Reproduced with permission of 30 Cornell International Law Journal (1997) 429-491
Alex Y. Seita [*]
As the twentieth century comes to a close, the circumstances of individual nations -- their affairs, news, and problems -- have tended increasingly to reach and captivate global audiences. A predominant reason has been the economic importance of foreign countries. Greater numbers of domestic businesses, employees, and consumers have looked to foreign markets, investors, and products for economic prosperity as well as economic competition. While driven primarily by economic factors, the process of globalization -- in which international issues become as important as national, state, and local matters -- has significant political and other noneconomic content. Democracy and human rights are, for example, as much a part of globalization as are free market principles. While globalization has detrimental effects, they can be minimized through the cooperative efforts of the United States and the other industrialized democracies which share basic economic and political values. America and its democratic allies should strongly promote and carefully manage globalization, for it has significant beneficial implications for humanity. Globalization is causing, and being reinforced by, a worldwide convergence of economic and political values that portend a possible, though distant, future world in which human beings will look upon themselves as part of a single humane civilization comprised of a single human race.
Globalization is one of the great forces shaping the world today. It is a multifaceted concept encompassing a wide range of seemingly disparate processes, activities, and conditions -- some nebulous, others concrete -- that often reinforce as well as clash with each other. They are connected together by one common theme: what is geographically meaningful now transcends national boundaries and is expanding to cover the entire planet. Globalization has led to an awareness that international issues, not just domestic ones, matter.
Globalization means many things. It is foremost an economic process.[1] Economic globalization refers to the world-wide integration of markets.[2] [page 429] In economic globalization, markets for goods, services, financial capital, and intellectual property take on transnational or global proportions. A paramount consequence of market integration has been increased economic interdependence among nations.
Globalization is also a political event, as evidenced by the spread of democracy and human rights among nations.[3] Although it may be less extensive and have a less immediate impact than economic globalization, political globalization nevertheless has a significant international presence. There are now a greater number of democratically governed countries protective of fundamental human rights -- rights that all human beings are entitled to, such as the rights to life and liberty, freedoms of expression and religion, freedom from torture or discrimination, and the right to a fair trial.[4] A majority of the world's population may now live under democratically elected governments affording a measure of basic human rights.[5]
In addition to its all-important economic and political roles, globalization has numerous other dimensions. They reflect the wide range of human activity and thought, from the technological, cultural, legal, philosophical, and environmental, to the criminal and detrimental. The various aspects of globalization often interact with each other. For example, technology not only facilitates economic and political globalization, but together with economic globalization helps to introduce different cultures into local consciousnesses.[6]
Law has been important in managing economic globalization and may become as important with respect to political globalization.[7] The ideology of globalization can be broadly divided into substantive and procedural components. The most important procedural element is the rule of law -- the idea that disputes will be settled and agreements negotiated through the observance of established principles rather than the use of force or the intimidation of power.[8] In turn, the substantive principles, what the rule of law seeks to enforce, are those that nations have selected to settle disputes and negotiate agreements. The rule of law can be a way of resolving conflicts effectively, peacefully, and cooperatively.
Furthermore, globalization enhances the perceived importance of distant international problems relative to local problems. Thus, protection of the environment beyond national borders has attracted strong international support, and the conflict between environment protection and economic development created the global issue of sustainable development.[9] [page 430] On the downside, technology together with economic and political globalization can facilitate the movement of criminal and terrorist activities across national boundaries and help criminals and terrorists to operate like efficient international businesses.[10]
Most significantly for this Article, however, globalization is an important source of common economic and political values for humanity. Globalization is simultaneously a cause and a consequence of the convergence of basic economic and political systems among nations. As the activities of globalization help to converge economic and political systems, their existence reciprocally facilitates the expansion of globalization. Momentously, the convergence of these systems is leading to the convergence of fundamental values -- deeply held beliefs about what is right and wrong.[11]
There is a widespread, though not universal, acceptance among nations of the basic values of liberal democracy: a market economy (or free markets), a democratic government, and the protection of human rights. Although particular details may differ from country to country, the general nature of these values is the same. The convergence of basic economic and political values among nations is a pivotal event because it is a necessary, though not sufficient, condition for the eventual emergence of a consensus among human beings that there is but one human race.[12]
This Article argues that the United States and the other industrialized democracies (e.g., the members of the European Union, Japan, and Canada), collectively referred to as the "West,"[13] should vigorously support and substantially guide the process of globalization. As it is currently emerging, globalization fosters desirable common national values by advancing general forms of market economies, democracy, and human rights.[14] It is precisely those general characteristics of liberal democracy that constitute the foundational pillars and shared values of the United States and the other industrialized democracies.[15]
Because the exact form of globalization is not a fixed certainty, the United States and the other industrialized democracies should aggressively configure globalization to be consistent with and to promote the values of [page 431] liberal democracy. The industrialized democracies must also ensure that the path of globalization fairly balances the values of free market economics, democracy, and human rights, while accommodating such vital concerns as the protection of the environment, concerns that do not yet generate as strong a global consensus as the three convergent values.[16]
The mechanism for configuring globalization to conform to and to balance the values of liberal democracy consists of events and policies that, while difficult to achieve, are not unrealistic and have, to a degree, already been occurring.[17] A particularly useful event might be a catharsis that would place the world into the next millennium without the baggage of the past. Perhaps by the year 2001, the representatives of oppressors, victims, victors, losers, and adversaries could assemble on a world stage in a therapeutic ceremony to put the past behind.[18]
Given their economic preeminence in the world, by acting in unison the industrialized democracies should be able to determine the specific content of globalization. Action from the industrialized democracies is needed because a humane globalization will increase human wealth and reduce human suffering.[19] Morally, the promotion of liberal democratic values and the perspective of a single human race would serve to repay the historic debts that the industrialized countries have incurred over the past centuries.[20]
At the same time, the industrialized democracies must be careful to use their influence responsibly and sensitively, for the wisest ideas pursued for the best motives may be rejected when unilaterally imposed upon the rest of the world. Perceived economic and political "imperialism," though much less malevolent than military imperialism, will not be warmly greeted. The primary vehicle for the industrialized democracies should be the "rule of law" -- assuming that they have a substantial, if not commanding voice in determining its underlying principles.
An enlightened globalization will not lead to the establishment of a world government. It could, however, create a new attitude among human beings and serve the interests of the United States.[21] More profoundly, advancing globalization will facilitate an event barely begun that holds the great potential of constructing, in the distant future, the perspective that the human race matters more than its component divisions along race, religion, [page 432] or ethnicity.[22] The vision of a common humanity is reason enough to embrace globalization.
I. THE BACKGROUND OF GLOBALIZATION
Today, more than ever, the events of foreign lands have important economic and political consequences for local inhabitants. To be sure, foreign events have had significant ramifications in the past. Centuries ago, seminal inventions in China revolutionized the culture, science, and warfare of Europeans; the opening of American borders to European immigrants from the 19th through the mid-20th centuries gave millions a new home; and the conflicts in Europe during WorldWarI eventually brought the United States onto the European battleground.[23]
But these events were of sporadic importance. For example, after World War I ended, the United States isolated itself in a number of respects from international politics and trade; America declined membership in the League of Nations and enacted the Smoot-Hawley tariffs in 1931 which drastically reduced imports.[24] By contrast, transnational activities and affairs now have continuous importance, repeatedly affecting not just distant countries, but also the entire global community at times. The continuous importance of international events is a defining characteristic of globalization.
