Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
How the triangle shirtwaist factory fire affected workers rights
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
This paper strives to examine the relationship and impact trade liberalization has on human rights across the globe. Trade liberalization has been a goal of many to increase gains in productivity, comparative advantage, and consumer savings, but some individuals link trade liberalization with a decline and stagnation of human rights enforcement. This paper will show both the goal behind trade liberalization and also how human rights violations could occur because of it. The intention of this paper is not to pass judgment on this topic, but moreover shed some light on the relationship between the two. Introduction Trade liberalization is the practice of eliminating trade barriers or restrictions to allow for the free exchange between nations. …show more content…
Unfortunately, if they are not able to make the large leap to mass production to sell internationally, then competition could push them completely out of business. Or even more dramatically that farmer may find their land seized in order to redistribute to large growers for more export power. An instance which at first you think could improve someone’s life and give them more access to the world has now lessened their ability to …show more content…
Some contention around human rights is with respect to the different culture values and policies in each nation. Some laws in one country may seem to be in violation of human rights in another country. Foreign invested companies with factories and manufacturing sites in different countries of the world need to be vigilant in maintaining human rights of their workers. A story taught in almost every history class in America revolving around human rights in labor, is that of Triangle Shirtwaist factory. In 1911, 146 workers where killed when a fire started and the workers did not have adequate ways to escape, including fire escapes being locked and the elevator shut off. Examples similar to this are mirrored all across the world as result of human rights
The documentary strived to show us how factories were corrupt that they couldn’t provide good working conditions for the workers until we lost people. This documentary is about the tragic fire that took place on March 25, 1911 in the Triangle factory. We can clearly see through this documentary that these people didn’t matter to the factory owners because their needs were not met. The documentary shows that the year before the fire took place the workers led a strike asking for better working conditions, but obviously their voices were not heard. After the fire took place this is when factories started improving working conditions. It is sad to learn that it took 146 lives of innocent people in order for factory owners to be convinced that they need to improve the poor working
The issue of human rights has arisen only in the post-cold war whereby it was addressed by an international institution that is the United Nation. In the United Nation’s preamble stated that human rights are given to all humans and that there is equality for everyone. There will not be any sovereign states to diminish its people from taking these rights. The globalization of capitalism after the Cold War makes the issue of human rights seems admirable as there were sufferings in other parts of the world. This is because it is perceived that the western states are the champion of democracy which therefore provides a perfect body to carry out human rights activities. Such human sufferings occur in a sovereign state humanitarian intervention led by the international institution will be carried out to end the menace.
All around the world people and countries are continuing the efforts to end Human Rights Violations. Human rights violations are a big problem in
...ystem primarily responsible for promoting global competition. Free trade also promotes shifts in production so as to fit the “comparative advantage” model. Though free trade is widely practiced concerns with how to regulate free trade, something supposedly unregulated, countries have to subject themselves to the controversial institutions of the IMF and WTO. Fair trade policies while potentially creating smaller markets support workers’ rights in both the U.S. and developing nations. Though the pros and cons of globalization continue to be debated the United States can no longer escape its role in the global economy nor can it impose policies that are detrimental to the United States founding ideals. However policies that play towards the advantages of both free and fair trade could stimulate a healthy domestic economy that is also competitive in the global market.
Treaties are the highest source of international law besides jus cogens norms that have binding effect on the parties that ratify them.2 International human rights treaties rely on the “name and shame” mechanisms to pressure states to improve practices.3 However with “toothless” international human rights norms, moral coercion is not always effective. An empirical study conducted by Professor Oona Hathaway assessing the effect of human rights treaty ratification on human rights compliance, maintains in its findings that ratification of human rights treaties has little effect on state practices.4 States do not feel pressured to comply and change their practices, rather, signing treaties is “more likely to offset the pressure rather than augment it.”5 So, is it time to abandon human rights treaties and remit protection of human right to domestic institutions. Hathaway posits elsewhere that despite this treaties “remain an indispensable tool for the promotion of human rights.”6 Instead of getting rid of the treaty system, it is necessary to enhance the monitoring and enforcements mechanism to strengthen the human rights regime to ensure compliance.7 This article evaluates the extent to which international law serves as a useful tool for protection of human rights.
Even in a world focused on the benefits free trade and aimed at achieving the goal of free trade, states are protectionist by nature. Unfortunately, the design of the international system allows for stronger nations to be more protectionist, leaving the weaker states even more vulnerable. A study that is more intensive than a critical commentary should be devoted to analyzing the impact of free trade on developing nations. I was limited to the readings and prior knowledge, and thus couldn’t provide a sufficient analysis on the fair treatment of developing nations. I was skeptical of the one reading that focused on fairness of international institutions because of the statistics that indicate these nations have not done well in recent decades. I would like to look into this more given more time and resources.
