Introduction
Global rivalry has shaped societies in the world today. Besides, regional organizations such as free trade agreements have increased global competition for foreign direct investment (Gerber 12). The most affected are developing countries, which have had to compete for such investments in a dynamic business environment (Benvenisti 621). Free trade agreements have come as a relief to most countries as it reduces tariffs and import quotas thereby facilitating trade. However, it has become clear that multinational organizations and powerful nations are benefiting more from free trade agreements than their poor counterparts are. This paper will explore Woods’ article on human rights framework and Benton’s article on quasi-sovereignty to establish how weak legal frameworks have weakened poor nations.
A human rights framework for corporate accountability by Jeanne Woods
Woods’ article laments corporate liability for its human rights abuses especially in Asian and African regions. In addition, Woods bewail the poor international law structures that facilitate unhindered pursuit of revenue by multinational corporations which have rights, but do not the duties, of international persons (Woods 322). Woods begins by tracing the history of trade agreements and laws regulating international trade. The author mentions state-centered Westphalian conceit of 1648, which symbolized consolidation of sovereign state structure in Europe. Accordingly, Woods mentions creation of international law from natural law philosophy also begun during the 17th century, although, it did not water down the state-centric perspective of international law. Interestingly, multinational corporations exercised sovereign prerogatives by participating in all nasty treaties and wars across the globe without control. Multinational corporation’s powers were reduced once industrialization was achieved. Legal positivism came in to replace natural law thereby building European politically and militarily. In the 20th century, corporations moved from being subjects to being objects of international law through protectionist trade policies (Woods 324). This brought about post war legal system that retained state-centric laws.
Notably, U.S.’s triumph after World War II created financial institutions and global security, which led to Free Trade Agreement era. Woods argue that Free Trade regime eroded the protectionist trade policies thereby expanding reach of the once powerful western-based multinational corporations. Free Trade regime triggered globalization that diminished the authority of states. Multinational institutions like Free Trade Agreements (FTSs), World Trade Organization (WTO) and World Bank (WB), among others, helped multinational corporations (MNCs) to avoid accountability whenever their activities caused harm to locals (Hernandez-Lopez 145). The author gives examples of situations where UN, through UNCITRAL, assisted multinational companies like Chevron to exploit countries like Ecuador. In essence, the author observes that human rights framework is weak and needs to be strengthened, as it cannot protect legal personality. The author ends by giving recommendations for better human rights framework to protect poor countries.
The problem of quasi-sovereignty, 1870-1900 by Benton Lauren
In this article, Benton traces the origin of international order to the 17th century. The author begins by explaining two approaches that have tried to explain the origin of international legal order. The first approach examined is whether Grotius’s writings or Westphalia brought about inter-state order. The second approach examined is on the contribution of inter-imperial politics on the history of global order. Moreover, Benton claims that the two approaches have been utilized to explain effect of imperial administration on trends in international law (Benton 596). Benton examines distinctive contributions of colonial officials to conceptualization of quasi-sovereignity, which curbed powers of sub polities with regards to international relations. Benton also claims that “civilized” policies that emerged in second half of nineteenth century influenced international lawyer’s understanding of quasi-sovereignty.
This made sub-polities to possess international capacity but lack it. According to Benton, one solution to the problem was to give sub-polities more but limited jurisdictions. For instance, states in the U.S. retained considerable jurisdictional prerogatives yet they could not engage in international relations. Secondly, sub-polities were allowed to relate to each other, although, imperial power retained the legal hegemony. The author criticizes imperial system of administration where ‘states’ were legally gagged yet possessed sovereignty in a contemporary world. Benton gives evidence of a situation when British imperials made Indian princely state their subjects (Benton 598). Imperial administrations infringed on rights of sub-polities by intervening in their internal affairs. The author mentions Asian and African countries, which worked under imperial administrations.
Benton gives a case study of Indian princely and Basutoland under British imperial administration. In India, princes who had close ties with the British government formed close alliance under the threat of revolts. Moreover, Benton explains how Maine provided theory of sovereignty that was utilized in Indian princely states. Benton argues that sovereignty was held as an exclusive property of imperial administration. Consequently, it was only awarded provisionally to native states. Benton also laments the uneven application of law in Indian princely states by British Empire. Moreover, British administration utilized changes in legal administrations to arrange quasi-sovereignty. Later on, political law was replaced by American Indian law that was built on a constitutional framework. However, systematic similarities were obvious between the laws since they both infringed on Indian rights. In essence, states did not have international personality. Therefore, Benton suggests further scrutiny of historical narratives to establish how empires retained their international significance (Benton 619)
Similarities
The two articles have numerous similarities. For instance, both articles talk about international law and the rise of nation states in Europe. To some extent, both articles credit Westphalia for the creation of international order. Furthermore, both articles peg the origin of international legal order to the 17th century. Both authors recognize the faults in international laws that enable powerful governments or institutions to infringe on poor nations’ legal personality. In both articles, international lawyers try to examine but fail to find international frameworks that are justifiable and fair to poor countries. The two articles provide more conceptual similarities than differences since they both explore weaknesses in past and present international laws. Moreover, the articles agree on the fact that international law has undergone numerous changes over the past centuries. However, their protectionist nature has remained unchalleneged. Likewise, both articles concur on the fact that the so-called “civilized” international law has been state-centric thereby denying full sovereignty to poor nations.
Differences
Although the two articles have most similarities, they also differ in several aspects. For instance, while they both credit the origin of international legal law to Westphalia, Benton questions whether it could have originated from the publication of Grotius’ writing. Although the two authors recognize powerful nations’ infringement on poor nations, they differ on perspectives. For instance, Woods utilizes multinational corporations and multinational corporations while Benton utilizes British imperial administration and the United States (USTR 1). Woods note that free trade agreements (FTAs) are used as points of exploiting poor countries through tax evasive ways and unaccountability while Benton utilizes U.S.’s American Indian law based on constitutional framework to show exploitation of governed states. Even though Woods gives evidence for his arguments, Benton provides even more with case studies on chosen areas of empirical study. Woods recommends strong legal framework to protect poor nations while Benton recommends further revisiting of historical narratives on international order.
Conclusion
Essentially, the most common issue in both articles is the weak legal framework regulating agreements between rich and poor countries. These frameworks are seen to benefit multinational corporations at the expense of locals. Benton gives numerous examples of such frameworks. For instance, quasi-sovereignty and American Indian law that benefited powerful regimes’ interests (Gelpern 901). It can be observed from both articles that powerful regimes benefited at the expense of their ‘partners’ due to weak legal framework which were biased in the interest of regimes.
Works Cited
Benton, Lauren. “Part III. Governing Space in International Law: From International Law to Imperial Constitutions: The Problem of Quasi-Sovereignty, 1870-1900.” Law and History Review, 26.3 (2008): 595-619. Print.
Benvenisti, Eyal. “The Origins of the Concept of Belligerent Occupation.” Law and History Review, 26.3 (2008): 621. Print.
Gelpern, Anna. “Bankruptcy, Backwards: The Problem of Quasi-Sovereign Debt.” Yale Law Journal, 121.4 (2012): 888-943. Print.
Gerber, David. Global Competition: Law, Markets, and Globalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. Print.
Hernandez-Lopez, Ernesto. “Guantanamo as a “Legal Black Hole”: A Base for Expanding Space, Markets, and Culture.” University of San Francisco Law Review, 45.1 (2010): 141-214. Print.
USTR. Free Trade Agreements. Web.
Woods, Jeanne. “A Human rights Framework for Corporate Accountability.” ILSA Journal of International & Comparative Law, 17.2 (2013): 321-333. Print.