Another feature of globalization with potentially profound implications is the convergence of basic economic and political values among nations towards the liberal democratic values of the industrialized democracies, the "West."[25] For the West, the liberal, democratic values of market [page 433] economies, democracy, and human rights are fundamental.[26] Given the arguably shallow roots of liberal democratic values in a number of countries and the absence of democracy and human rights in many others, this process may perhaps be too incomplete to be described as a convergence of [page 434] fundamental values. Nevertheless, today there are greater similarities between the economic and political systems of nations than at any other time in the short history of globalization.[27] With careful and generous support from the West, this similarity of systems may evolve into a similarity of fundamental values.
A. Globalization's Beginning
Identifying the birth of globalization is an elusive task, but one possible date is the year 1945, when the United States led the Allied powers in creating the United Nations and its companion international organizations, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (World Bank).[28] Later in 1948, the United States and its democratic allies established the General Agreement on Tariffs [page 435] and Trade (GATT), another important economic institution for globalization along with the IMF and the World Bank.[29] The motivations for creating these international institutions were at once noble and selfish.
After the devastating experience of World War II, the victorious Allies were determined to prevent any reoccurrence of similar world wars. Their motivating hope was that a collegial body of nations would ensure the peaceful resolution of conflicts and provide a collective defense against wrongful aggression.[30] Thus, the United Nations was the focus of political attempts to prevent future acts of aggression. Further, unlike the League of Nations, the United Nations made the promotion of human rights one of its basic purposes.[31] Toward that end, the United Nations created various human rights institutions and generated human rights conventions and [page 436] declarations.[32]
At the same time, the Allies thought it critical to lay the foundations for the economic prosperity of the international community.[33] Prosperous countries, it was thought, would be less inclined to wage wars. Thus, the Allies promoted activities that would raise the standard of living among peaceful countries. For example, the Allies established international economic institutions which were in part created to promote international monetary cooperation (the IMF), to foster economic development in less developed countries (the World Bank), and to increase international trade (the GATT).[34] [page 437]
The creation of the United Nations, the IMF, the World Bank, and the GATT were key moments in globalization. These institutions signaled the start of an era of cooperative behavior, however imperfect, among nations. While the number of nations involved was limited, their cooperation required the development and formal recognition of common interests. The GATT and the United Nations, in particular, were critical components in the genesis of globalization.[35] In seeking to reduce barriers to trade of goods, the GATT contained free market principles that favored lower tariffs, banned quotas, and prohibited discrimination against foreign goods.[36] The United Nations, at least on paper, championed the principles of human rights and democratic forms of government.[37] As these principles [page 438] gained international acceptance, economic and political norms developed. That is, common values emerged.
B. Economic Globalization
In current usage, the term globalization refers primarily to economic globalization. As barriers to trade, investment, financial flows, and technology transfers have fallen, there has been an expansion of markets for goods, services, financial capital, and intellectual property to transnational, regional, and even global dimensions.[38] There are several hallmarks of economic globalization. First, it increases opportunities for sellers as well as buyers. Second, economic globalization simultaneously creates new competition. Third, it develops interdependency among nations. Finally, economic globalization spreads the ideology of the free market economy model because the industrialized nations, the major promoters of globalization, advocate free market policies.
The enlargement of markets beyond national boundaries means that both sellers and buyers have greater choices. More firms issue equity [page 439] securities in, or obtain financing from, international markets.[39] They also find it profitable to sell their goods and services in, or buy their raw materials or components from, international markets. Worldwide trade now amounts to an astonishingly large figure, six trillion dollars in 1995, more than 80% the size of the gross domestic product of the United States, the world's largest economy.[40]
The existence of greater choice also extends to investment opportunities. Companies are investing in foreign countries, buying assets such as securities, businesses, facilities, and land, and have shifted production to [page 440] foreign factories.[41] Concurrently, sellers of such domestic assets now have [page 441] more buyers to choose from. The liberalization of investment opportunities -- the removal of barriers -- contributes to the liberalization of trade, and vice versa.[42]
Expanding markets simultaneously generates more competition along with more opportunities;[43] domestic firms must compete not only with domestic but also foreign rivals. While benefiting domestic consumers, foreign competition may threaten domestic businesses and employees.[44] Whether the foreign competition comes from imports or the local subsidiaries of foreign corporations, employees of domestic firms may lose their jobs as these firms lay off surplus employees in order to become more competitive.[45] Where local subsidiaries of foreign corporations provide competition, however, these subsidiaries will create new jobs that replace, in [page 442] part, jobs lost at domestic firms.[46] One of the major consequences of increased foreign competition and the domestic drive for efficiency is that countries have become more willing to privatize and deregulate.[47]
By making foreign countries important sources of consumers, investors, and suppliers, globalization creates interdependence. When domestic businesses buy from and sell to foreign markets, their financial welfare becomes linked to those markets. More domestic companies have evolved into multinational corporations, firms that have economic interests in several countries. Businesses set up partnerships with foreign firms, to share technology and risk, in order to create new products.[48] Because customers as well as suppliers are foreign, firms in one country become economically dependent upon firms in other countries. When foreign firms likewise become dependent upon domestic markets, interdependence is established as the economic prosperity of one nation becomes connected to that of other countries. For virtually all countries, transnational trade is important, if not vital, to their economic prosperity.[49]
As economic globalization integrates various national markets into regional or world-wide markets, it also promotes general free market principles, [page 443] such as the quintessential concept of the market mechanism to allocate resources,[50] reduce protectionism in international trade,[51] and [page 444] privatize and deregulate.[52] Well before the collapse of the Soviet Union or even the end of the Cold War, the market economy (free market) paradigm of the West emerged as the decisive winner in the economic contest with the command (or planned) economy paradigm of the Soviet bloc.[53] Since globalization is being led by the corporations and governments in the capitalist economies of the industrialized democracies, it naturally advocates the ideology of the winners rather than the losers. Thus, the rules underlying globalization seek to expand markets among market economy rather than command economy principles.[54]
For example, the WTO espouses the implementation of free-market ground rules to cover international trade and trade-related aspects of [page 445] investment and intellectual property.[55] Its rules go further than those of the GATT, its predecessor in carrying out the free market principle of comparative advantage by stamping out protectionism among nations.[56] When tools of protectionism -- such as tariffs, quotas, or domestic subsidies -- are reduced, foreign imports can better enter a domestic market, creating more competition for local firms. The presence of increased competition contributes to the development of more efficient local firms as only the fittest firms will survive in a competitive marketplace. The use of a market and consumer choice, rather than a bureaucracy, to determine the survival of firms and products is the essence of a free market.[57] Not surprisingly, the various WTO agreements are expected to substantially [page 446] increase global income.[58]
C. Political Globalization
As economic globalization expands, it has been accompanied by a somewhat lesser degree of political globalization in that there are now substantial numbers of elected governments.[59] Also, the rhetoric of human rights has gained universal acceptance, and more nations than ever before have pledged to protect human rights.[60] With political globalization, there is [page 447] more than just the existence of elected governments and the recognition of human rights by governments. Political globalization has also tended to cause a convergence in political values, with the genuine acceptance of democracy and human rights in a greater number of countries.
