Skip to main content
Fachgebiete
Automobil + Motoren Bauwesen + Immobilien Business IT + Informatik Elektrotechnik + Elektronik Energie + Nachhaltigkeit Finance + Banking Management + Führung Marketing + Vertrieb Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe Versicherung + Risiko
DE
EN
Themenseiten
Organisationspsychologie Projektmanagement Marketing Smart Manufacturing
Bücher
Zeitschriften
Weitere Formate
Podcasts Webinare Technik Webinare Wirtschaft Kongresse Veranstaltungskalender Awards
Jetzt Einzelzugang starten
Zugang für Unternehmen
Referenzkunden
MTZ-Fachkongress

Antriebe und Energiesysteme von morgen


Austausch von Automobil- und Energiewirtschaft

Am 14./15. Mai geht es in Chemnitz um die Mobilitätswende durch Elektro- und Wasserstofffahrzeuge.
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Erschienen in:
Labour Standards in International Economic Law: An Introduction Kapitel lesen Erstes Kapitel lesen

2018 | OriginalPaper | Buchkapitel

An Individual Labour Complaint Procedure for Workers, Trade Unions, Employers and NGOs in Future Free Trade Agreements

verfasst von : Henner Gött

Erschienen in: Labour Standards in International Economic Law

Verlag: Springer International Publishing

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

Labour chapters are, and are likely to remain, a recurring feature of free trade agreements (FTAs). An increasing number of labour chapters, including those in virtually all US, Canadian and EU FTAs, include dispute settlement mechanisms (DSMs) as tools for protecting and promoting labour standards. These DSMs were designed to enhance the protection of labour standards in the context of market liberalization and economic cooperation. Their performance in practice, however, has been rather disappointing. As a response to the shortcomings identified in the design and practice of FTA labour DSMs, this chapter proposes an internationalized individual labour complaint procedure to be included in future FTAs. Its overall aim is to avoid an obstructive over-politicization, to endow actors with a genuine interest in the implementation of FTA labour chapters with the procedural means to do so, and thus to enhance the effective implementation of these chapters while taking due regard of the peculiarities of labour disputes.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren
Vorheriges Kapitel Comparative Conclusions on Arbitral Dispute Settlement in Trade-Labour Matters Under US FTAs
Nächstes Kapitel Implications of CETA and TTIP on Social Standards
Fußnoten
1
This is the case at least as to those states that have hitherto included labour provisions in their FTAs. For an overview, see Lazo Grandi (2009) and ILO (2013).
 
2
Upon the NAALC’s inception, a range of US officials expected it to bring about changes to Mexican labour law and politics. See Dombois (2006), p. 242 and Human Rights Watch (2001).
 
3
ILO (2013), pp. 43 et seqq.
 
4
Arbitral Panel established pursuant to Chapter Twenty of the CAFTA-DR, In the Matter of Guatemala – Issues Relating to the Obligations Under Article 16.2.1(a) of the CAFTA-DR, Final Report of the Panel, 14 June 2017.
 
5
Compa (2001).
 
6
Vogt (2015), p. 828.
 
7
E.g. Greven (2012), p. 92 and Van Roozendaal and Voogsgeerd (2011), p. 364.
 
8
E.g. Chapter 11 NAFTA and Chapter 8 CETA.
 
9
E.g. Chapter 9 EU-Singapore FTA-Draft.
 
10
ICCPR Optional Protocol 1.
 
11
ICESCR Optional Protocol 1.
 
12
Art. 34 ECHR.
 
13
Additional Protocol to the European Social Charter Providing for a System of Collective Complaints, see Churchill and Khaliq (2004).
 
14
Art. 44 ACHR.
 
15
Senghaas-Knobloch (2004), pp. 144–148.
 
16
While individual complaint procedures may well be compatible with a constitutionalist approach to FTAs, and while I do not wish to oppose these approaches here, my argument is more pragmatic, centring on enhancing the efficacy of the implementation of FTA labour commitments and deliberately leaving open possible constitutionalist implications.
 
17
Ebert and Posthuma (2009), p. 63 (79) and Zimmer (2012), p. 150.
 
18
Abel (2017).
 
19
Recent major EU FTAs and FTA drafts explicitly exclude labour chapters from inter-state arbitration, see e.g. Art. 13.16 EU-Korea FTA and Art. 23.11 CETA Draft.
 
