Reclaiming state power to bridge governance gaps in global trade

An astute understanding of history is not required to grasp that global trade is not a new phenomenon. As a very young student in American schools, I still recall learning about the caravans of traders trekking across the Silk Road, about the merchant traveller Marco Polo, about the misplaced aspirations of Christopher Columbus and the resulting Columbian Exchange between Europe and the Americas. This is an oft-mythologized and sometimes flatly fabricated period of history,1 but there are basic truths at the base of it all. There were certainly men embarking on difficult journeys across vast ocean stretches, carrying goods from one continent to another with the hope of striking it rich (or at least making enough to buy themselves a good time at the next harbour). There were certainly people who profited, and plenty more who were exploited. But while global trade is not new, the structure and volume of global trade has changed drastically during recent decades. More money is at stake, and so is a greater swath of humanity. Complex global value chains2 have sprouted, in which a single product may contain fingerprints from dozens of countries when it finally lands on retail shelves. In this dissertation I am concerned with the fate of workers that toil anonymously at the base of these global value chains. But my primary focus is to contest a myth, though it has nothing to do with Christopher Columbus. Rather, the dominant narrative surrounding contemporary global trade suggests that regulation of such is beyond our reach. Due to the evolving structure of global trade, ‘governance gaps’ have emerged. This begs many questions: Who is responsible for achieving a remedy when things go wrong, when a factory collapse kills hundreds of workers or when the makers of high-priced fashion aren’t paid a living wage? Do we turn to the state that shelters the corporation, even if the wrongdoing occurs outside their jurisdiction? What about the state where the operations are based? Can they impose their will on corporations that are sheltered elsewhere? Are the corporations themselves responsible, even when they are not directly involved in outsourced operations? Are local manufacturers at fault if they are acting at the behest of a more powerful entity?

Grantor dc:publisher.institution

Department of Public Law

Year dc:date.issued

2014

Author dc:creator

• Nickell, Jon Karl

Advisor dc:contributor.advisor

• Godfrey, Shane

Language dc:language.iso

eng

Handle dc:identifier.uri

http://hdl.handle.net/11427/9177

OAI identifier oai:identifier

oai:open.uct.ac.za:11427/9177