Compared to the convergence in economic values, the convergence of political values has had a more difficult path. The growth of economic globalization was championed by countries that realized they would gain economically by increased foreign trade. Even the command-economy communist nations sought trade with the capitalist economies of the West.[61] Well before the end of the Cold War, some communist nations even embraced capitalism to an extent. As events in China have clearly shown, dictatorship and a dismal human rights record have not been incompatible with free market policies.[62]
Unlike economic globalization, the support for political globalization historically has been weak, perhaps because its benefits were not as obvious or immediate. Despite their long history predating free market principles, the political values of democracy and human rights have been more dishonored by breach than honored by observance.[63] Most countries did [page 448] not espouse them, and those that did applied these concepts selectively.[64]
For decades after the end of World WarII, the spread of humanitarian political values had to contend with severe obstacles.[65] For much of the [page 449] existence of the United Nations, the most important international organization devoted to the promotion of democracy and human rights, many of its leading members either did not observe democratic values or human rights domestically, or subordinated these values to other priorities in foreign affairs.[66] Despite initial obstacles, however, these political values slowly developed roots in non-western countries.
Even before the end of the Cold War, the past two decades saw the emergence of a greater number of countries with democratic governments and protective of human rights.[67] These countries offer political rights and [page 450] civil liberties that make them different in kind from past authoritarian regimes. With the end of the Cold War, many of the former Soviet-allied countries established popularly elected governments. Earlier, elected governments emerged from dictatorships in Latin America, Asia, and Africa.[68] As the transformation of South Africa -- the former bastion of apartheid -- into a democratic country shows, the unbelievable can happen.
The outlook today is promising for the values of democracy and, to a lesser extent, human rights. First, with the triumph of liberal democracy over communism in the Cold War,[69] the United States and its allies can now more vigorously pursue humanitarian rather than security objectives. Second, the commonality of democracy and human rights in nations has provided more reason for these nations to cooperate among themselves in trade, humanitarian, and security matters, as well as in trying to nurture the qualities of democracy and human rights in authoritarian countries. The remaining authoritarian strongholds face pressures to democratize, and to recognize some level of human rights.[70]
Democracy has been easier to achieve than the protection of human rights, perhaps because the implementation of democracy is technically more easily accomplished (e.g., a popularly elected government), while there may be disagreement over which rights are basic human rights and how these basic rights are to be protected.[71] Furthermore, elected governments need not necessarily protect human rights, especially in nascent [page 451] democracies which may have problems of illiteracy, corruption, authoritarian traditions, ethnic or religious conflicts, and a winner-takes-all political system.[72]
The value of democratic governments is that their actions reflect the desires of a majority of the people rather than the wishes of a tyrant or a select few. Democracy is arguably the most basic human right because it recognizes the sovereignty of the people in that a government pursues policies which the majority of the people support through their freely elected representatives. The preferences of at least a majority of its population, rather than the desires of a select few, influence democratic governments. Democratic governments are much more likely to respect human rights, at least those of the majority, than authoritarian regimes which are unaccountable to an electorate. Of course, democracy is not itself a sufficient condition for a humane society, since a majority may persecute or subjugate a minority in a democratic society.[73] A practical benefit of mature democracies, those having democratic governments for a long period of time, is that they substantially protect a wide variety of human rights and are much less likely to use military force to resolve conflicts.[74] [page 452]
Despite disagreement over the extent to which human rights should be protected, some level of human rights protection exists for a substantial percentage, if not the majority, of the world's population.[75] For an increasing number of countries, there seems to be a real, as opposed to a rhetorical, acceptance of some form of human rights. While inadequate and imperfect, this is an enormous improvement over the past. While outrageous examples of inhumanity still occur, such as in Rwanda, they are universally condemned.[76]
In an indirect way, the cultural impact of economic globalization stimulates political globalization. Economic globalization has long introduced aspects of foreign cultures -- especially American culture -- either directly by the sale of merchandise such as movies and musical recordings, or indirectly through exposure to foreigners.[77] More than in the past, the opening of new markets through economic globalization has brought a flood of people and companies into foreign lands.
Personal contact, always so important in understanding other human beings, has made foreigners less inscrutable. More business personnel are assigned to overseas offices, more consumers travel abroad as tourists, and more students study in foreign countries.[78] Local residents are more likely than ever before to work for, do business with, or personally know foreigners. In some cases, this transnational encounter may lead to a personal [page 453] affinity with or an in-depth understanding of foreign cultures.[79] [page 454]
Further, economic globalization has generated an interest in learning foreign languages, primarily English. Perhaps irreversibly, English has become the international language of business and science, with a broader usage than any other language.[80] At the same time, the ability to speak a foreign language other than English gives one a competitive advantage in doing business in nonEnglish-speaking countries.[81]
Doing business with foreigners, in their country or in one's own, requires that one communicate with them, cooperate with them, and be exposed to their political and business values.[82] The political values of democracy and human rights, as well as aspects of foreign cultures, are often inseparable (though secondary) components of economic globalization. Thus, countries that seek to benefit from economic globalization must frequently tolerate political globalization and exposure to foreign cultures. As people know more about foreign cultures, some familiarity with foreign political values is bound to arise.
II. TECHNOLOGY'S VITAL ROLE IN CONVERGING VALUES
The advanced communication technology that links much of the world together continues to be crucial to the convergence of economic and political values. This technology is utilized primarily by business entities to facilitate economic globalization.[83] Modern technology has also tended to promote democracy and human rights by making it easier and cheaper for [page 455] people to communicate without censorship across national boundaries. Communication technology not only exposes a national population to foreign ideas, but also concurrently exposes domestic conditions to a global audience.
