scholarly journals El tema laboral en las negociaciones de los TLC: Lecciones de las experiencias de Colombia frente a los TLC con los Estados Unidos y la Unión Europea

2016 ◽  
pp. 205-244
Author(s):  
Daniel Hawkins

Los dos tratados de libre comercio firmados por Colombia con los Estados Unidos (2012) y Perú y la Unión Europea (2013) no solo marcaron el eje central de la política de apertura e integración económica de los gobiernos de Álvaro Uribe y Juan Manuel Santos, sino también pusieron a prueba la capacidad del Gobierno estadounidense y las instituciones de la Unión Europea para asegurar que sus políticas comerciales hacia países del Sur, como Colombia, pudieran mejorar las precarias condiciones laborales de gran parte de la población trabajadora y la capacidad estatal para proteger y garantizar los derechos laborales fundamentales y demás derechos sociales. Este artículo analiza las diferencias en ambos modelos de negociar temas laborales y compara el grado de impactos sociales positivos que ambos TLC han traído a Colombia varios años después de su implementación.Palabras clave: Tratados de libre comercio, acuerdos laborales paralelos, derechos laborales fundamentales, plan de acción laboral, Resolución 2628. Abstract The Labor Issue in FTA Negotiations: Lessons from Colombia’s Experiences with FTAs with the United States and the European Union Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) signed by Colombia with the United States (2012) and Peru and the European Union (2013) not only marked the central axis of the economic liberalization and integration policy of Alvaro Uribe and Juan Manuel Santos governments, but they also put to test the ability of the US government and the EU institutions to ensure that their commercial policies with countries of the South, such as Colombia, would improve the precarious working conditions of a considerable part of the working population. Furthermore, they also challenge the capacity of the Colombian state to protect and guarantee fundamental labor rights and other social rights. This article examines the differences between both models of negotiating labor issues and compares the degree to which both FTAs have actually brought about positive social impact in Colombia a few years after their formal implementation.Key words: Free Trade Agreements, Parallel Labor Agreements, Fundamental Labor Rights, Labor Action Plan, Resolution 2628.

Aquichan ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 118-127
Author(s):  
Fernando Augusto Jiménez-Valderrama ◽  

Este artículo tiene por objetivo estudiar la relación entre la disponibilidad, los precios de los medicamentos y los intereses de salud pública. Para ello hemos utilizado una metodología de análisis de los intereses económicos implicados y también un método sistemático de tratamiento de la legislación nacional, comunitaria andina e internacional vigente. Igualmente hemos acudido a metodologías de derecho comparado entre nuestro ordenamiento jurídico nacional con los de otros países de mundo occidental. Existe un estrecho vínculo entre la disponibilidad y los precios de los medicamentos y los intereses de salud pública. Nuestro actual sistema legal reconoce a los inventores de nuevos medicamentos como un “monopolio” para negociar en el mercado farmacéutico. Para proteger los intereses públicos nuestra regulación establece algunos límites a los derechos de los inventores. Los derechos de propiedad se limitan en el tiempo y bajo algunas circunstancias es obligatorio autorizar a otros a usar la patente bajo un contrato de licenciamiento. La Organización Mundial del Comercio ha establecido (Decisión del Consejo de la OMC, Ronda Doha 2003) otros límites a estos derechos en caso de condiciones excepcionales. Nuestra Constitución Nacional otorga prevalencia a los intereses públicos sobre los privados. Es un deber de los gobiernos establecer un sistema justo en el cual los inventores puedan obtener una recompensa económica por sus creaciones y la sociedad pueda satisfacer sus necesidades de salud.


2017 ◽  
Vol 111 ◽  
pp. 92-95
Author(s):  
Kathleen Claussen

These remarks are derived from a forthcoming work considering the future of international trade law. Compared with most features of the international legal system, the regional and bilateral trade law system is in the early stages of its evolution. For example, the United States is a party to fourteen free trade agreements currently in force, all but two of which have entered into force since 2000. The recent proliferation of agreements, particularly bilateral and regional agreements, is not unique to the United States. The European Union recently concluded trade agreement negotiations with Canada, Singapore, and Vietnam to add to its twenty-seven agreements in force and is negotiating approximately ten additional bilateral or multilateral agreements. In the Asia-Pacific Region, the number of regional and bilateral free trade agreements has grown exponentially since the conclusion of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) Free Trade Area of 1992. At that time, the region counted five such agreements in force. Today, the number totals 140 with another seventy-nine under negotiation or awaiting entry into force. The People's Republic of China is negotiating half a dozen bilateral trade agreements at present to top off the sixteen already in effect. India likewise is engaged in at least ten trade agreement negotiations. The World Trade Organization (WTO) reports 267 agreements of this sort in force among its members as of July 1, 2016.


2011 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 32-55 ◽  
Author(s):  
Inkyo Cheong ◽  
Jungran Cho

The Korean government introduced the trade adjustment assistance (TAA) program to facilitate structural adjustment under the implementation of its free trade agreements (FTAs). One big problem with the TAA program is that its criterion for eligibility for TAA support requires a 25 percent decrease in sales volume, and this does not reflect firms' business realities. The TAA program should be reformed to reflect that the TAA is a quid pro quo for the implementation of FTAs with large economies such as the United States and the EU.


2020 ◽  
pp. 35-39
Author(s):  
Andrei Martynov ◽  
Sergey Asaturov

The European Union has met Donald Trump's presidency in a crisis, caused by Britain's exit, quarrels over migration policy and prospects for European integration. Trump has abandoned a project to create a transatlantic free trade area. He demanded a one-sided trade advantage for the United States. The rejection of the liberal project of multilateral foreign policy contributed to the deepening of contradictions between the EU and the US in the field of trade, environment, the regime of international disarmament treaties, the algorithm for resolving regional conflicts. The Trump era in US foreign policy was a time of abandoning liberal globalism. But it is impossible to realize this task in one cadence. The question is whether it is possible for Democrats to fully restore liberal globalism in equal cooperation with the European Union.Trump has abandoned the project of a transatlantic free trade area between the United States and the European Union. This shocked the European elites. Differences in approaches to world trade contributed to the coolness. The European Union is promoting a liberal approach. Trump insisted on the priority of the patronage of American interests. As a result, the tradition of relationships has suffered. Until 2017, the United States bought European goods and paid the most to the NATO budget. Trump demanded trade parity and more European funding for NATO. European elites perceived Trump's approach to migration issues as unacceptable. Trump's policy on international conflicts has become another reason for mutual misunderstanding. Trump recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and helped establish diplomatic relations between Israel and the United Arab Emirates. This has become a challenge for the European Union's Middle East policy.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document