMCT and LWF believe that further action is needed in order to guarantee that a human rights approach to the liberalisation of trade in services is indeed followed, without being considered or used as conditionality or disguised protectionism. Amongst other things, clarification is needed with regard to the meaning and impact of the non-discrimination principle in trade law and human rights law. Concurrently, means and ways have to be found in order to ensure that negotiations surrounding the GATS’ implementation, the ongoing assessments of the GATS and the implementation of the agreement itself, fully take human rights into account.
Mr. Chairman,
Of particular relevance to the liberalisation of trade in services is the increased flow of foreign direct investment (FDI). Indeed, as a key element of the globalisation process FDI is, today, one of the main modes of delivering trade in services. In this respect, and when not carefully regulated, FDI can have a detrimental effect with regard to the enjoyment of all human rights, as highlighted by past privatisation of basic services. For instance, the 1999 privatisation of the Cochabamba water and sanitation system by the Bolivian Government, who awarded a 40-year concession for the water and sanitation system to an international consortium, led to a massive price hike, which then provoked popular uprising and social unrest, which was met by State repression. In April 2000, given the degradation of the situation and ongoing clashes between the population and the security forces, the government revoked the concession. This example highlights that FDI, when not carefully regulated, can directly lead to restricted access to basic services for the most vulnerable groups of the population – preventing therefore the enjoyment of economic, social and cultural rights such as the right to health- and indirectly to the upsurge of violence and State repression as the main answer to the demands raised by the population to guarantee access to these services.
In this regard, Mr. Chairman, OMCT and LWF would like to recommend the following points to the Sub-Commission:
- To endorse the recommendations made in the High Commissioner for Human Rights’ report on Liberalisation of Trade in Services and Human Rights;
- To recommend that the High Commissioner for Human Rights widely disseminate this report to all relevant actors and bodies of the WTO, including the WTO General Council, the Dispute Settlement Body, the Council for Trade in Services and to the governments’ delegates to the WTO;
- To recommend, through the High Commissioner for Human Rights, that the WTO (1) adopts a human rights approach to the liberalisation of trade in services; (2) includes considerations of the human rights implications of the liberalisation of trade in services when conducting GATS assessment and engaging in services related capacity building and technical assistance activities;
- To request the High Commissioner for Human Rights to hold briefing sessions on human rights approaches to trade liberalisation for trade policy makers, and in particular services negotiators;
- To request the High Commissioner for Human Rights to submit a report on ‘human rights, trade and investment’;
- To conduct further studies, either through the Social Forum or through the Sub-Commission itself, on the different meanings of the non-discrimination principles.