This has occurred because economic globalization involves communication technologies with multiple uses. The same technology that transmits a business proposal may also communicate politically embarrassing or other non-business information. These multiple uses of advanced technology cannot easily be separated from each other, making it difficult to restrict the technology to purely business purposes. A country that wishes to participate in international business cannot isolate itself from all uses of communication technologies unrelated to business dealings.[84]
The internet [85] is a recent communication medium with tremendous potential for linking people across national boundaries, furthering mutual interests of the international community, and a myriad of other uses.[86] The internet will become, or may already be, an important or even critical technological medium for business, as well as for scientific research and consumer enjoyment.[87] The internet is the essential part of the "information [page 456] superhighway," a source of information that promises to change fundamentally human lives.[88]
E-mail and computer file transmission on the internet can potentially provide a more powerful (e.g., faster, cheaper, more convenient) business tool than such conventional devices as the postal service, telephones, and faxes. Internet users can transmit and download data, articles, images, movies, speeches, sound recordings, and other information.[89] By providing a forum for the transfer of such information, the internet will help protect the freedoms of expression and choice for followers of any ideological persuasion.[90] Unfortunately, however, it may shield criminal, obscene, [page 457] racist, and terrorist activities as well.[91]
A government might attempt to control the content of information transfers. It could screen large numbers of telephone calls, faxes, or computer data; it could restrict access to or intercept messages on the internet. Total censorship, however, would bring a halt to international business.[92] Firms might object if government surveillance is too pervasive. For example, companies might not want government officials to be privy to proprietary information.[93] A certain amount of freedom of communication is therefore assured if a country wishes to be part of a global economy: international firms will leave a nation if censorship prohibitively increases the cost of doing business. This will remain true even if governments attempt to censor communications using the most advanced and cost-effective surveillance technology available.[94] [page 458]
Communication technologies not essential to international business transactions also serve to bolster humanitarian political values. International news reporting utilizes communication technologies to broadcast major domestic events of all types on a worldwide screen. There are numerous journalists, broadcasters, and commentators whose professional livelihood depends upon bringing newsworthy stories to a foreign, if not international, audience. While most publicized stories may not involve political events, many do. The competitive members of the news media are unlikely to let stories of outrageous acts completely escape the attention of the international public. Furthermore, these news articles may be read by anyone in the world who has access to the internet.[95]
At the same time, news stories alone would not generate international repercussions against repressive governments if purely theoretical political values were involved. There must be influential constituencies that place high priority on the existence of democracy and human rights, that seek to spread those values, and that are galvanized into action upon news of deplorable political conditions. Neither value would flourish unless there were constituencies, either domestic or abroad, that strongly supported it.
The presence of democratic governments and strong protections for human rights in the industrialized countries means that these values are expressed to some degree in their business transactions with other countries.[96] Sizable populations in the industrialized countries also attempt to support democracy and human rights abroad through private means.[97] Moreover, as the living standards of developing countries improve, the citizenry of these countries seem to expect more democratization (first) and [page 459] human rights (later).[98]
III. THE IMPORTANCE OF GLOBALIZATION
Because globalization promotes common values across nations and can make foreign problems, conditions, issues, and debates as vivid and captivating as national, state, and local ones, it contributes to a sense of world community.[99] It develops a feeling of empathy for the conditions of people abroad, enlarging the group of human beings that an individual will identify with. Globalization thus helps to bring alive persons in foreign lands, making them fellow human beings who simply live in different parts of the world rather than abstract statistics of deaths, poverty, and suffering.
The convergence of basic political and economic values is thus fundamentally important because it helps to establish a common bond among people in different countries, facilitating understanding and encouraging cooperation. All other things being equal, the commonality among countries -- whether in the form of basic values, culture, or language -- enhances their attractiveness to each other.[100] In addition, convergence increases [page 460] the possibility that a transformation of attitude will take place for those who participate in transnational activities.
People will begin to regard foreigners in distant lands with the same concern that they have for their fellow citizens.[101] They will endeavor to help these foreigners obtain basic political rights even though the status of political rights in other countries will have no tangible beneficial impact at home.[102] Convergence does not mean that there is a single model of a market economy, a single type of democracy, or a single platform of human rights. They exist in different forms, and nations may have different combinations of these forms.[103] [page 461]
A. The Perspective of One Human Race
The convergence of fundamental values through globalization has profound consequences because it increases the chance that a new perspective will develop, one which views membership in the human race as the most significant societal relationship, except for nationality.[104] A person owes his or her strongest collective loyalties to the various societies with which he or she most intensely identifies. Today, this societal identification can be based on numerous factors, including nationality, race, religion, and ethnic group.[105] While it is unlikely that nationality will be surpassed as the most significant societal relationship, globalization and the convergence of values may eventually convince people in different countries that the second most important social group is the human race, and not a person's racial, religious, or ethnic group.[106]
One of the first steps in the formation of a society is the recognition by prospective members that they have common interests and bonds. An essential commonality is that they share some fundamental values. A second is that they identify themselves as members belonging to the same community on the basis of a number of common ties, including shared fundamental values. A third commonality is the universality of rights -- the active application of the "golden rule" -- by which members expect that all must be entitled to the same rights as well as charged with the same responsibilities to ensure that these rights are protected.
Globalization promotes these three types of commonalities. Globalization establishes common ground by facilitating the almost universal acceptance of market economies, the widespread emergence of democratic governments, and the extensive approval of human rights. The most visible example is economic. With the end of the Cold War, the free market economy has clearly triumphed over the command economy in the battle of the [page 462] economic paradigms. Because some variant of a market economy has taken root in virtually all countries, there has been a convergence of sorts in economic systems.[107]
Further, because it often requires exposure to and pervasive interaction with foreigners -- many of whom share the same fundamental values -- globalization can enlarge the group that one normally identifies with. Globalization makes many of its participants empathize with the conditions and problems of people who in earlier years would have been ignored as unknown residents of remote locations. This empathy often leads to sympathy and support when these people suffer unfairly.
Finally, the combination of shared values and identification produce the third commonality, universality of rights.[108] Citizens of one country will often expect, and work actively to achieve, the same basic values in other countries. They will treat nationals of other nations as they would wish to be treated. The effects of shared values, identification, and universality of rights in globalization could have a pivotal long-term effect -- the possibility that a majority of human beings will begin to believe that they are truly part of a single global society -- the human race.
This is not to say that people disbelieve the idea that the human race encompasses all human beings. Of course, they realize that there is only one human species. Rather, the human race does not usually rank high on the hierarchy of societies for most people. Smaller societies, especially those based on nationality, race, religion, or ethnicity, command more loyalty.[109] The idea of the human race, the broadest and all-inclusive category of the human species, is abstract and has little, if any, impact on the lives of human beings. To believe in the singular importance of the human race requires an attitudinal shift in which a person views the human race seriously. [page 463]
This may occur because the convergence of values does not only mean that the people of different countries will share the same basic values. It may also lead to the greater promotion of these values for the people of other countries. Historically and certainly today, America and the other industrial democracies have attempted to foster democracy and human rights in other countries.[110] While some part of this effort has been attributable to "self interest," it has also been due to the empathy that the industrialized democracies have had for other countries.[111] The magnitude of these efforts in the future, as in the past, will depend not solely upon the available financial and human resources of the industrialized democracies. It will also depend upon their national will -- a factor undoubtedly influenced by the intensity with which the people of the industrialized democracies identify with people in foreign lands.
The perspective that the human race matters more than its component divisions would accelerate cooperative efforts among nations to attack global problems that adversely affect human rights and the quality of human life.[112] Obviously, there is no shortage of such problems. Great suffering still occurs in so many parts of the world, not just from internal armed conflicts,[113] but also from conditions of poverty.[114] There are severe health problems in much of the world which can be mitigated with relatively little cost.[115] There are the lives lost to the AIDS epidemic, and [page 464] the deaths and disabilities caused by land mines.[116] Russia, a nuclear superpower that could end life on this planet, has severe social, economic, and political problems.[117] Making the human race important would not just promote liberal democratic values but would also reduce human suffering and perhaps eliminate completely the risk of nuclear war.
