It has been by far, the most eventful halloween weekend of my life. Not only did I have the pleasure of celebrating my birthday but everywhere I went, from the shops to the hairdressers, everyone had one hot topic to talk about: Terrorism on the news...
Sky news has been updating it's website regularly with news about terrorism, most noteably the incident to do with a student arrested for sending parcel bombs on a Quatar Airways flight. Terrorism is on the ultimate high level and even soldiers in the British Army have been told that they must be on high alert (this is from a very reliable source).
Why is this important to us? Well, not only were the bombs sent in a disguised manner but their mode of transportation was by air. Henceforth, this strikes a very important issue of contention; how will airport security, who have failed to detect disguised bombs cope with trying to limit terrorism? Even more worrying, from a legal perspective or rather, from the point of view of international traders, how will this impact on worldwide trading? Will countries have to impose protectionist policies to keep terrorism at bay? How will those supposed 'accused' countries like Yemen cope with international trading? Does this mean that other countries will be closing their 'trading doors' to them? I am unsure of the answers to these questions but I aim to investigate this matter in due course, but one hard truth remains; the war on terrorism is not even near ending.
For more information please check;
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Yemen-Parcel-Bombs-Woman-Suspect-Released-On-Bail-As-US-Makes-Links-To-Failed-Underwear-Bomb/Article/201010415788279?lpos=World_News_News_Your_Way_Region_4&lid=NewsYourWay_ARTICLE_15788279_Yemen_Parcel_Bombs%3A_Woman_Suspect_Released_On_Bail_As_US_Makes_Links_To_Failed_Underwear_Bomb
Sunday 31 October 2010
Friday 29 October 2010
The West does it again...
After having the pleasure of preparing a workshop on child labour this week, my colleague Wayne and I came to some very interesting theories.
There are to date, quite a few international regulations governing child labour but the Convention on the Rights of the Child is by far, the most acknowledged one of all. The Convention is instrumental as it brings together all the key themes in ensuring survival and protection of a child i.e. protection from abuse, exploitation, juvenile rights, health care and the like. Clearly, this is a very well drafted Convention and I believe it is a very powerful regulation. It is brilliant.
However, the harsh reality is that it is not as powerful as I would hoped it to be. Child labour is still a persistent problem in the World today. Even more disturbing is the fact that the most poweful nation in the world, the United States has yet to ratify this. The fact that US did sign the Convention in 1995 only shows half of their commitment. In fact, Somalia has also done the same as the US. The issue with Somalia is understandable, as they are a struggling, unstable nation with no sense of proper governance.
On the other hand, the US has no excuse at all. How is it possible that a country as powerful as the US, always having a say in drafting and ratifying the most important UN legilsations of all time can get away with (I dare say) murder with not ratifying this Convention? Does not this prove that they are not practising what they preach? It is, by far, the most hypocritical situation I have ever seen a country of the West to be in. This takes me back to the days of learning History at A2 level when I found out that the US basically 'ran' the whole of the UN because it had such a heavy influence over voting procedures. So,if US does not ratify a certain convention how do they expect other countries to have credibility in such a Convention and follow suit? I guess it is excusable for such a powerful country like the US to get away with this, I mean after all, they do have 'a huge say' in how the UN is run.
So, in the meanwhile, on another related issue, the West want to ban child labour but at the same time they are the ones making the biggest purchases of diamonds (mined by children) and the like and selling them for the most exorbitant prices. This, I must say, is hypocrisy at its best.
Again, I am faced with the realisation that the world works in an unjustified, ironic, uncanny and mysterious way.
For more information please read;
http://www.hrw.org/node/84594#_Convention_on_the_1
There are to date, quite a few international regulations governing child labour but the Convention on the Rights of the Child is by far, the most acknowledged one of all. The Convention is instrumental as it brings together all the key themes in ensuring survival and protection of a child i.e. protection from abuse, exploitation, juvenile rights, health care and the like. Clearly, this is a very well drafted Convention and I believe it is a very powerful regulation. It is brilliant.
