Is globalization a positive or negative impact on human rights?

There are many definitions of globalization. Neoliberals view globalization as a positive and inevitable force in the global political economy.  For the purpose of this discussion, the term “globalization is a package of transnational flows of people, production, investment, information, ideas and authority (not new, but stronger and faster).” (Brysk 2002:1) Despite its many meanings, there is a consensus that globalization has impacted states, markets and civil society. The goal of this brief analysis is to evaluate how globalization has impacted states, markets and civil society that both hinder and facilitate the implementation of global human rights.

 

From a neoliberal perspective, globalization is eroding both the significance and power of the state. Some would argue that the state is a decaying Westphalian structure in the current political, economic and social landscape. This erosion of state power as provided space for other organizations that can monitor human rights abuses. As Alison Brysk stated, “these (organizations) include not just the international human rights regime and movement but a broader range of international and non governmental organizations which monitor states, empower citizens and aid victims: from anti-corruption to election monitoring to the development organizations to transnational ethnic associations.” (Brysk 2002: 244-245) This diffusion of state power has allowed global governance structures to advance the implementation of human rights (e.g. International Criminal Court (ICC)).

 

At the same time, the state and its illegitimate use of state power is an obstacle to the implementation of human rights. The state, particularly state sovereignty is an obstacle for the enforcement of global human rights. Global governance structures such has the ICC lack enforcement capabilities, as ICC’s rulings are just recommendations and are not binding to the state. Also, state forms of repression have evolved along with globalization and the increased uncontrollable flow of transnational goods.  Transnational flows are perceived as positive goods; however, this is a misconception because globalization has increased goods such has drugs. To deal with the increase of drugs or migrants workers, the state employs repressive measures which either fuel or initiate civil conflicts. The repressive states support the numerous labor rights abuses committed by multinational corporations in exchange for foreign investment and trade. In the same vein, the relationship between multinational corporations and states can produce states polices that directly violate human rights which indirectly serve as catalyst for social conflicts where by a state administers repressive measures that directly violate civil and security rights of citizens.

 

The impact of globalization on markets has had a significant impact on markets. From neoliberal perspective, markets are seen as a mechanism to promote the rule of law and transparency. With the increase investment and trade, the requirement of states to have regulatory standards for trade, such as transparency, has also increased. In some cases, economic globalization can serve to increase the accountability of labor rights and social conditions. As Brysk stated, “new market mechanisms based in civil society, such has socially responsible investments and green marketing, seek to harness commodification to improve social conditions and promote empowerment.” (Brysk 2002:245)

 

At the same time, markets have increased human rights abuses, despite the increase in civic monitoring bodies. As mentioned before, the human rights violations committed by multinational corporations are covered up by states. International financial institutions have distorted global markets via structural adjustment programs that increase social inequality, violence and poverty. In Southeast Asia, the tourism sector directly violates human rights. As Brysk stated, “thus security forces in South East Asia can hardly be expected to protect young women from kidnapping, assault, rape, and slavery for the prostitution trade, when police and militaries are not only bribed by actual investors in the brothels.”(Brysk 2002:245) Essentially, the marketplace presents more opportunities for exploitation and abuses as it operates on free market principles, which is a direct opposite of the implementation of global human rights.

 

Given the so-called erosion of state power it has left organizational space for other groups or associations to be apart of the implementation of human rights.  Global civil society is regarded as a counterbalance of the state and markets as it can increase public awareness about human rights. Global civil society serves as tool to unite people from different parts of the world for a specific cause, which can create new potential for the pursuit of the implementation of human rights. Given the technological advances, global civil society can create massive public campaigns via the Internet.

 

Global civil society can increase public awareness however; there are other factors of global civil society that hinder the implementation of global human rights. As there are groups that promote human rights, there are groups that forming, who in some cases have more resources, which are against human rights (e.g. Neo-Nazis and terrorists groups). The information campaigns of those groups who support human rights can distort the plight of the poor in developing countries. Also, global civil society organizations that are organized for a particular cause can challenge human rights in certain situations; such has conflicts between indigenous groups and transnational environmentalists.

 

From this brief examination one can see that globalization is presents a myriad of threats and opportunities for the implementation of global human rights. One can also see that globalization is not an inevitable force that operates in the global political economy but it a constructed process that is shaped by states, markets and global civil society.

 

Source:

Brysk, Alison (ed), Globalization and Human Rights 2002 University of California Press.