B. General Convergence of Values
Assuming that the formation of a single human society is a possible outcome, two broad questions should be answered: what kind of human society is being created, and is this society desirable. The answer to the latter question will depend on an evaluator's subjective judgment of the society that is being formed. Undoubtedly, the great majority of human beings would abhor a world society that was being created by the conquests of a totalitarian government. Presumably, most Americans (and many citizens of other countries) would reject even a benevolent, democratic global society in which a world government dominated by other countries dictated laws that governed the lives of all human beings. If either outcome were present, many would call for a halt to globalization. Thus the direction that globalization follows is critical for assessing its appeal.
What globalization has brought is a general convergence of fundamental economic and political systems among many nations. These systems are not identical. There are still innumerable differences among countries with market economies, democratic governments, and respectful of human rights.[118] The practices of one country may be intolerable to another country.[119] [page 465] Furthermore, it is unlikely and probably undesirable that economic and political systems will ever exactly converge. Nor is it foreseeable that the nations of the world will coalesce into one.
Even among the industrialized democracies, there are enough dissimilarities in market economies, democratic governments, and attitudes towards human rights that make some believe that the differences between these nations outweigh the similarities. For example, Japan is frequently characterized as having a producer-oriented market economy, as compared with the consumer-oriented market economy of the United States.[120] In general, the members of the European Union more extensively regulate their economies than the United States, engaging at times in social engineering that seems contrary to market principles as interpreted by Americans.[121] In the area of criminal justice, the United States is virtually alone in permitting the death penalty and imprisons a much higher percentage [page 466] of its population than other industrialized democracies.[122]
Nonetheless, the basic economic and political systems of different countries clearly share more similarities than ever before. When asked to characterize their existing economic and political systems, more people in more countries than ever before will respond that they have a "market" economy, that their government is "democratic," and that they protect "human rights." Importantly, the convergence of values seems to be accompanying the convergence of systems. Certainly, most people in the industrialized democracies would view their existing economic and political systems as expressing the foundational values of their societies -- the values that define their society.[123] The convergence of values along liberal democratic [page 467] lines means that nations are better situated to negotiate wealth-maximizing trade agreements and to resolve political disputes peacefully.
But in countries in transition from authoritarian to liberal democracy, many people may not yet fully accept their newly established economic and political systems as reflecting fundamental values of what is correct, proper, or right. Whether these transitional countries continue to establish or possess liberal democracies will depend upon how well the systems of liberal democracy work, an outcome that the industrialized democracies should strive vigorously to achieve. Workable systems can evolve into entrenched values.
Obviously, the implantation of the values of liberal democracy in Russia is of paramount concern.[124] Nurturing a democratic Russia is in the vital national interest of the United States (and the rest of the world) for very practical reasons -- only Russia and the United States possess sufficient nuclear weapons to end human civilization.[125] Whether by unilateral or multilateral extensions of financial assistance or political inclusion, the industrialized democracies should do their utmost to make Russia a strong liberal democracy. Economic aid should be generous, and Russia should be incorporated into the activities of the industrialized democracies as much as possible.[126]
Not all basic values are converging and nor, perhaps, should they. Religious values are not converging in the sense that the same general religion, such as Christianity, is taking root in a preponderance of countries.[127] Nevertheless, the convergence of economic and political values means that there is a greater basis for cooperation. For that reason, the [page 468] "West"[128] -- that is, the United States and the other industrialized democracies -- should support the process of value convergence.
Sharing the same values creates similar expectations and a common ground for understanding. The more prevalent reliance upon market forces to direct production and consumption means that nations are more likely to trade with and invest in each other. The relative sameness of political values, for example, the prevelant use of negotiation rather than military force in settling disputes, means that nations can have greater trust in and less to fear from each other. The similarity of basic values also means that the different peoples of humanity are one step closer to viewing themselves primarily as part of one human society -- the human race -- though represented by different governments.
IV. SHAPING THE CONTENT OF GLOBALIZATION
Despite its ubiquity, globalization is not a given, the inevitable consequence of the confluence of current human events. It is a highly probable long-term outcome, that should be supported in the face of opposing forces, in order to ensure its survival.[129] Although there is no inevitability that the process of globalization will continue, it seems very likely for economic and technological reasons. Autarky and isolationism are disfavored national policies. Absent major international calamities, globalization will grow as market integration, economic interdependence, and technological advances continue.
Nor is the precise shape of globalization a settled outcome. There is not just one distinct type of globalization. The activities, the principles, and the value-converging features of globalization are variables influenced by the leadership of nations such as the United States and international organizations such as the United Nations and the World Trade Organization. How globalization proceeds, especially in its preeminent economic form, is crucial because globalization can be a double-edged sword. It can create international problems as well as elevate human beings into a better [page 469] world.[130]
For example, the basic values that globalization spreads can sometimes be at odds with each other and with other important values. Free market practices can weaken democracy through a race to the bottom in permitting unethical business practices, and democracy can suppress human rights through a tyranny of the majority. All three convergent values can conflict with the desire to protect the environment, a desire that is predominantly a concern of industrialized countries.[131] Also, economic and technological interdependency can facilitate the activities of rogue nations and terrorist groups, and make members of the global community vulnerable to transnational crime.[132] Finally, how globalization copes with the paradoxical trend of diversification (e.g., ethnic, political, or religious differentiation) is important.[133] [page 470]
Managing globalization will require policies and programs that carefully nurture, accommodate tensions among, and emphasize the universality of convergent values. These values need to be supported because the presence of free markets, democracy, and human rights in some countries may represent currently ascendant economic and political systems -- existing superficial conditions -- rather than fundamental values. Citizens of more countries may now describe their economic system as "market" based, their structure of government as "democratic," and their panoply of civil liberties as the protection of "human rights." Yet, for newly formed capitalist democracies, their citizens may not completely accept these conditions as fundamental values -- deeply felt beliefs of what is right.[134]
Balancing these values, when they conflict with each other or with the protection of the environment, is necessary to avoid, primarily, a race to the bottom in economic practices and the unreasonable dominance of economic activities over political and environmental concerns.[135] The universality of convergent values essentially means that human beings will work to ensure that the same general rights -- including the satisfaction of basic needs -- are available in all countries.[136] The idea that particular rights should be universally present, without geographic limitation, is important not just to the convergence of fundamental values but also to the belief that all human beings belong to the same society and are entitled to the same rights.
