Winning
the Global Development Challenge - Book Review;
John W. Head, Losing
the Global Development War: A Contemporary Critique of the IMF, the World Bank,
and the WTO,
Valentina Sara Vadi*
There are not so many
topics as timely as development in
the international law discourse. This multifaceted concept and the challenge it
poses have generated lively debates at the international level. Development is
the major topic of Losing the Global
Development War which not only provides an overview of the conceptual
breadth of the term but also analyses and critically assesses the current
criticisms against the three major international organisations dealing with
this objective; i.e., the World Trade
Organisation (WTO),[1]
the International Monetary Fund (IMF)[2]
and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD)[3]
or World Bank. First, the author explores the state of the art and the
institutional aspects of the three international organisations. Second, he
scrutinises the current criticisms directed at these organisations. He does so
enucleating the major themes and highlighting the merit of some critiques,
while dismissing others. He further underscores some proposals to improve the
functioning of these institutions. Finally, he stresses that, in order to win
the global development challenge, internal
development within the proposed institutions is needed, in order to cope
with the evolving needs of the international community.
In this review, after
briefly defining the structure of the book, I intend to look at some of its
core issues.[4]
The volume is divided into six parts: the first is an introduction to the work
and defines its scope of enquiry; the second summarises the contemporary
critiques to the global economic organisations; the third describes the
historical origins and the structure of these institutions. Chapters four and
five offer the author’s assessment of the criticisms that apply to the policies
and operations of the global economic organisations. Interestingly, the author
divides these criticisms in two broad categories; looking at how the organisations
in concreto behave in relation to the
populations of their member countries and then at how they institutionally behave in relation to their member states. Lastly,
chapter six deals with the pivotal question whether the examined organisations
should be reformed and, if so, what specific types of reforms should be
undertaken. Three Appendixes suggesting bibliography and containing key
documents for a better reading of the book respectively follow chapter two,
chapter three and chapter six.
I. The linkage between development and peace
In a preliminary way,
the author explores the linkage between development and peace, as he highlights
that harmonious development is conducive to peace and growth. Indeed, this idea
is at the heart of the Bretton Woods system,[5]
which stemmed from the view that the economic policy mistakes made during the
inter war period from 1920 to 1940 were a major cause of the economic crises that
led to World War II. The Great Depression, the harsh reparations policy toward
The author also suggests
that the war between the established system and its opponents is currently
being lost by the former in three related respects. First, the international community is failing to expand and improve
on the multilateralism of the past. The recent deadlock of the Doha Round of
trade negotiations reflects this lack of co-operation and motivation. Second, critics shed doubts on the
global economic organisations claiming not only that the ideological foundation
on which they rest is misconceived, but also that deep institutional failings
require that those global economic organisations be abandoned. Third, “just as nature abhors a vacuum,
likewise any drop in commitment to improving and expanding upon the
multilateral ideology and institutions […] will naturally attract competitors”.[10]
The author identifies bilateralism and regionalism as such competitors.
As the author believes
that the development war is now being lost, which is the reason of the awkward
title of the book, his purpose is to offer views and recommendations to reverse
this course of action in order to ultimately win the global development challenge; the reason of the wishful
title of this review. After scrutinising the various and multi-faceted critiques
to the global economic organisations in chapter II, he then offers a detailed
analysis of the structure and functioning of these organisations. In so doing,
he clarifies that while some criticisms of the global economic organisations
“are simply base off because they rely on outdated information”, others rely on
“fundamental misunderstandings of what those organisations are”. In this sense,
clarifying the institutional structure and the operation of these organisations
is fundamental to ultimately overcome unsubstantiated critiques.[11]
The ultimate purpose of
the book is to “contribute firepower -in the form of information and persuasive
explanations- to [the ideological] counterattack”.[12]
Such ideological counterattack would be based on “the need to forge a new
consensus for multilateralism and particularly to encourage the adoption of an
ideology of liberal, intelligent, participatory, multilateral and sustainable
human development”.[13] In the end, the author admits that this
objective may be ultimately regarded as “an appeal to our better selves, our
smarter selves to participate in the effort”.[14]
II. The global development war
This section analyses
and comments upon some of the key concepts of the book.