However, the harsh reality is that it is not as powerful as I would hoped it to be. Child labour is still a persistent problem in the World today. Even more disturbing is the fact that the most poweful nation in the world, the United States has yet to ratify this. The fact that US did sign the Convention in 1995 only shows half of their commitment. In fact, Somalia has also done the same as the US. The issue with Somalia is understandable, as they are a struggling, unstable nation with no sense of proper governance.
On the other hand, the US has no excuse at all. How is it possible that a country as powerful as the US, always having a say in drafting and ratifying the most important UN legilsations of all time can get away with (I dare say) murder with not ratifying this Convention? Does not this prove that they are not practising what they preach? It is, by far, the most hypocritical situation I have ever seen a country of the West to be in. This takes me back to the days of learning History at A2 level when I found out that the US basically 'ran' the whole of the UN because it had such a heavy influence over voting procedures. So,if US does not ratify a certain convention how do they expect other countries to have credibility in such a Convention and follow suit? I guess it is excusable for such a powerful country like the US to get away with this, I mean after all, they do have 'a huge say' in how the UN is run.
So, in the meanwhile, on another related issue, the West want to ban child labour but at the same time they are the ones making the biggest purchases of diamonds (mined by children) and the like and selling them for the most exorbitant prices. This, I must say, is hypocrisy at its best.
Again, I am faced with the realisation that the world works in an unjustified, ironic, uncanny and mysterious way.
For more information please read;
http://www.hrw.org/node/84594#_Convention_on_the_1
Fair trade prevails over the plight of EU farmers
After a long, busy week of uni work, I have finally had the chance to investigate the issue that has been looming over my mind for the past week; Do UK/EU farmers happen to get the same support as fair trade farmers?
Accordingly, after reading a few online articles, it has come to my attention that the EU farmers are indeed in quite a dire situation. The issue seems to be predominant amonst dairy farmers in that they are not getting paid adequately for the premium milk they are producing. In fact, they have been so desperate that they were bold enough to march and protest outside The European Commission in Brussels in 2009.
So, how effective was this? In my opinion, not effective at all. Fischer Boel, who, at the time of the protests, was European Commissioner of Agriculture and Rural Development had many things to say. One of the most striking is that she was not afraid to confer with the protestors. Clearly, she is a very bold lady but she is short of good ideas. She proclaimed that it would be possible for member states to pay 70% of the direct payment after October 2009. Whether this has been achieved and how effective it has been is debatable. According to the European Milk Board (EMB) the problem persists not only because of the milk prices being low but also because of the reduction in quotas. This brings to mind another question, how is it that the EU last year had recommended reducing milk production in order to resolve the issue of prices paid not meeting the cost of production? If memory serves correctly (after studying a module of Economics for Business in my undergraduate degree) , I was of the belief that if supply decreases but demand stays at the same level then that would lead to higher prices? Am I wrong or did I miss the point of the whole module? If I'm right, this is not what EU dairy farmers need to resolve this issue.
I therefore conclude that, in order to help these struggling farmers the EU should collectively agree on sound economic policies and regulations. Most noteably, the need to revise the quota system.
Ultimately, after carefully reflecting on this topic, I am more convinced than ever that there is something not quite right here. I find it so ironic that countries in the EU especially the UK are increasingly buying fair trade commodities to sell to consumers but in the meanwhile, nothing effective has been put in place to deal with the plight of struggling farmers in their own countries. I find this very hard to make sense of and I am beginning to think that the world we live in works in very mysterious ways...
Thanks for reading!
P.s Please click on the links below to view the articles I read;
http://www.just-food.com/news/dairy-farmers-could-get-financial-aid_id106724.aspx
and
http://www.just-food.com/news/early-subsidy-payments-not-enough-dairy-farmers_id106727.aspx
Accordingly, after reading a few online articles, it has come to my attention that the EU farmers are indeed in quite a dire situation. The issue seems to be predominant amonst dairy farmers in that they are not getting paid adequately for the premium milk they are producing. In fact, they have been so desperate that they were bold enough to march and protest outside The European Commission in Brussels in 2009.