20
Abel (2017).
 
21
For an overview over the particularly complex procedure under NAALC see Bieszczat (2008), pp. 1388–1392. More recent agreements tend to reduce the number of steps, Abel (2017).
 
22
For US governments see Greven (2012), p. 89.
 
23
ILO (2013), p. 45.
 
24
Bolle (2016), pp. 5–6 and Finbow (2006), p. 232.
 
25
Greven (2012), p. 88; ILO (2013), p. 49 and Nolan Garcia (2009).
 
26
Dombois (2006), p. 246.
 
27
Dombois et al. (2004), p. 293.
 
28
Reportedly, there is little evidence that there has actually been protectionist use of labour provisions, Ebert and Posthuma (2009), p. 25. On specific arrangements in FTA labour DSMs created to avert protectionist abuse, see Polaski (2003), pp. 19–20.
 
29
ILO (2013), p. 105.
 
30
As mentioned above, to date, virtually all of these attempts originated in petitions by trade unions or NGOs concerning cases of alleged labour law violations, Greven (2012), p. 89.
 
31
ILO (2013), pp. 43–50 and Nolan Garcia (2009).
 
32
See e.g. Art. 11 (3) Canada-Peru ALC. See Abel (2017).
 
33
Finbow (2006), p. 232 and Greven (2012), p. 88.
 
34
Achievements include ‘soft’ long-term achievements, such as the creation of transnational networks and an increase in public awareness, ILO (2013), p. 50.
 
35
Dombois et al. (2004), p. 268.
 
36
Dombois et al. (2004).
 
37
Many of whom had already been sceptical about FTA labour provisions before, see Dombois (2006), p. 249.
 
38
Dombois (2006), p. 249.
 
39
Dombois et al. (2004), p. 267.
 
40
This is not a specific issue of dispute settlement—it is equally relevant with regard to civil society participation in cooperative mechanisms established under FTA labour chapters, see van den Putte et al. (2015), p. 3.
 
41
For a recent example under cooperative mechanisms, see van den Putte (2015), p. 229.
 
42
Infra. 4.3.
 
43
On relevant developments see ILO (2006).
 
44
Infra. 5.
 
45
Similar Greven (2012), p. 93.
 
46
See e.g. the special labour rosters created under US FTAs, e.g. Art. 16.7 CAFTA-DR. Under more recent US FTAs, the general DSM provisions apply.
 
47
See e.g. Art. 15.4 US-Bahrain-FTA; Art. 19.12 TPP; Art. 13.12 and Art. 15.2.1 EU-Korea-FTA and Art. 22.4 CETA-Draft.
 
48
Dombois (2006), p. 248. For a close-up analysis of cases see Finbow (2006) and Addo (2015).
 
49
Dombois (2006), p. 248.
 
50
Notwithstanding the idea of an individual complaint procedure, it is conceivable for the non-respondent FTA party to play an active part in it. Furthermore, it would be possible to retain an inter-state DSM as an additional avenue for dispute settlement.
 
51
For comparison, this is a named achievement of ISDS, Schreuer (2009), p. 416 (Art. 27 n. 4) and Bhagnani (2015), pp. 452–453, with further references.
 
52
On the national level, examples comprise rights of action for environmental law and consumer protection organizations. A noteworthy example on the international level comprise investor-state dispute settlement or individual complaint procedure under human rights regimes.
 
53
See also Abel (2017).
 
54
E.g. Art. 13.13 EU-Korea FTA and Art. 22.5 and Art. 23.8 (4) CETA-Draft. Van den Putte (2015) and Xu (2017).
 
55
Gött (2016), p. 217; Stoll et al. (2015), p. 29 and van den Putte et al. (2015), p. 2.
 
56
Instances like the EU DAG’s letter to EU Commissioner de Gucht concerning violations of labour standards in Korea (see van den Putte 2015, p. 229) illustrate potential constraints stemming both from the heterogeneous composition and the limited mandate of civil society mechanisms.
 
57
Van den Putte (2015), p. 229 and van den Putte et al. (2015), p. 2. Unlike the civil society bodies, intergovernmental committees envisaged by some recent FTAs can hold ‘dedicated sessions’ where only labour issues are discussed, e.g. Art. 22.4 (1) CETA-Draft.
 