Free trade allows individuals to specialise in one thing they can do best, known as comparative advantage theory defined by the British political economist David Ricardo. Specialisation generates efficiencies. When they specialise in one task, people spend their time to do one thing and they learn how to do their task better. It allows people to learn how to produce more efficiently, and it creates even greater productivity. In terms of efficiency, free trade thus means that every state should play to maximise their specialisation of production and to minimise doing less efficient tasks (Kindleberger, 1995). Liberals believe that specialisation will improve the welfare of an individual country and that of the world as a whole if countries specialise in one task according to their comparative advantage (O’Brien and Williams, 2013). Moreover, nation states can expand their businesses with foreign direct investments, and this leads to more dynamic business style. Free trade opens up a door to the world for every single state, and domestic companies can export and import their commodities without paying extra tariffs or tax. Eliminating trade barriers creates a field which people can play a role internationally to compete one another in order to improve national as well as international economy (Balaam, and Dillman, 2011b). Liberal trade theorists argue that foreign investment accompanies increased trade and that
For example, in 2012 a Bangladesh factory producing garments for American and European companies caught fire killing 117 factory workers (Cooper, 2014). Additionally, in 2013 another factory in Bangladesh collapsed killing 1,100 workers, which was caused by foundational issues from the upper floors being built without a permit (Cooper, 2014). These incidents ignited outrage over both unsafe and unfair working conditions as well as the exploitation from MNCs, who had extremely profitable contracts with these factories. Consequently, due to public outcry the formation of enhanced government regulations, oversight, business initiatives, and public efforts have surfaced (Cooper, 2014). Although these issues have not been completely resolved, the question over the extent of which MNCs are responsible for adequate workplace safety remains a controversial topic. However, strategic efforts from these companies indicate the importance and necessity of remaining proactive in a globalized economy. These efforts consist of the formation of minimum workforce standards, compliance regulations, financial support, and long-term contractual
Trade restrictions that are put in place by the government on foreign products lower the standard of living for American consumers. Tariffs, quotas, and other trade barriers are the functional equivalent of a tax. It raises the cost of foreign goods and increases the price that consumers pay. The structure of trade restrictions imposes an unbalanced burden on those least able to pay. Nearly all governments limit, to some extent, the freedom of their citizens to freely trade with the citizens of other countries. The World Trade Organization (WTO) is a primary international body that is supposed to help promote free trade; however, it is very opaque and will not allow public participation, but welcomes large corporations.
While on one hand there is a growing consensus that human rights are universal on the other exist critics who fiercely oppose the idea. Of the many questions posed by critics revolve around the world’s pluri-cultural and multipolarity nature and whether anything in such a situation can be really universal.
Free trade can be defined as the free access to the market by individuals without any restriction or any trade barriers that can obstruct the trade process such as taxes, tariffs and import quotas. Free trade in its own way unites and brings people together. Most individuals love the concept of free trade because it gives them the ability to move freely and interact with the market. The whole idea of free trade is that it lowers the price of goods and services by promoting competition. Domestic producers will no longer be able to rely on government law and other forms of assistance, including quotas, which essentially force citizens to buy from them.
On December 10th in 1948, the general assembly adopted a Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This declaration, although not legally binding, created “a common standard of achievement of all people and all nations…to promote respect for those rights and freedoms” (Goodhart, 379). However, many cultures assert that the human rights policies outlined in the declaration undermine cultural beliefs and practices. This assertion makes the search for universal human rights very difficult to achieve. I would like to focus on articles 3, 14 and 25 to address how these articles could be modified to incorporate cultural differences, without completely undermining the search for human rights practices.
There have been individuals and even countries that oppose the idea that human rights are for everybody. This argument shall be investigated in this essay, by: exploring definitions and history on human rights, debating on whether it is universal while providing examples and background information while supporting my hypothesis that human rights should be based on particular cultural values and finally drawing a conclusion. A general definition of human rights is that they are rights and freedoms to which all humans are entitled, simply because they are human. It is the idea that ‘all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.’
They explain that, with the reduced or zero tariffs imposed making foreign suppliers easily lowering their prices, local companies have to compete with the prices, which they should do even if it is difficult for them, or consumers will go for imported goods over their locally produced products- Opponents of free trade say that with the increasing competition this treaty offers, some businesses might close down or decide to do business elsewhere. When this happens, workers will be displaced. Regardless of the reduced prices, this will still have an effect on these workers because they will be unemployed or paid with lower wages. - the opponents of free trade will continue to espouse the old argument that "the jobs created by globalization are often less sustaining and secure than the livelihoods abolished by it [in poor countries]." (froning)
The role that globalization plays in spreading and promoting human rights and democracy is a subject that is capable spurring great debate. Human rights are to be seen as the standards that gives any human walking the earth regardless of any differences equal privileges. The United Nations goes a step further and defines human rights as,