So, how effective was this? In my opinion, not effective at all. Fischer Boel, who, at the time of the protests, was European Commissioner of Agriculture and Rural Development had many things to say. One of the most striking is that she was not afraid to confer with the protestors. Clearly, she is a very bold lady but she is short of good ideas. She proclaimed that it would be possible for member states to pay 70% of the direct payment after October 2009. Whether this has been achieved and how effective it has been is debatable. According to the European Milk Board (EMB) the problem persists not only because of the milk prices being low but also because of the reduction in quotas. This brings to mind another question, how is it that the EU last year had recommended reducing milk production in order to resolve the issue of prices paid not meeting the cost of production? If memory serves correctly (after studying a module of Economics for Business in my undergraduate degree) , I was of the belief that if supply decreases but demand stays at the same level then that would lead to higher prices? Am I wrong or did I miss the point of the whole module? If I'm right, this is not what EU dairy farmers need to resolve this issue.
I therefore conclude that, in order to help these struggling farmers the EU should collectively agree on sound economic policies and regulations. Most noteably, the need to revise the quota system.
Ultimately, after carefully reflecting on this topic, I am more convinced than ever that there is something not quite right here. I find it so ironic that countries in the EU especially the UK are increasingly buying fair trade commodities to sell to consumers but in the meanwhile, nothing effective has been put in place to deal with the plight of struggling farmers in their own countries. I find this very hard to make sense of and I am beginning to think that the world we live in works in very mysterious ways...
Thanks for reading!
P.s Please click on the links below to view the articles I read;
http://www.just-food.com/news/dairy-farmers-could-get-financial-aid_id106724.aspx
and
http://www.just-food.com/news/early-subsidy-payments-not-enough-dairy-farmers_id106727.aspx
Thursday 28 October 2010
Summary of Workshop 3's essay; Is fair trade fair?
Is Fairtrade Fair?
The essay provided an objective evaluation of the internationally controversial issue of the pros and cons of Fairtrading.
Arguments in support of the concept of fairtrading included:
1. Fairtrading safeguarded workers' rights through the Fairtrade Labelling Organisation International's establishment of reputable trade unions.
2. it promotes stability of income even when the economy is on a downward spiral through the mechanism of guarantee of a minimum price.
3. by eliminating the "middle man" or intermediary in the chain of supply, there is an increase in the overall income.
Arguments against, incorporated criticisms like:
1.Fairtrade institutions are also accused of ignoring the real issues faced by producers in the chain of supply like the inflated prices that exceed the market value without resolving problems associated with it like oversupply. Oversupply is a problem faced in the coffee market and instead of addressing this issue, prices are often inflated, the result being that persons are encouraged to continue producing even though the market is saturated.
2. Also Bovard has theory of producers from developing countries taking advantage of the "guarantee of a minimum price policy" as a fall back insurance against economic downturns. He claimed that they would not be able to survive in the real economic world.
The conclusion reached was that whether fairtrade is fair or not is dependent upon the individual who is asked the question
Tuesday 19 October 2010
Revelations
After having read some intereting information regarding Fair Trade, I've come to realise that I misinterpreted the concept of fair trade and local produce in the UK. As you may remember for my first blog I questioned the idea of the support of international charities over UK farmers selling local produce. The fair trade website makes it's standpoint very clear and I feel I need to post this for everyone to clear up misconceptions.
While the Fair Trade Foundation is fully aware of the need for support for UK farmers growing local produce, the aim of the organisation is to actually in support of struggling farmers in Third World countries growing tropical produce. Such example include coffee and bananas which have a tendency to grow more in the Third World countries at a larger scale compared to the EU countries like UK.
Then again, the question that still pops up in my head is what is actually being done to help support farmers in UK and other EU countries facing similar issues to those in the Third World countries. This is something I aim to find out in due course.
Stay tuned for updates!
While the Fair Trade Foundation is fully aware of the need for support for UK farmers growing local produce, the aim of the organisation is to actually in support of struggling farmers in Third World countries growing tropical produce. Such example include coffee and bananas which have a tendency to grow more in the Third World countries at a larger scale compared to the EU countries like UK.
Then again, the question that still pops up in my head is what is actually being done to help support farmers in UK and other EU countries facing similar issues to those in the Third World countries. This is something I aim to find out in due course.