A. Fulfilling Western Responsibilities
The industrialized democracies have an essential, indispensable role in determining the policies and programs for globalization that will promote common values, balance competing values, solidify respect for the rule of law, and increase empathy among nations. This role is given not by the grace of God but by a simple fact of economics and by the deep roots of liberal democratic values in the industrialized democracies. They have the lion's share of world wealth, and by it, the ability to finance and influence heavily the course of globalization. In addition, free markets, democracy, and the protection of human rights are fundamental values, permanent and enduring, in the industrialized democracies. [page 471]
It is undeniable that the industrialized nations dominate the world economically. These nations are bound together by the common values of liberal democracy, and are either allied or on friendly terms with the United States. Table 1, below, provides figures for the population, economy, contributions to the United Nations, foreign aid (official development assistance, or ODA), and numbers of the world's largest corporations from the twenty-three industrialized nations collectively referred to as the "West": the United States, Japan, the fifteen-nation European Union, and six other rich industrialized nations.[137]
[Table not reproduced.] [page 472]
As Table 1 shows, the West, with less than 15% of the world's population, generates over 75% of the world's GNP, and has the financial resources to pay most of the U.N.'s regular budget, provide substantial amounts of foreign aid, and produce nearly all of the world's largest corporations. Just America and Japan together account for over 40% of world GNP.[138]
The hand of the West is also dominant in the major international economic institutions which provide substantial flows of financial capital to developing countries and to countries in economic transition from socialism to capitalism.[139] Table 2, below, shows that the big five and the [page 473] other industrialized democracies of the West together have a commanding share of the voting power in such major international economic institutions as the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD), International Finance Corporation (IFC), and International Development Association (IDA) of the World Bank Group, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the Asian Development Bank (ADB), and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD).[140] [page 474]
[Table not reproduced.]
While there are different ways of calculating the collective economic power of the West, there is no question of the West's economic importance to the world.[141] As much as possible, the West -- principally the economic [page 475] giants of the United States, Japan, and the European Union -- should act collectively to create a humane globalization. These three entities should undertake to cooperate even more extensively than they already do. This will require American acceptance of a greater role for the European Union and Japan in western decision-making, a process that historically has been carried out mostly by American leadership. It will also require a more vigorous and creative Japanese presence in international affairs.
The United States, Japan, and the European Union are singled out, not because their citizenry are inherently wiser and more capable than those of other nations, but because their economic power tempered by the humanitarian constraints of their political systems make them best suited [page 476] to shape a better world if they so choose. There is also the reality that although it is the world's richest country and only superpower, the United States cannot manage or finance globalization on its own. Because the three are so important economically, it would be a mistake, as some have gratuitously suggested, for the United States and the European Union to unite to isolate Japan politically and economically.[142]
When necessary, the West should also use its economic power to flesh out the details of market economies, democratic governments, and human rights in the globalization context. While the devil may lie in details, some [page 477] refinement of principles may be required to create a "level playing field" for business competition and to balance competing values. That may open up the charge that the views of the West are being imposed upon, and not necessarily to the benefit of, the rest of the world.
While such an allegation would have substantial historical validity, it could be deflected by the promulgation of rules based on those internal practices of the industrialized democracies. These rules would be a modification of the "Golden Rule." Nations should do unto others what the nations of the West do unto themselves. That undeniably involves the value judgment that the industrialized democracies are better models for economic and political development. It is a value judgement, however, that seems to be shared by most human beings: the flow of immigration between the West and the rest of the world is decidedly one-sided in the former's favor.[143] [page 478]
B. Adhering to the Rule of Law
The process of converging values through the activities of globalization is facilitated by procedural mechanisms and substantive principles. Without them, globalization might eventually consist solely of the intermingling of peoples and the economic interdependence of countries without the sharing of values. Convergence is reinforced by procedural mechanisms that implement substantive principles which are derived from and flesh out the meaning of convergent values. One mechanism might consist of unilateral action in which one nation, particularly the United States, imposes its views of appropriate economic behavior on another country.[144] While an economically dominant nation may get its way, the subordinate country may not accept the substantive principle used to justify the unilateral action. The latter country may simply see the "principle" of "might makes right."
Another mechanism exists in multilateral agreements in which nations collectively determine the international legal rights of individual nations.[145] Multilateral agreements often contain dispute settlement procedures that attempt, in theory, to administer impartially the rule of law in judging national, firm, or individual conduct.[146] The "law" would be made up of substantive principles that reflect or accommodate clashes among convergent values. The use of the rule of law is today one of the most effective means to reinforce common values, especially in the areas connected with international trade. The rule of law also avoids the antagonism generated when one nation imposes its views on other nations.
In a broad sense, the rule of law requires respect for substantive principle, not merely power or chance, to settle disputes.[147] Implicit, too, in the rule of law is that disputes are peacefully settled whenever possible, [page 479] and that negotiations and economic sanctions are utilized before military operations are commenced. In the globalization context, acceptance of the rule of law means that most nations will not only acknowledge the applicability of substantive principles to a transnational problem but also accept a solution recommended by an impartial international body.[148] The absence of either condition precludes the existence of a rule of law, and also militates against the development of convergent values.
First, without the recognition that there are substantive principles which are relevant to analyzing a conflict, there is no rule of law because there are no laws to apply. Without substantive principles, convergent values are less likely to emerge. Second, a nation should respect the decisions of a mediating or adjudicatory international organization. If a nation chooses to settle a dispute unilaterally, there is no rule of law since any principle, even if meritorious, would be enforced unequally. The unilateral actor would be a law enforcer against other nations only, and presumably never the object of enforcement.[149] Such discriminatory enforcement diminishes the validity of substantive principles because they do not apply to all nations, and impedes the acceptance of their values as convergent values.
At the same time, the international tribunal or body that implements the rule of law must be impartial and competent, for nations are more likely to abide by the rule of law when they believe that it can be administered fairly and wisely.[150] Further, before abiding by the rule of law in a [page 480] particular area, nations usually must conclude that the substantive principles of law are generally acceptable to them. Of course, some principles may be imprecise in order to accommodate different national views about how detailed these principles should be. Because nations may have varying opinions on the desired details of substantive principles and may make political compromises to arrive at their language, these principles may be vague or incomplete.[151] The tribunal or other body that interprets these principles may have considerable leeway to refine, embellish, or expand the meaning of the substantive law.
While an immediate benefit of the rule of law is that current disputes are resolved, a long-term benefit is that the utilization of reason and rules are substituted for power or force. If powerful and weak nations alike will follow the rule of law, then the law, not military or economic power, will determine rights and resolve conflicts. Recognition of the rule of law also means that the substantive principles used to resolve disputes are automatically enhanced since their selection legitimizes them (they are the "law") and reinforces the values that they represent. While these principles are likely to be popular and respected in order to have been chosen as the substantive bases for conflict resolution, their selection is likely to strengthen and broaden their appeal, enhancing the durability of their [page 481] values. Thus, the choice of interpreters and the selection of substantive principles are important decisions.