58
Critical as to the sufficiency of adjudicatory mechanisms Banks (2011).
 
59
Polaski and Vyborny (2006), p. 107 and Ebert and Posthuma (2009), p. 26.
 
60
Concerning NAALC see ILO (2013), p. 79.
 
61
E.g. Chapter 20 NAFTA and Chapter 29 CETA-Draft.
 
62
Accordingly, a range of FTAs contain choice of forum clauses, e.g. Art. 2005 NAFTA; Art. 14.19 EU-Korea FTA and Art. 29.3 CETA-Draft.
 
63
Art. 13.16 EU-Korea FTA and Art. 23.11 CETA-Draft.
 
64
Art. 13.14 and Art. 13.15 EU-Korea FTA and Art. 23.9 and Art. 23.10 CETA-Draft.
 
65
Gött (2015).
 
66
Gött (2015).
 
67
E.g. Art. 23.3 CETA-Draft; Lazo Grandi (2009), p. 34 and Polaski (2003), pp. 15–18.
 
68
E.g. Art. 3 NAALC; Art. 15.2(a) US-Bahrain FTA; Art. 13.7(1) EU-Korea FTA and Lazo Grandi (2009), p. 34.
 
69
E.g. Art. 23.3 (3) CETA-Draft.
 
70
See e.g. the NAALC approach, Addo (2015), pp. 268–274 and Finbow (2006), pp. 66–68. See also the ‘Bush era’-template used e.g. in Art. 16.6 CAFTA-DR and Vogt (2015), p. 831.
 
71
E.g. Art. 2 NAALC and Art. 192 EU-CARIFORUM.
 
72
Bolle (2016), pp. 4–5 and Vogt (2015), p. 831.
 
73
Critical with regard to completely excluding political questions from scrutiny ICJ, Admission of a State to the United Nations (Charter, Art. 4), Advisory Opinion, ICJ Rep. 57, 28 May 1948, p. 62 and ICJ, Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion, ICJ Rep 226, 8 July 1996, p. 234.
 
74
For example, a violation of the parties’ obligation to ‘make continued and sustained efforts towards ratifying the fundamental ILO Conventions to the extent that they have not yet done so’ (Art. 23.3 (4) CETA) might only be found if one party remains entirely inactive on that matter or at least does not make any reasonably sustained effort towards ratification—this situation might be exceptional, but it is not inconceivable.
 
75
See infra, 6.
 
76
E.g. § 11 (2) (4) German Labour Court Law (Arbeitsgerichtsgesetz), BGBl. I 853, p. 1036.
 
77
Compa (2001); Dombois et al. (2004), p. 192 and Dombois (2006), p. 247.
 
78
OECD (2012), p. 15.
 
79
On the local remedies rule in general, see Amerasinghe (2004).
 
80
Amerasinghe (2004), pp. 200–215.
 
81
E.g. Arts. 4- 6 NAALC; Art. 16.3 CAFTA-DR and Art. 23.5 CETA-Draft.
 
82
On these concepts see Sands and Mackenzie (2008).
 
83
Lay assessors are a feature of some domestic labour judiciaries, see e.g. § 16 German Labour Court Law (Arbeitsgerichtsgesetz), BGBl. I 853, p. 1036.
 
84
On corresponding issues in ILO committees, see La Hovary (2017).
 
85
E.g. in ECHR, Case of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers Union v. United Kingdom, Judgment, Appl. No. 31045/10, 8 Apr 2014 and Hilf and Salomon (2014), with further references.
 
86
Art. 1135 NAFTA; Art. 10.22 (3) CAFTA-DR and Art. 26.1 (5) (e) CETA-Draft.
 
87
Kaufmann-Kohler (2011).
 
88
E.g. Art. 38 and Art. 39 NAALC and Art. 20.15 and Art. 20.16 CAFTA-DR.
 
89
Art. 46 (2) ECHR.
 
90
US NAO, Submission No. 940003 (SONY), Follow-up Report, 4 Dec 1996.
 
91
For example the monitoring mechanism established by the Council of Europe in the ECHR context. See the Council of Europe, Committee of Ministers, Rules of the Committee of Ministers for the supervision of the execution of judgments and of the terms of friendly settlements, 10 May 2006, Rule 9.
 