Stay tuned for updates!
Monday 18 October 2010
Fair Trade or Free trade?
It suddenly dawned on me over the weekend that there are infact books in the library that address the concept of free trade.
After browsing through a few of these books, I found myself getting confused by interpreting 'free trade' for 'fair trade' and vice versa. So, the question is, is there a difference between the two concepts?
'Dunkley (2001) in his novel, "The Free Trade Adventure" defines free trade as 'trading across national boundaries unimpeded by tariff duties, quotas, regulations or other barriers to the movement of goods and services'. Clearly, this is exactly what the WTO (World Trade Organisation) aims to do in trying to encourage international trade to take place. In doing so, sustainable development as well as economic growth is likely to occur. Therefore, it may be argued that the concept of free trade is more of an interpretation of trade from an economists' point of view.
On the other hand, fair trade is a concept which has several meanings but does not really have a clear cut definition. For example, Dunkley (2001) in the same novel quoted above, puts forward as many as 3 different meanings of fair trade. He does this by taking into account the term as interpreted by it's historical origins, the NGOs perspective and with reference to trade policies. Personally, I prefer the meaning embraced by the NGOs which involves Third World countries selling goods (example coffee, bananas, cotton) to developed countries/MEDCs (most economically developed countries) who in turn sell these commodities at 'modest mark-ups'.
Having discussed all this, a thought comes to mind. Is free trade integral in the practice of fair trade or not? Initially, I thought so. I think I still do. However, taking into account what writers such as Rosenberg( 1999) had to say about this in his debate of CAFCA Farmers as seen in;
http://www.converge.org.nz/watchdog/94/6freet.htm , ideally, it should be that the best producer of commodities/goods who will benefit from increased economic growth. In fact, it would seem to me that that free trade is a keystone or platform which provides the right economic climate to nurture fair trade.
Therefore, in my opinion, free trade is a key component in the practice of fair trade. Unfortunately, this may not necessarily be the case. The free trade concept is believed to be non-existent by some especially Rosenberg because large corporations and transnational companies have taken over international trading. Many examples have been quoted most of which are of the late 1990s but I believe the arguments are still applicable today. Why is it that the WTO members are advocates of free trade and yet it is their own members that seem to be engaging in the unfair practices associated with it i.e. price fixing in order to reduce taxes. How is it possible that struggling developing countries can triumph through fair trade when MEDCs have a big influence over international trade policies? Perhaps I've missed something..
Please stay tuned for my next post. Thanks!
After browsing through a few of these books, I found myself getting confused by interpreting 'free trade' for 'fair trade' and vice versa. So, the question is, is there a difference between the two concepts?
'Dunkley (2001) in his novel, "The Free Trade Adventure" defines free trade as 'trading across national boundaries unimpeded by tariff duties, quotas, regulations or other barriers to the movement of goods and services'. Clearly, this is exactly what the WTO (World Trade Organisation) aims to do in trying to encourage international trade to take place. In doing so, sustainable development as well as economic growth is likely to occur. Therefore, it may be argued that the concept of free trade is more of an interpretation of trade from an economists' point of view.
On the other hand, fair trade is a concept which has several meanings but does not really have a clear cut definition. For example, Dunkley (2001) in the same novel quoted above, puts forward as many as 3 different meanings of fair trade. He does this by taking into account the term as interpreted by it's historical origins, the NGOs perspective and with reference to trade policies. Personally, I prefer the meaning embraced by the NGOs which involves Third World countries selling goods (example coffee, bananas, cotton) to developed countries/MEDCs (most economically developed countries) who in turn sell these commodities at 'modest mark-ups'.
Having discussed all this, a thought comes to mind. Is free trade integral in the practice of fair trade or not? Initially, I thought so. I think I still do. However, taking into account what writers such as Rosenberg( 1999) had to say about this in his debate of CAFCA Farmers as seen in;
http://www.converge.org.nz/watchdog/94/6freet.htm , ideally, it should be that the best producer of commodities/goods who will benefit from increased economic growth. In fact, it would seem to me that that free trade is a keystone or platform which provides the right economic climate to nurture fair trade.