At times, the viability of the rule of law may require enforcement to ensure adherence to the rule of law. In economic disputes, there could be collectively authorized sanctions.[152] When there are acts of aggression over territorial disputes and economic sanctions have failed to prevent a breach of the peace, the use of military force could be authorized. For example, in 1990, Iraq invaded Kuwait over alleged disputed property rights and territory; in response, the United Nations authorized the use of force by the United States and its allies against the Iraq in the 1991 Gulf War.[153]
For countries like North Korea and Iraq that are not democracies and do not protect human rights, the industrialized democracies should present a unified front in encouraging change and discouraging political oppression and the use of force. While the ad hoc international criminal tribunals for Bosnia and Rwanda are important, the establishment of a permanent international criminal court will better solidify the idea that war crimes must be condemned and adjudicated by the international community.[154] Although it is late, there ought to be a tribunal for Cambodia. There is still no justice for the atrocities against the Cambodian people that occurred in the mid to late 1970s, in what many have called as the equivalent of genocide.[155] The establishment of a standing emergency peacekeeping force might prevent the future reoccurrence of atrocities that [page 482] took place in Cambodia, Rwanda, Burundi, Bosnia, and elsewhere.[156]
Also, although there has been a general convergence of economic and political values, the application of these values to specific situations is, in most cases, yet to be determined.[157] When it becomes important to specify how these values will apply to particular cases, the use of a multilateral forum will help to win international acceptance of the principles selected to [page 483] implement these values. The process of filling out the details of these values, that is, determining their principles, is facilitated because there is agreement over basic values. Once a broad framework has been agreed upon, nations can resolve particular difficulties as necessary.[158]
The most fruitful area of further refinement of values is in the economic realm. There is already a process of greater harmonization of rules and practices that affect trade, investment, and intellectual property.[159] Establishing ground rules for international competition will eliminate the perceived unfair advantages of some nations. At the same time, there should be agreement on the proper conduct of governments, businesses, and individuals in transnational activities. Determining proper behavior will create a level playing field for international competition and will avoid actual or perceived disadvantages for some nations.[160]
C. Setting Global Standards and Balancing Values
A major issue raised by globalization is the harmonization of business practices and the accommodation of competing values. Without common rules to govern business behavior, companies from one country might compete at a disadvantage against those of another because each country could have dissimilar rules for acceptable corporate behavior in international business. Setting up the "rules of the game" in international business is important not just to promote economic competition under fair conditions but also to determine the proper balancing of competing values. [page 484]
As with other policies, the single-minded pursuit of free markets, democracy, or human rights can be destructive when carried to an extreme. Any single principle, right, or value has its limits and becomes constrained before taken too far because it will invariably clash with other principles, rights, or values.[161] Like the conflict between liberty and order, or freedom of the press and a defendant's right to a fair trial, there can be conflicts among the activities of the free market, a democratic government, and protection of human rights. While frictions may always be present, they need to be managed by a balancing of values, to determine how far a particular value should be pursued, to prevent one value from unduly dominating the others.
In particular, the dynamism of economic globalization has produced a number of serious, and often novel problems that involve the clashing of economic objectives with democratic values, human rights, and environmental goals.[162] To be solved effectively, these problems require internationally agreed upon rules of behavior which accommodate competing values. For example, an unfettered capitalism can produce a "race to the bottom" in economic behavior, producing deplorable political and environmental effects. Also, nations might engage in economic activities that have harmful transnational environmental effects -- "externalities" or "spillover effects."[163]
The industrialized democracies should therefore have two main, interconnected, priorities. First, they should "harmonize" their economic practices that have a significant international effect. Second, they must harmonize practices in a way that optimally accommodates other competing values when conflicts arise. Some judgment about the desirable balance of competing values is unavoidable. Presumably, it would be undesirable to have a harmonized rule that all western corporations may engage in bribery when doing business overseas because that rule would weaken the integrity of political institutions in foreign, primarily developing nations. [page 485]
Harmonization has already occurred to a degree. Some important examples of ground rules are found in various GATT and WTO agreements, such as those which prohibit dumped and subsidized goods in international trade.[164] Another is the agreement reached by the industrialized democracies on capital adequacy requirements for international banks.[165] There could be global standards on industrial espionage, a problem that directly afflicts western countries rather than developing countries,[166] and the wisdom of harmful exports such as tobacco products.[167]
The area of foreign corrupt practices is another that could be harmonized. There is now no rule that prevents western multinational corporations from committing corrupt practices overseas. Companies from an industrialized country with lax laws on foreign corrupt practices can steal business away from companies headquartered in a country with stringent laws by offering bribes or engaging in other corrupt practices. Without an agreement, western firms from different countries would not compete on equal terms for business contracts in the developing world.
The industrialized democracies are now in the process of reaching an agreement to prohibit bribes and other corrupt business practices in doing business abroad. All the industrialized countries currently make it illegal for companies to engage in corrupt practices at home.[168] The proposed [page 486] agreement will simply extend that prohibition to activities abroad, and possibly lead to higher ethical standards in developing countries where corruption is endemic. This agreement would be enforceable against the companies most likely to violate the agreement because the great majority of banks and corporations engaged in international business transactions come from the industrialized democracies.[169]
Setting up the "rules of the game" is important not just to promote competition under fair conditions. Common ground rules also balance competing values. In particular, they avoid an injurious race to the bottom in business practices that elevate economic objectives over all others. There are business activities that need global standards because the practices or the secondary effects of economic globalization can directly conflict with the protection of human rights.[170] For example, there could be restrictions on investments in countries that violate human rights,[171] standards on employment conditions by foreign investors in developing nations, and curbs on the involvement of western tourists in the sex industries of developing nations. Global standards can balance economic globalization with the protection of human rights.
Only an international agreement can effectively address the issue of fair labor conditions in facilities operated or utilized by western corporations in developing countries. Otherwise, there might be a race to obtain the lowest possible costs by western corporations, and developing nations might, for economic gain, condone exploitative activities by foreigners. These companies could profit from cheap labor in developing countries, contributing to or preventing improvement in deplorable labor practices, such as thirteen and fourteen-year-old children working fifteen to twenty-hour [page 487] workdays under armed guard.[172]
Obviously, however, foreign investment can provide sorely needed jobs, for children as well as adults, in developing nations.[173] The condition of child labor is a complex problem involving the shortages of alternatives for children in developing countries. These nations may lack the educational infrastructure to keep all young teenagers in primary or middle schools, and national governments may not fully realize that educating children, rather than making them work, makes more sense for economic growth in the long run.
There is also the growing problem of child prostitution, mostly in economically poorer countries but also in industrialized countries, with increasing transnational traffic.[174] Teenage children have become trapped in prostitution, exploited by pimps who extract most of the children's [page 488] "earnings" and use the children as virtual slaves. While the growth of child prostitution in developing countries has been fueled to a certain extent by sex tourists from the industrialized world, most exploiters of children are domestic ones.[175] "Employment" for children and local community standards of morality should never justify the use of child prostitutes to satisfy local and western lust. The trade in child sex is just part of the general problem of prostitution present in every country but especially widespread in the developing world.