92
Polaski and Vyborny (2006), p. 101.
 
93
Polaski and Vyborny (2006), p. 101.
 
94
Polaski (2003), p. 21.
 
95
Polaski (2003), p. 20. See also Nolan Garcia (2009), p. 44 with further references.
 
96
ILO (2013), p. 53.
 
97
ILO (2013), pp. 101–103 and Kolben (2004).
 
98
ILO (2013), p. 101.
 
99
ILO (2013), p. 101. On the compatibility of the US-Cambodia Textiles Agreement with WTO law, see Kolben (2004), p. 11.
 
100
See Banks (2011) and Kolben (2004).
 
101
Greven (2012), p. 93.
 
102
E.g. in international investment law, see Ripinsky and Williams (2008).
 
103
E.g. pursuant to Art. 41 ECHR.
 
104
Agustí-Panareda et al. (2014), p. 7.
 
105
Agustí-Panareda et al. (2014), pp. 12–14.
 
106
See Agustí-Panareda et al. (2014), p. 5 with further references.
 
107
Agustí-Panareda et al. (2014), p. 12.
 
108
ECHR, Case of Demir and Baykara v. Turkey, Judgment of the Grand Chamber, Application no. 34503/97, 12 Nov 2008 and IACtHR, Case of Ituango Massacres v. Colombia, Judgment, 1 July 2006. Ebert and Oelz (2012) and Veldman (2013).
 
109
E.g. ILO Report of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations, International Labour Conference, 2010, p. 209.
 