A. On war
One of the most
interesting claims in the book is the comparison of the global development
challenge to a war. Although the author clarifies that the term war is used in a manner that “falls
outside its technical definition for purposes of international law”,[15]
and other authors have similarly used the same concept to refer to a ‘war on
terrorism’, one may wonder whether using emphatic terms with regard to economic
and social phenomena may lead to the perilous slippery slopes of
misunderstandings. Even admitting that “the term war may be used in many ways”[16]
and that -in a very broad sense- the development challenge may be seen as a war
among different ideologies,[17]
the use of the term war would need more precision and determinacy.
Still, there is some
value in describing development as an ideological war. First, it amplifies the
concept of challenge inherent in the contemporary development discourse and
practice. Second, it opens a stimulating debate on the linkage between peace
and development.[18]
The author affirms that failure to reach development “has military
repercussions in the sense that many countries suffering economic distress find
themselves drawn to violence, including military violence”.[19]
The author also stresses that poverty might be considered one of the
determinants of terrorism.[20]
Whilst one may agree on the synergy between peace and development, the linkage
between poverty and terrorism seems more controversial. Does poverty constitute
the real rationale behind terrorist activities? If development was achieved,
would the world be free of violence? These are open questions: this review will
just point out that the linkage between development and peace would surely
deserve further study by political scientists.
B. On development
The book dedicates just
a few lines to the historical roots of the contemporary development debate.[21]
Further, the problems and debates related to the New International Economic
Order (NIEO)[22]
and the Declaration on the Right to Development are only cursorily mentioned.[23]
By contrast, an accurate analysis of the historical origins of the development
discourse would have been important to properly understand the current debate
about development as the contemporary critiques to the international economic
organisations echo the above mentioned NIEO demands.
After the break up of
colonial empires more than one hundred new independent countries emerged,[24]
for whom development became the core concern.[25] In this context, the NIEO was a set
of proposals put forward during the 1970s by developing countries to promote
their interests by improving their terms of trade, increasing development
assistance, developed-country tariff reductions, and other means. The NIEO was
meant to be a revision of the international economic system due to its alleged
inequalities. As Professor Petersmann highlighted, these demands “did not
constitute a coherent system, but rather a list of sometimes inconsistent
demands relating to development and to North-South relations without a
consistent overall concept […]; alongside the traditional free trade aims can
be found the demand for ‘international co-operation for development’ and ‘promotion
of international social justice’ [Chapter I, m, n of the Charter][26]
for the purposes of establishing a ‘just and equitable economic and social
order’ [Preamble of the Charter]”.[27]
As Professor Petersmann further highlighted, equity seemed to be “the
fundamental principle which resolve[d] disputes between the simultaneous demand
for economic independence for LDCs and organised solidarity”.[28]
The fact that the NIEO concept was not translated into a legally binding
system, as OECD countries rejected it and majority GA resolutions generally
have no binding character per se
except in a few exceptional cases, has not meant that these attempts have not
generated any effect. Indeed, preferential economic treatment has been
gradually introduced in international economic law lexicon, inter alia through a series of WTO
norms.[29]
The International Development Association,[30]
an affiliate of the World Bank, was established to address the economic
problems of the developing countries.[31]
Professor Head rightly
clarifies that “preferential economic treatment for LDCs does not rest on a
purported right to development but instead has emerged exclusively from
particular circumstances specially negotiated”.[32]
Therefore, the author defines the concept of development but carefully avoids
direct reference and analysis of the Declaration on the Right to Development.
Although the Declaration is not binding, it constitutes an interesting
intellectual effort and would have provided an excellent starting point for
definitional issues.[33]
C. Defining economic, sustainable and human development
The term development
presents a cluster of meanings.[34]
Although the author appropriately defines these different meanings, he omits
any reference to human rights instruments, which have much elaborated and
‘developed’ the concept. The author firstly explains the traditional concept of
economic development. In a narrow sense, economic
development refers to the building of physical infrastructures. In a
broader sense economic development also encompasses the creation and
strengthening of processes and institutions involved in the operation of the
economic activity.
Second, the author
defines what may be called human
development. Reference to the Declaration on the Right to Development would
have provided some food for thought, as this instrument affirms that “the human
person is the central subject of development and should be the active
participant and beneficiary of the right to development”.[35]
Whatever the legal status or conceptual merit of the Declaration, in recent
years, the definition of development has broadened to include not only economic
elements, but also social elements. As the author highlights, “the more modern
view holds that the overall aim of the development process is to serve the
complete well-being of people, not just their economic well-being”.[36]
In other words, “development issues can and should be seen as inextricably
linked to the well-being of the average person, whether in a rich country or in
a poor country”.[37]
Head further explains that well-being is a broad concept which includes job,
comfort, future, and protection from disease and violence.
