Contention one is overfishing Current federal policy impedes offshore aquaculture—ensures the us is dependent on unsustainable sources
Download 0.77 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- AT: WTO CP
- WTO involvement leads to trade restrictions and instability
- WTO can’t speak for all countries and can’t force cooperation
- WTO bias means no cooperation
AT: UN High Seas CPK2 econHigh seas fishing key to the economyEconomist 14 [Economist; World News about Politics, Economics; “The Tragedy of the High ¶ Seas”; February 22, 2014; http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21596942-new-management-needed-planets-most-important-common-resource-tragedy-high; JW] The high seas—the bit of the oceans that lies beyond coastal states’ 200-mile exclusive economic zones—are a commons. Fishing there is open to all. Countries have declared minerals on the seabed “the common heritage of mankind”. The high seas are of great economic importance to everyone—fish is a more important source of protein than beef—and getting more so. The number of patents using DNA from sea-creatures is rocketing, and one study suggests that marine life is a hundred times more likely to contain material useful for anti-cancer drugs than is terrestrial life. AT: WTO CPThe WTO has no authority to force policy decisionsWTO ’99. “The WTO is not a world government and no one has any intention of making it one, Moore tells NGOs” World Trade Organization, November 29, 1999. http://www.wto.org/english/news_e/pres99_e/pr155_e.htm First let's be clear about what the WTO does not do. The WTO is not a world government, a global policeman, or an agent for corporate interests. It has no authority to tell countries what trade policies - or any other policies - they should adopt. It does not overrule national laws. It does not force countries to kill turtles or lower wages or employ children in factories. Put simply, the WTO is not a supranational government - and no one has any intention of making it one. WTO involvement leads to trade restrictions and instabilityJames '08. Deborah James is the Director of International Programs for the Center for Economic and Policy Research, and a Board member of Global Exchange. "Impasse: are we nearing the end of the corporate globalization era?" AlterNet, 8-20-14. http://www.alternet.org/story/95799/impasse%3A_are_we_nearing_the_end_of_the_corporate_globalization_era Agriculture and jobs-and-development are not the only arenas in which it is becoming increasingly evident that the WTO is a contributor to, rather than a solution to, present global crises. The global climate crisis will also require new, innovative solutions. Unfortunately many of those ideas will clash with WTO prohibitions on regulatory policies that could, in some way, unintentionally restrict trade. We already know that shipping products tens of thousands of miles across the world so that corporations can take advantage of cheap labor in some countries, weak environmental standards in others, and developed consumer markets in yet a third, contributes significantly to global warming. Do we really want our ability to preserve life on our planet to be constrained by the WTO? No issue has dominated headlines this year more than the global financial crisis, now widely agreed to have been facilitated by a lack of adequate regulation in the financial markets. Yet in the WTO negotiations on services, further deregulation and liberalization of the financial markets are sought by rich countries, representing the interest of their financial industries. It is without logic that the WTO Director General, Pascal Lamy, has called for a conclusion to the WTO expansion agenda as a solution to the global financial crisis, when its actual policies would, by any sensible estimation, contribute to further instability. WTO can’t speak for all countries and can’t force cooperationDaemmrich '11. Arthur Daemmrich is a Former Research Fellow, Science, Technology and Public Policy Program, 1998–2000 Current Affiliation: Harvard Business School, Boston, Massachusetts "The evolving basis for legitimacy of the world trade organization: dispute settlement and the rebalancing of global interests", Harvard Business School. December 8, 2011. http://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Publication%20Files/12-041.pdf But the grand bargain also reinforced divisions between developed and developing nations. Developing countries argued the WTO negotiating process was biased in favor of rich countries and resented pressure brought to bear to sign the Uruguay deal. Subsequent WTO meetings grew acrimonious. The 1999 Seattle meeting featured thousands of protesters on the streets, violent clashes with police, and vociferous disputes in meeting rooms. It ended with a walkout by delegates from most developing countries.24 In a stinging rebuke of the view that WTO agreements allowed a managed transition to free trade and would promote general prosperity, protesters characterized the WTO as “the most effective anti-democratic institution on earth”25 While adopting a more moderate tone, representatives from developing countries – comprising the majority of new WTO membership – found that the institution operated with tacit rules. Negotiating rounds involved large sessions, but key decisions were made in smaller working groups dominated by the largest economies. Expecting a more open and democratic process, numerous countries raised the issue of how the WTO could claim to speak for all members when many felt coerced into participating by the necessity of belonging to the international trading system. WTO bias means no cooperationDaemmrich '11. Arthur Daemmrich is a Former Research Fellow, Science, Technology and Public Policy Program, 1998–2000 Current Affiliation: Harvard Business School, Boston, Massachusetts "The evolving basis for legitimacy of the world trade organization: dispute settlement and the rebalancing of global interests", Harvard Business School. December 8, 2011. http://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Publication%20Files/12-041.pdf Analysts of international governance often ignore the WTO dispute process, or mention it only in passing in contrast to higher-profile and more visibly contentious negotiating rounds. Scholars who examined dispute settlement under GATT and the DSB in its early years, whether considering individual cases or analyzing cumulative data, found that both negotiated settlements and final rulings were largely to the benefit of developed country complainants. Developing countries settled early and for less advantageous outcomes than were possible.106 Critics picked up on the issue to argue that the DSB was biased against developing countries. However, it was unclear whether bias stemmed from an explicit preference for rich country interests; unequal access to the financial, econometric, and legal resources necessary to bring and sustain a dispute; or peculiarities of the cases brought in the late 1990s and early 2000s. For the WTO, a perception of bias posed the threat that countries would not enforce decisions seen to lack legitimacy or that suits would be brought by only a few participants in the international system. Directory: file -> view view -> Western Europe after wwii view -> Author study: paul fleischman view -> Qpa1 7ela study Guide view -> Arctic Oil/Gas Neg view -> November 1970 Approximately 150,000-500,000 deaths Bhola Cyclone Bangladesh view -> Grade Level: 6 Unit of Study: Caribbean glce view -> Citation: Duffield, Katy view -> Table of Contents Lesson # view -> Chinese Wind Energy Disad Download 0.77 Mb. Share with your friends:
|