The Complex Relationship Between Human Rights and Trade Agreements

This essay delves into the controversial topic of whether human rights should be a factor in trade agreements. It begins by acknowledging the increasing trend of including human rights provisions in Preferential Trade Agreements (PTAs) and highlights the potential benefits, such as promoting labor rights and influencing government behavior to protect citizens' rights. However, the essay primarily argues against the inclusion of such provisions, citing concerns such as policymakers' reluctance to interfere in other countries' affairs, differing opinions among states on accepting these provisions, and the limitations of using hard agreements like fines and sanctions to ensure compliance. The essay concludes that human rights provisions in PTAs have more drawbacks than advantages, especially without proper human rights impact assessments, making these provisions disadvantageous to the respective nations.

Running head: STATES SHOULD NOT CONSIDER HUMAN RIGHTS LINKS IN GRANTING PTRS 1
States should not Consider Human Rights Links in Granting PTRs
Student
Institution
Professor

STATES SHOULD NOT CONSIDER HUMAN RIGHTS LINKS IN GRANTING PTRS 2
Many of the world’s large economies have coined human rights language into their PTRs.
Going by this fact, about 70 percent of the states in the world now form PTAS with human rights
agreements. The increasing number and scope of these trade agreements mirror a new reality that
policymakers have an understanding that economic integration will not be successful without an
accurate focus on improving governance between trade partners.
Research has proven that any person who has traded, has wrestled with how to advance
human rights while expanding trade. As explained by Spilker & Böhmelt (2012) in some cases,
policymakers have used both hard and soft provisions to ensure human rights are respected. This
essay does not oppose that including human rights provisions in PTAs have positive impacts on
the member states but instead seeks to shade more light on the shortcomings of introducing such
rights.
First, the inclusion of hard human rights standards with implications for noncompliance
influences member countries to establish and respect human rights. For instance, since joining
NAFTA, Mexican government become more responsive to the public issues like working
internationally to protect the labor rights of its citizens (Spilker & Böhmelt, 2012). Second, it has
continued to change the behaviors of some countries towards their citizens. For instance, after
Thailand entered into PTA negotiations with the US, it drafted a report, pledging to adopt US
laws if the PTA agreement is successful to ensure the rights of its citizens are protected.
Conversely, the inclusion of human rights when granting PTRs has several problems.
First, some policymakers do not view it appropriate to indulge in the affairs of other countries
even in the most extreme instances of human rights violation (Aaronson & Higham, 2013).
Second, states have different opinions on whether to accept PTRs with human rights provisions.
For instance, Australia has rejected negotiating trade agreements with human rights links. Last,

STATES SHOULD NOT CONSIDER HUMAN RIGHTS LINKS IN GRANTING PTRS 3
using hard agreements like imposing fines and sanctions is not the only way to ensure
compliance with human rights.
In conclusion, Human rights provisions should not be included in PTAs as they have
more gaps than advantages to the respective states. The states also administer these provision
without doing proper human rights impacts assessments to determine the effects of such
requirements on the human rights of some Nations. Therefore, unless the appropriate human
rights impact assessment is done, these provisions remain disadvantageous.

STATES SHOULD NOT CONSIDER HUMAN RIGHTS LINKS IN GRANTING PTRS 4
References
Aaronson, S. A., & Higham, I. (2013). " Re-Righting Business": John Ruggie and the Struggle to
Develop International Human Rights Standards for Transnational Firms. Human Rights
Quarterly, 35(2), 333-264. Retrieved March 18, 2018, from
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTRANETTRADE/Resources/C21.pdf
Spilker, G., & Böhmelt, T. (2012). The impact of preferential trade agreements on governmental
repression revisited. Springer Science+Business Media New York. Retrieved March 18,
2018, from https://www.wti.org/media/filer_public/f0/b4/f0b440e1-9359-4b6e-a327-
58566258eacc/roio_human_rights.pdf