Third, the meaning of sustainable development is explored. Sustainable development
can be defined as a form of development that “meets the needs of the present
without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own
needs”.[38]
In other words, sustainable is a pattern of resource use that aims to meet
human needs while preserving the environment so that these needs can be met not
only in the present, but also in the future. A sustainable approach to development is one that takes account of
economic, social and environmental factors to produce projects and programs
which will have results that are not dependent on finite resources.
Importantly, Head highlights how “improvident development efforts are those
that do not pay […] attention to environmental
protection and resource conservation, including conservation of cultural
resources such as language, sacred lands, and World Heritage Sites”.[39]
Although global economic actors have gradually placed emphasis on environmental
protection, Head questions whether they have done enough in this regard.[40]
D. Multilateral, bilateral or regional?
With regard to the ways
to undertake development efforts, Head highlights that a crucial question deals
with the relationship between multilateralism and regionalism, a vital issue in
contemporary international economic law discourse.[41]
From an historical perspective, in the aftermath of World War II, the preferred
approach was multilateralism. In the area of trade policy, for instance, the
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade anticipated worldwide participation and
so did the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank.
Nowadays, there seems to
be a fragmentation of regimes at the international law level. Indeed, the
recent flourishing of regionalism and bilateralism in international economic
relations has raised questions about the quality of these relations and the
compatibility of nested institutions
with the existing multilateral system. The rapid growth of regionalism and
bilateralism carries worrying implications for the international economic
system in terms of stability, fairness and coherence. Still, bilateral
investment treaties and bilateral free trade agreements have been actively
pursued both by developing and developed countries. Head holds that “one way in
which we are losing the global development war is by permitting ideological and
institutional alternatives to gain influence and to displace the kind of
multilateralism that emerged out of World War II”.[42]
III. The ‘cacophony’ of criticisms attacking
the global economic organisations
Chapter Two
identifies the ‘cacophony’ of criticisms that has been directed at the global
economic organisations (GEOs). According to Head, among the causes of the world
development war is the widespread discontent at the seeming inability of the
GEOs to deal with the growing poverty that affects a sizeable portion of the
world’s population.[43]
After examining the key criticisms levelled at the GEOs in a disaggregated way -that
is, on an institution-by-institution basis-,[44]
Head enucleates eight clusters of complaints to make them easier to study and
evaluate. The first four criticisms relate to the policies and operations of
the GEOs, and concern the laissez-faire
policies of GEOs, and their effects on social justice, environmental protection
and national sovereignty. The other four criticisms relate to the institutional
aspects of these organisations such as secrecy, opaqueness, democratic deficit,
mission creep and asymmetric imbalances. Interestingly, for each criticism, the
appendix to chapter II offers an annotated bibliography, distilling a list of
citations from a broad range of sources.
IV. Pars construens:
Addressing criticisms
With chapter three, the pars construens of the book commences,
offering a description and analysis of the international economic organisations
and their functions. This descriptive part reviews the historical origins of
the global economic organisations, and briefly describes their institutional
and structural features. This description constitutes the premise for the
counterattacks contained in chapter four and chapter five, completing the pars construens.