Therefore, in my opinion, free trade is a key component in the practice of fair trade. Unfortunately, this may not necessarily be the case. The free trade concept is believed to be non-existent by some especially Rosenberg because large corporations and transnational companies have taken over international trading. Many examples have been quoted most of which are of the late 1990s but I believe the arguments are still applicable today. Why is it that the WTO members are advocates of free trade and yet it is their own members that seem to be engaging in the unfair practices associated with it i.e. price fixing in order to reduce taxes. How is it possible that struggling developing countries can triumph through fair trade when MEDCs have a big influence over international trade policies? Perhaps I've missed something..
Please stay tuned for my next post. Thanks!
Friday 15 October 2010
Fair Trade, is it fair or not?
In preparation for Workshop 3 of the Legal Research in Commercial Law module, I've taken it upon myself to start reading well in advance on fair trade in order to get a thorough grasp of the topic.
After some thorough research, I found to my dismay, there was nothing related to fair trade on the electronic resources. Not even a journal or a book in the library for that matter! Hence, I've had no choice but to turn my attention to other means of research via an online search engine. Unfortunately, it had to be google.
I've been quite surprised at the amount of material I've found. Although they are mostly from the media i.e. the BBC and The Guardian, it's certainly played a role in raising my interest in the topic. It has suddenly dawned on me that most products I've bought in supermarkets such as Marks and Spencer and Starbucks at the University, are all fair trade goods! Why did I not think of that from before I wonder...?
So, is fair trade fair? To be honest, I cannot really answer this question as I'm torn between both sides of the argument. While I feel it's ethically and morally correct to help struggling farmers of developing countries to benefit from fairer prices in order to improve their lifestyles, I feel that perhaps it's a means of supporting international "charities" more than local charities in the UK. Why do most people feel the need to buy fair trade goods when they are not prepared to pay premium prices for local produce for example. Is this wrong?
Furthermore, what really struck me is that I noticed there does not seem to be any legislation specially related to 'Fair trade' but there is a World Fair Trade Organisation which exists. According to the World Fair Trade Organisation website; www.wfto.com, in order to obtain membership, members should be staunch followers of fair trade (hey quote 100%) and satisfy the "10 Principles of fair trade" criteria. I imagine this must be quite a challenging task to do because I remember back in the days of studying EU law, applying criteria to different countries and jurisdictions, brings to rise issues relating to differing interpretations due to language barriers. Perhaps, I could be wrong...
Stay tuned in the next few days for more posts..
After some thorough research, I found to my dismay, there was nothing related to fair trade on the electronic resources. Not even a journal or a book in the library for that matter! Hence, I've had no choice but to turn my attention to other means of research via an online search engine. Unfortunately, it had to be google.
I've been quite surprised at the amount of material I've found. Although they are mostly from the media i.e. the BBC and The Guardian, it's certainly played a role in raising my interest in the topic. It has suddenly dawned on me that most products I've bought in supermarkets such as Marks and Spencer and Starbucks at the University, are all fair trade goods! Why did I not think of that from before I wonder...?
So, is fair trade fair? To be honest, I cannot really answer this question as I'm torn between both sides of the argument. While I feel it's ethically and morally correct to help struggling farmers of developing countries to benefit from fairer prices in order to improve their lifestyles, I feel that perhaps it's a means of supporting international "charities" more than local charities in the UK. Why do most people feel the need to buy fair trade goods when they are not prepared to pay premium prices for local produce for example. Is this wrong?
Furthermore, what really struck me is that I noticed there does not seem to be any legislation specially related to 'Fair trade' but there is a World Fair Trade Organisation which exists. According to the World Fair Trade Organisation website; www.wfto.com, in order to obtain membership, members should be staunch followers of fair trade (hey quote 100%) and satisfy the "10 Principles of fair trade" criteria. I imagine this must be quite a challenging task to do because I remember back in the days of studying EU law, applying criteria to different countries and jurisdictions, brings to rise issues relating to differing interpretations due to language barriers. Perhaps, I could be wrong...
Stay tuned in the next few days for more posts..
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)