Literatur
Abel P (2017) Comparative conclusions on arbitral dispute settlement in trade-labour matters under US FTAs. In: Gött H (ed) Labour standards in international economic law. Springer International Publishing, Cham, this volume
Addo K (2015) Core labour standards and international trade – lessons from the regional context. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg
Agustí-Panareda J, Ebert FC, LeClerq D (2014) Labour provisions in free trade agreements: fostering their consistency with the ILO standards system. Background paper social dimensions of free trade agreements. ILO, Geneva
Amerasinghe CF (2004) Local remedies in international law. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRef
Banks K (2011) Trade, labor and international governance: an inquiry into the potential effectiveness of the new international labor law. Berkeley J Employ Labor Law 32:45–142
Bhagnani P (2015) Revisiting the countermeasures defense in investor-state disputes: approaches and analogies. In: Bjorklund AK (ed) Yearbook on international investment law and policy 2013–2014. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 437–472
Bieszczat FH (2008) Labor provisions in trade agreements - from the NAALC to now. Chicago-Kent Law Rev 83:1387–1408
Churchill R, Khaliq U (2004) The collective complaints system of the European Social Charter - an effective mechanism for ensuring compliance with economic and social rights? Eur J Int Law 15(3):417–456CrossRef
Compa LA (2001) NAFTA’s labour side agreement and international labour solidarity. In: Waterman P, Wills J (eds) Place, space and the new labour internationalisms. Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford, pp 147–163
Dombois R (2006) Sozialklauseln in US-Freihandelsabkommen – ein wirksames Mittel internationaler Arbeitsregulierung? Indust Bezieh 13:238–252
Dombois R, Hornberger E, Winter J (2004) Internationale Arbeitsregulierung in der Souveränitätsfalle – Das Lehrstück des North American Agreement on Labor Cooperation zwischen den USA, Mexiko und Kanada. LIT, Münster
Ebert FC, Oelz M (2012) Bridging the gap between labour rights and human rights: the role of ILO Law in Regional Human Rights Courts. International Institute for Labour Studies Discussion Paper DP/212/2012. ILO, Geneva
Ebert FC, Posthuma A (2009) Rebalancing globalization: the role of labour provisions in existing international trade arrangements and development finance policies. World of Work Report. ILO, Geneva
Finbow RG (2006) The limits of regionalism – NAFTA’s labour accord. Ashgate Publishing, Aldershot, Burlington
Gött H (2016) “Legitimation durch den, den es angeht?” – Die Einbindung der Zivilgesellschaft in die geplante transatlantische Regulierungszusammenarbeit aus demokratischer Perspektive. In: Buszewski SE, Martini S, Rathke H (eds) Freihandel vs. Demokratie – Grundsätze transnationaler Legitimation, Partizipation, Reversibilität, Transparenz. Nomos, Baden-Baden, pp 199–218
Greven T (2012) Anforderungen an Legitimität und Effektivität von Sozialklauseln in Handelsverträgen. In: Scherrer C, Hänlein A (eds) Sozialklauseln in Handelsabkommen – Begründungen und Vorschläge aus juristischer, ökonomischer und politologischer Sicht. Nomos, Baden-Baden, pp 83–102CrossRef
Hilf M, Salomon TR (2014) Margin of appreciation revisited: the balancing pole of multilevel governance. In: Cremona M, Hilpold P, Lavranos N, Schneider SS, Ziegler AR (eds) Reflections on the constitutionalisation of international economic law: Liber Amicorum for Ernst-Ulrich Petersmann. Martinus Nijhoffer Publishers, Leiden, pp 37–50
ILO (2006) Changing patterns in the world of work. ILO, Geneva
ILO (2013) Social dimensions of free trade agreements. ILO, Geneva
Kaufmann-Kohler G (2011) Interpretive powers of the free trade commission and the rule of law. In: Gaillard E, Bachand F (eds) Fifteen years of NAFTA chapter 11 arbitration. Juris Publishing, Huntington, pp 175–194
Kolben K (2004) Trade, monitoring, and the ILO: working to improve conditions in Cambodia’s garment factories. Yale Hum Rights Dev Law J 7:79–107
La Hovary C (2017) The ILO’s mandate and capacity: creating, proliferating and supervising labour standards for a globalized economy. In: Gött H (ed) Labour standards in international economic law. Springer International Publishing, Cham, this volume
Lazo Grandi P (2009) Trade agreements and their relation to labour standards: the current situation. International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development, GenevaCrossRef
Nolan Garcia KA (2009) Transnational advocacy and labor rights conditionality in the international trading order. University of New Mexico, Albuquerque
OECD (2012) Dispute settlement provisions in international investment agreements: a large sample survey. OECD Publishing, Paris
Polaski S (2003) Protecting labor rights through trade agreements: an analytical guide. Univ Calif Davis Law Rev 10:13–25
Polaski S, Vyborny K (2006) Labor clauses in trade agreements - policy and practice. Integr Trade 10:95–124
Ripinsky S, Williams K (2008) Damages in international investment law. British Institute of International and Comparative Law, London
Sands P, Mackenzie R (2008) International Courts and Tribunals, Amicus Curiae. In: Wolfrum (ed) Max Planck encyclopedia of public international law. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Available via DIALOG. http://​opil.​ouplaw.​com/​home/​epil. Accessed 09 Aug 2017
Schreuer C (2009) The ICSID Convention: a commentary, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRef
Senghaas-Knobloch E (2004) Zwischen Überzeugen und Erzwingen – Nachhaltiger Druck für Geltung und Wirksamkeit internationaler Arbeits- und Sozialstandards. In: Zangl B, Zürn R (eds) Verrechtlichung - Baustein für Global Governance? Dietz Verlag, Bonn, pp 140–158
Stoll P-T, Holterhus TP, Gött H (2015) Die geplante Regulierungszusammenarbeit zwischen der Europäischen Union und Kanada sowie den USA nach den Entwürfen von CETA und TTIP. AK Wien, Vienna
Van den Putte L (2015) Involving civil society in social clauses and the decent work agenda. Glob Labour J 6:221–235
Van Roozendaal G, Voogsgeerd H (2011) International framework agreements versus labour rights included in trade agreements: models for empowerment of trade unions? Econ Environ Stud 11:339–371
Veldman A (2013) The protection of the fundamental right to strike within the context of the European Internal Market: implications of the forthcoming accession of the EU to the ECHR. Utrecht Law Rev 9:104–117CrossRef
Vogt JS (2015) The evolution of labor rights and trade – a transatlantic comparison and lessons for the transatlantic trade and investment partnership. J Int Econ Law 18:827–860CrossRef
Zimmer R (2012) Sozialklauseln im Nachhaltigkeitskapitel des Freihandelsabkommens der Europäischen Union mit Kolumbien und Peru. In: Scherrer C, Hänlein A (eds) Sozialkapitel in Handelsabkommen – Begründungen und Vorschläge aus juristischer, ökonomischer und politologischer Sicht. Nomos, Baden-Baden, pp 141–156CrossRef
Metadaten
Titel
An Individual Labour Complaint Procedure for Workers, Trade Unions, Employers and NGOs in Future Free Trade Agreements
verfasst von
Henner Gött
Copyright-Jahr
2018
Buch
Labour Standards in International Economic Law

Print ISBN: 978-3-319-69446-7

Electronic ISBN: 978-3-319-69447-4

Copyright-Jahr: 2018

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-69447-4_10

Premium Partner

    Bildnachweise