A. In search for a just international economic order
Chapter four evaluates
the first mentioned group of criticisms, in order to separate the valid
critiques, the ‘wheat’, from the invalid ones, ‘the chaff’. With regard to the laissez-faire approach, or the liberal
theory that constitutes the central assumption of the Bretton Woods system, the
author firstly addresses this criticism with regard to the WTO. He underlines
that a number of studies confirm that increased trade among nations brings
economic gain which in turn can bring other benefits, including political
benefits; i.e., peace.[45]
While he rejects the claim that free trade per
se is a harmful ideology, he does not reject related claims concerning
distributional and social injustice that may accompany free trade.[46]
With regard to the IMF and the World Bank, the criticism to their liberal
approach often concerns the policy prescriptions attached to their infusion of
funds. Professor Head denies their intrinsic incorrectness.[47]
While admitting that in some circumstances, the promoted privatisation in
unsophisticated economies without an adequate institutional framework has led
to negative outcomes, he highlights that “markets must be regulated, and it is
the failure to install adequate regulation -on bank lending, on consumer
safety, on corporate governance, etc.-
that have created havoc in some countries”.[48]
Thus, he underscores the importance of “careful project appraisal and design”,
with regard to the use of environmental impact assessment and social impact
assessment.[49]
With regard to the
second and third criticisms concerning social justice and environmental
protection that GEOs allegedly would undermine, firstly the author analyses
these critiques starting from the WTO. In relation to the WTO, some authors
argue that the aggregate economic benefits of free trade would not be fairly
distributed either within a national system or among nations and that free trade
would trigger a race to the bottom in national environmental regulations. In
particular, the environmental race to the bottom criticism would include two
aspects. First, businesses would relocate their operations to countries that
have lax environmental regulation. Second, governments would compete with each
other in an effort to attract business within their borders. After highlighting
that the evidence is not univocal, Professor Head stresses that the response to
the race to the bottom “should not be to abandon free trade generally, but
should instead be to pay more attention to that specific element of the free
trade regime […] by strengthening the application and enforcement of
multilateral environmental regulations, especially those found in key environmental
protection treaties”.[50]
The author further points out that the criticism that the IMF and the World
Bank disregard the environmental effect of the projects at both the design and
the implementation phase is outdated.[51]
Although the author does not provide counter examples, these have been studied
by other authors.[52]
With regard to the
fourth criticism that GEOs would undermine national sovereignty, in particular
with regard to social and environmental concerns, Professor Head firstly
addresses this criticism with regard to the WTO and admits that it “holds water”.[53]
He maintains that “not only should more lee-way be provided to national
governments to implement -without discrimination- environmental protections and
human rights protection in a […] manner as they see fit; in addition, the
relationship between GATT Rules and environmental treaties and human rights
treaties should be strengthened”.[54]
Further, he states that trade rules should not override all other rules but
“the substantive protections and the procedural requirements set forth in
multilateral environmental and labour treaties -and certain other human rights
treaties- should […] take precedence over GATT substantive provisions and
procedural requirements”.[55]
This is a very advanced and perhaps not immediately realisable position. The
author admits that some countries have not ratified several environmental and
human rights treaties[56]
and others do not seem to support further advances either in human rights or in
environmental protection.[57]
However, he also stresses that, de lege
lata, the WTO Charter itself mentions the objective of sustainable
development and that the Ministerial Decision on Trade and Environment issued
at the conclusion of the Uruguay Round noted that “there should not be any
contradiction between upholding and safeguarding an open non-discriminatory and
equitable multilateral trading system on the one hand and acting for the
protection of the environment, and the promotion of sustainable development on
the other”.[58]
By contrast, Head
dismisses the claim that the conditionality practices of the IMF and the
multilateral development banks encroach on the sovereignty of their member
countries. He does so on the basis of two related arguments: first, “as a
practical matter, a country objecting to the content of such conditionality can
avoid it by declining a loan, or even, in an extreme case, by dropping its
membership in the IMF or the multilateral development bank at issue”; second,
“international law contains no generally accepted ‘right to development
assistance’ under which a country is legally entitled to receive financial
assistance from an international financial institutions”.[59]
However, it is worth highlighting that in international relations
self-isolation might not be a realistic option. As the role of the IMF and
multilateral development banks on social justice is crucial, this linkage would
surely deserve further enquiry.
