skip to main |
skip to sidebar
 |
| Peter Rossman |
‘The Parties hereby establish a free trade area…’
CETA Article 1.4
‘Trade, like Religion, is what every Body talks of, but few understand: the very Term is dubious, and in its ordinary Acceptation, not sufficiently explain’d.’
Daniel Defoe, A Plan of the English Commerce (1728)
The Canada-EU Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA), like other looming mega-treaties, is a comprehensive vehicle for expanding the scope of transnational investment by rolling back the capacity of governments to regulate in the public interest. The attack on democratic governance is not restricted to the notorious Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) mechanism, which privileges transnational capital by creating a parallel legal system exclusive to transnational investors. The invasive claims of transnational investors permeate the entire treaty.
‘Free trade’ and the expanding investor universe
Canada and the EU are already among the world’s most open economies. Tariffs are at a historic all-time low. CETA’s primary mission is to eliminate ‘non-tariff barriers’ – namely the laws and regulations constructed over decades of struggle to limit corporate power and support the services and policies needed to defend workers, citizens and the environment. CETA is an investment treaty embedded in a comprehensive deregulatory project.
The treaty leaves existing regulations and policies in Canada and the EU vulnerable to investor challenges – directly through ISDS, or indirectly through corporate-driven state-to-state dispute mechanisms. It also forecloses the use of essential policy tools which progressive governments will need to reverse the social destruction which is feeding an authoritarian, nationalist and xenophobic right.
 |
| Daniel Hawkins |
On the 2nd of October, the Colombian electorate will vote in a plebiscite to gauge popular sentiment about the peace accords recently finalised between the Colombian Government and the guerrilla group, Las FARC (in Spanish, the Armed Revolutionary Forces of Colombia). The accords and their expected electoral approval would end the armed conflict waged between las FARC, the Colombian Government, and numerous paramilitary factions which has caused more than 220 000 violent deaths (Centro de Memoria Histórica, 2013) and created millions of victims, making Colombia the country with the second highest number of internally displaced people in the world – more than 6 million (Semana, 2015). Indeed, this peace deal, negotiated over the past four years in Havana, Cuba, would culminate in the transition of las FARC from an armed insurgency group, formally inaugurated 52 years ago, into a political party accorded minor congressional representation[1].
The deal, brokered during four years of intense negotiations, has six chapters[2] and marks a novel attempt to seriously incorporate a platform for justice and victims within the more concrete process of ensuring that the insurgent armed group makes the transition from guerrilla struggle to electoral politics. The chapter on victims seeks to uphold three core elements via a form of transitional justice, based on truth, reparation and no repetition. All those who openly and completely profess their crimes will be accorded a form of non-incarcerated punishment, which will involve territorial seclusion together with community focused, reparation-type work. All other perpetrators of crimes against humanity who do not voluntarily confess will face jail time of 15 to 20 years. This model of justice moves beyond a Kantian and Hegelian understanding of punishment as retribution towards a Hobbesian understanding, wherein penance should focus on the reformation and education of the guilty party.
 |
| Vasco Pedrina |
Just as in the Swiss vote on the mass immigration initiative two years ago, the issue of migration – together with the social consequences of radical neoliberal policies – was decisive for the outcome of the Brexit referendum. The results in the former heartlands of industry and of the Labour Party speak volumes. The argument was that the European Union (EU), with its free movement of people, was solely responsible for the pressure on wages and for growing social inequalities in the country. Is that really the case?
Of course, following Brexit, the EU authorities would be well advised to take stock and steer a new course – a social one again, at long last – if they really want the EU to survive this great watershed. People are not against the EU as such, according to this year’s Eurobarometer, but they are against an EU that, through extreme measures such as the fiscal pact or unmitigated freedom of establishment, sets off a downward social spiral while only a small minority of the already well-off reaps the benefits of this type of integration.
The UK’s role in the expansion of Europe
But what is the truth about the UK’s responsibility for the current mess? The British like to overlook or forget just who, in 2004 – and with no ifs or buts – favoured opening up the EU to Central and Eastern Europe, allowing free movement of people with as few social requirements as possible and doing without any transitional arrangements when the EU expanded eastwards. And just who was against any kind of flanking measures to the free movement of persons to avoid wage and social dumping[1]. Tony Blair (like a good pupil of Margaret Thatcher), Gordon Brown and David Cameron all, without exception, preached such a policy for decades on end.
 |
| Reingard Zimmer |
Trade unions around the world are facing severe attacks from employers on the right to strike. In the ILO, employers challenged the findings of the CEACR (Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations) that the right to strike should be part of Convention 87 on Freedom of Association. The recent decisions of the German Federal Labour Court (the BAG, in German) that third parties affected by a strike are not entitled to claim for damages,[1] is therefore tremendously important far beyond German borders. Accepting third parties’ compensation claims in Germany would have been a further limitation on the right to strike.
German air traffic controllers called for a limited strike at Stuttgart Airport in March 2009 against the airport operator. Flights were reduced during the strike. Several airlines claimed for damages, although they were only indirectly affected, on the basis of violation of property rights and infringement on their established and ongoing business. Furthermore, the claimants argued, air traffic controllers were not authorised to strike because they have a policing function. This became the first case in which the Federal Labour Court had to decide whether third parties who were not involved in collective bargaining could claim damages from the trade union if the strike was unlawful.
The court fortunately stated that third parties which have not been part of collective bargaining, but which suffered negative effects of a strike, do not have any claims against the striking union for compensation under common principles of tort law[2]. The court did not decide on the lawfulness of the strike because it had already denied the claim for reasons of tort law.