B. The critiques on the procedural aspects of
the international economic organisations
Chapter five evaluates
the last four of the eight clusters of criticisms directed at the GEOs,
concerning institutional and governance issues. With regard to the secrecy and
opaqueness complaint, the author notes that “there is momentum towards
transparency”[60]
and that the WTO has followed in the footsteps of other GEOs that in the past
few years have adopted a transparency or disclosure policy. With regard to the
democracy deficit complaint, the author endorses many aspects of the criticism,
admitting that too little has been done to address forms of unaccountability
that arise from weighted voting system in the IMF,[61]
but he rejects the same complaint as levelled at the WTO, because of its
one-state-one-vote structure. With regard to the mission creep complaint, according
to which the international economic organisations would have overstepped their
authority and their competence, this claim is correctly rejected: the broad
provisions of their charters allow these organisations to increasingly focus on
elements of environmental protection and social justice.[62]
C. The proposed reforms
Chapter five proposes
some reforms that would help respond to and overcome the well-founded
criticisms enucleated in the previous chapters. While the author holds that
“the GEOs have, in general, struck the balance well between (1) charter
fidelity and (2) pressure to progress”, he also reckons that GEOs need to be
modified to reflect the dramatically new era of international economic
relations.[63]
In a preliminary way, the author focuses on structural and institutional
matters. In particular, he proposes that five institutional principles be
formally adopted by GEOs: (1) transparency, (2) participation, (3) legality, (4)
competence, and (5) accountability.[64]
At the substantive level,
the author stresses the need to strengthen the linkage between international
economic law and environmental and human rights protection, in order to ensure
that the former does not sabotage the latter. In particular, he focuses on the
substantive norms and standards that GEO member countries should undertake.[65]
According to Head’s proposal, a new type of membership requirement for
countries to participate in the WTO or the IBRD should be added, namely a
requirement that member countries accept certain key provisions of fundamental
treaties.[66]
To this end, these institutions charters should be amended to incorporate by
reference those treaty provisions.[67]
The author adds that “incorporating by reference […] certain other treaty
provisions would not only bear on the eligibility of a country to become a
member, it would also impose a continuing requirement on each member to adhere
to those treaties in order to remain a member”.[68]
A similar recommendation is issued with regard to the WTO that should be
changed to “eliminate the trade bias”,[69]
and incorporate certain trade-related issues into its culture.[70]
V. Concluding remarks
The book under review
dissects the current criticisms against the global economic institutions and
critically assesses the same institutions through the lens of sustainable
development. If one accepts the instrumentalist perspective, which deems the
point of legal institutions to use the law to achieve given goals, development
may indeed be considered the goal of international economic law. In this
context, analysing the structure and the functioning of the IMF, the WTO and
the IBRD organisations under the lens of sustainable development is not only
appropriate but timely as ever. The text highlights
the central issues in the global development challenge.
The entire subject is
presented in a consistently though-provoking way. The clear and concise method
of exposition makes the book a suitable resource for students and “intelligent
curious readers”[71]
wishing to get a cursory but smart insight on some crucial issues of
contemporary international economic law. An attractive feature of the book is
its lively language. While the author ultimately offers a legal perspective, he
does so trying to adopt a plain English style, making the text fluid and
enjoyable.
More substantially, the
major merit of the book lies in its equilibrate approach to the study of the
international economic organisations and of their critiques. Although these organisations represent “the institutional
means for achieving some of the great and essential aims of our age”,[72]
the global development challenge can be won, the author asserts, only by
adopting an ideology of liberal, intelligent, participatory, multilateral, and
sustainable human development. One cannot but agree on such a balanced
understanding: it has to be seen whether and how the global economic
institutions will evolve and respond to the changing landscape of international
relations.
* Lecturer in international law,
[1] Agreement Establishing the
World Trade Organisation,
[2] Articles of Agreement of
the International Monetary Fund,
[3] Articles of Agreement of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, amended in 1965, 606 UNTS 294.
[4] J.W. HEAD, Losing the Global Development War.
[5] The Bretton Woods conference was held in 1944 and determined the
inception of the charters of the IMF and the IBRD. Although the GATT was not formed at the Bretton
Woods Conference, the participants at the conference nevertheless contemplated
the necessity of an international trade organisation or ITO, and it is
generally held that IMF, IBRD and the GATT comprised the Bretton Woods System.
As Professor
See: J.
[6] UN Charter, Articles 55 and 56.
[7] J.W. Head, Losing the Global Development War, p. xv.
[8] Ibid., p. xii.
[9] Ibid., p. xiii.
[10] Ibid., p. xvii.
[11] Ibid., p. xvii.
[12] Ibid., p. xv.
[13] Ibid., p. xv.
[14] Ibid., p. xv.
[15] Ibid., p. 42.
[16] Ibid., p. 42.
[17] Ibid., p. 28; claiming that “the global development war
may be seen as a war over the developmental ideology that is to be adopted and
followed in the coming years”.
[18] See, on the
linkage between peace and trade: B.H. Malkawi, “The WTO, Security and Peace: Are
They Compatible, and If So, What Is the Framework?”, Journal of World Investment and Trade, 2007, at p. 303; J.H. Jackson, “Reflections on the Trade
& Peace Relationship”, in T. Broude et
al., Trade as
Guarantor of Peace, Liberty and Security? Studies in Transitional Legal Policy,
[19] J.W. Head, Losing the Global Development War, p. 1.
[20] Ibid., pp. 42-43.
[21] Ibid., p. 219.
[22] The term was
derived from a UN General Assembly Declaration and referred to a wide
range of trade, financial, commodity, and debt-related issues. The bibliography
is extensive.
See: UN
General Assembly, Resolution S-6/3201,
1 May 1974, Declaration for the Establishment of a New International
Economic Order, UN Doc. A/RES/S-6/3201; J. Bhagwati, The New International Economic Order: The North-South
Debate,
[23] UN General Assembly, Resolution 41/128,
[24] UN General Assembly, Resolution 1514 (XV),
[25] L. Sabourin, “International Economic Development: Theories, Methods and Prospects”, in R. Macdonald et al., The International Law and Policy of Human Welfare, Alphen aan der Rijn, Sijthoff & Noordhoff, 1978, pp. 399-424, at p. 399.
[26] UN General Assembly, Resolution 3281 (xxix),
[27] E. Petersmann, “The New International Economic Order: Principles, Politics and International Law”, in R. Macdonald et al., The International Law and Policy of Human Welfare, o.c., pp. 449-470, at p. 460.
[28] Ibid.
[29] See, for instance: TRIPS Agreement, Article 65.
[30] The International Development Association (IDA) (439 UNTS 249) was
established in 1960 to provide lower-cost loans to poorer countries unable to
afford the lending terms offered by the IBRC.
[31] J.W. HEAD, Losing the Global Development War, p. 13.
[32] Ibid., p. 220.
[33] See, for instance: A. Sengupta, “On the
Theory and Practice of the Right to Development”, Human Rights Quarterly, 2002, at p. 204.
[34] J.W. HEAD, Losing the Global Development War, p. 14.
[35] Declaration on the Right to Development, Article 2.1.
[36] J.W. HEAD, Losing the Global Development War, p. 15.
See also, among the most prominent
proponents of this view: Nobel laureate Amartya Sen, whose 1999 book Development as Freedom urges that development should be seen “as a
process of expanding the real freedoms that people enjoy”.
[37] Ibid., p. 29.
[38] UN General Assembly, Resolution 42/187,
[39] J.W. HEAD, Losing the Global Development War, p. 28.
[40] Ibid.,
p. 28.
[41] Ibid., p. 26; the literature on this
topic is extensive.
See, for instance: L. Bartels & F. Ortino, Regional
Trade Agreements and the WTO Legal System,
[42] HEAD, Losing the Global Development War, p.
315.
[43] Ibid., p. 49.
[44] Ibid., pp. 54-58.
[45] Ibid., p. 170.
[46] Ibid., p. 173.
[47] Ibid., p. 183.
[48] Ibid., p. 185.
[49] Ibid., p. 187.
[50] Ibid., p. 212.
[51] Ibid., p. 206.
[52] V. VADI “Fragmentation
or Cohesion? Investment versus Cultural Protection Rules”, Journal of World Investment and Trade,
2009, pp. 573-600.
[53] J.W. HEAD, Losing the Global Development War, p. 214.
[54] Ibid., p. 216.
[55] Ibid.
[56] Head holds
that “the USA should embark […] on a new era of multilateralism that would bear
fruit not only in the area of international economic affaire but also in many
other areas, including human rights and environmental protection”.
See: Ibid.,
p. 321.
[57] Ibid., p. 217.
[58] Ibid., pp. 217-218.
[59] Ibid., p. 225.
[60] Ibid., p. 232.
[61] Ibid., p. 270.
[62] Ibid., p. 270.
[63] Ibid., p. 314.
[64] Ibid., pp.
276-285.
[65] Ibid., pp. 285-288 and 307-309.
[66]
The listed treaties that, according to Head, should be
incorporated in the GEOs charters, are: the Convention on International Trade
in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), the Vienna Convention
for the Protection of the Ozone Layer; the Basle Convention on the Control of
Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal; the Convention
on Biological Diversity; the Climate Change Convention and its Kyoto Protocol;
the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; the International
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination; the
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women; the
Convention on the Rights of the Child; the OECD Convention against bribery [p.
287]. The OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises are also mentioned. A
notable lacuna is the lack of any
reference to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights.
[67] J.W. Head, Losing the Global Development War, p. 285.
[68] Ibid., p. 286.
[69] Ibid., p. 307; citing A. Guzman, “Global Governance and the WTO”, Harvard International Law Journal, 2004,
at pp. 337-338.
[70] Ibid., p. 308; citing C. Thomas, “Trade Related Labour and Environment
Agreement?”, Journal of International
Economic Law, 2002, at p. 791.
[71] Ibid., p. xii.
[72] Ibid., p. 276.