The sex "market" in the poorer countries attracts male "buyers" from the industrialized countries -- Europeans, Americans, Japanese, Australians, Canadians, New Zealanders, and others -- who are able to pay higher prices than local customers and thereby increase the supply of prostitutes.[176] Yet, like child prostitution, adult prostitution in developing nations is not a problem caused by the industrialized countries; domestic patrons outnumber foreign ones.[177] Poverty, the lack of economic and educational opportunities for children and women, cultures that tolerate prostitution, and affluent western sex tourists combine to create thriving sex industries in many developing countries.[178]
Another important conflict is with the principle of environmental protection, a value that is generally more strongly held among the industrialized than the developing countries.[179] There is often a clash between the policies of protecting the environment and encouraging economic development. Domestic activities would not be an international problem if their effects were substantially confined within national boundaries. But local activities can have detrimental spillover effects -- harmful externalities that have transnational or global effects: radioactive fallout (from nuclear power plant accidents), acid rain, ozone depletion, global warming, and depletion of tropical rain forests.[180] Other local economic activities, while not directly affecting the welfare of foreigners, can cause environmental concern: the decimation of wild fish stocks in the world's oceans by modern industrial fishing,[181] the destruction of coastal areas by economic activities,[182] and the trade in endangered species.[183] [page 489]
Thus, there should be a balance between the right of nations to utilize their resources and engage in economic activity, and the right of other nations to be free from harmful externalities. Whether this conflict is characterized as one between protection of the environment and free market principles (or democracy or human rights), there is a clash between the value of protecting the environment and a convergent value.[184] Views regarding environmental protection may eventually converge if global standards are agreed upon.[185] Major steps towards possible future convergence have emerged from the Rio Conference, with its aspirational but nonbinding Agenda 21 and Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, which address, among other issues, the problem of "sustainable development."[186] In time, the protection of the environment may become [page 490] another converging value.
Globalization has been primarily an economic process that has expanded markets for international trade and opportunities for international investment. Simultaneously, it has increased economic interdependency among nations and made nations economically vital to each other. But globalization is more than just doing business with foreigners and traveling to foreign lands. Through sophisticated technology and international news reporting, globalization connects persons throughout the world and brings into local homes vast amounts of information about transnational issues. It has placed a human face on people in distant lands, and cultivated a global perspective and a sensitivity to different foreign traditions. More people learn about foreign cultures, become interested in foreign affairs, and speak foreign languages. Travelers or alien residents in foreign lands often expect to receive the same basic rights as they do at home.
Profoundly, globalization has contributed to the convergence of basic values among nations towards the liberal democratic values of market economies, democratic governments, and human rights. The clear triumph of market economies over command economies as well as the liberalization of international trade and investment has converted numerous nations over to general free market principles. For people in different countries, globalization has contributed to an expanding consciousness that prefers democratic governments and human rights over authoritarian regimes that repress freedoms.
As values converge, nationals of one country often care enough to work for the enjoyment of similar political rights in other countries. Ultimately, globalization is important and desirable because it encourages a belief in the primacy of the human race. A world in which liberal democratic values abound and people emphasize their status as human beings will be more humane than the world of the past. We should dream of a common humanity for "we are such stuff as dreams are made on."[187] [page 491]
FOOTNOTES
* B.S., California Institute of Technology; M.B.A., Stanford; J.D., Stanford. Professor of Law, Albany Law School of Union University. E-mail address: <aseit@mail.als.edu>. I am grateful to Sheila Shea for her comments, and I appreciate the research assistance of Nandini Nair, Byron Olsen, Lisa Ruoff, Rebecca Slezak, and Bonnie Thomas. This article was supported by a research grant from the Albany Law School.
1. See infra notes 38-58 and accompanying text.
3. See infra notes 59-82 and accompanying text.
4. Cf. infra notes 37 (listing human rights), 63 (defining democracy).
6. See infra notes 77-98 and accompanying text.
7. See infra notes 144-60 and accompanying text.
8. See infra note 147 and accompanying text.
12. See infra notes 104-17 and accompanying text.
14. See infra notes 118-28 and accompanying text.
16. See infra notes 170-186 and accompanying text.
22. See infra notes 104-17 and accompanying text.
A good proxy for the major industrialized democracies is the group of 23 nations that the International Monetary Fund (IMF) calls the "industrialized countries": the United States, Japan, Canada, Australia, Iceland, New Zealand, Norway, Switzerland, and all 15 countries of the European Union. See World Economic Outlook, supra, at 155-57. The fifteen nations of the European Union are Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. See What Is the Economic Union? (visited Apr. 3, 1997) <http://europa.eu.int/en/eu/states.htm>. Although the European Union is not a "country," it possesses international legal personality, speaks for all member nations in most external or international economic matters, and represents one step in a planned path to a future entity with some characteristics of a single country (e.g., common citizenship, a single monetary currency, a common defense policy). See generally Treaty Establishing the European Economic Community, Mar. 25, 1957, 298 U.N.T.S. 11; Single European Act, Feb. 17-28, 1986, 25 I.L.M. 506; Treaty on European Union, Feb. 7, 1992, 31 I.L.M. 247, 253 (Maastricht Treaty); Europa Homepage (visited Dec. 8, 1996) <http://europa.eu.int> (website for the European Union). While all 23 industrialized countries are democracies that protect human rights, several of these have not been so throughout the entire post-World War II period (i.e., Greece, Portugal, and Spain had military dictatorships for decades).
Another possible proxy for the industrialized democracies is the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). See generally OECD Online (visited Jan. 20, 1997) <http://www.oecd.org> (website for the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). The 29 member nations of the OECD include the Czech Republic, Hungary, Mexico, Poland, South Korea, and Turkey, in addition to the IMF's 23 industrialized nations. See About OECD: Member Countries (visited Jan. 20, 1997) <http://www.oecd.org/about/member-countries.html> (from OECD website). The members of the OECD identify themselves as "governments of the industrialised democracies" that seek, among other things, "co-operation among nations essentially on domestic policies where these interact with those of other countries, in particular through trade and investment." See About OECD: The OECD and its Origins (visited Jan. 20, 1997) <http://www.oecd.org/about/origins.htm> (from OECD website). This description of "industrialized democracies" is reasonably accurate, although some OECD countries may lack (or for a long time did lack) some democratic features and human rights.
For convenience, this article describes the 23 IMF-designated industrialized nations collectively as the "West," although that term is arguably misleading. Some commentators would reserve the term "West" exclusively for U.S. allies of European heritage or for friendly but neutral European democracies with wealthy economies. They would instead characterize nations like Japan, South Korea, and Turkey as part of the "Free World." See Michael Lind, Pax Atlantica: The Case for Euramerica, World Pol'y J., Spring 1996, at 1-2. Unlike the other 22 nations, Japan is not predominately a Caucasian nation with European roots. It is also a country that has been frequently characterized, inaccurately, as being qualitatively different from the other 22 nations which are supposed to be identical to each other. See, e.g., A Survey of Tomorrow's Japan, Economist, July 13, 1996, at 5. For a discussion of Japan's role in international affairs as well as Japan's more important similarities with the other industrialized countries, see Alex Y. Seita, Japan's Role in Globalization (May 1, 1997) (unpublished manuscript, on file with author).
Placing Japan solely in the "Free World," however, seems odd as that phrase also describes an increasingly large number of countries whose economies are nowhere as prosperous as most of the IMF's 23 industrialized countries, let alone Japan's. On the other hand, Japan is an American ally, and the term "West" has often been used to describe the U.S.-led alliance of wealthy industrialized nations. Using the term "West" to describe the IMF's 23 industrialized nations avoids having to refer to "western and Japanese" governments, corporations, etc.
Membership in the IBRD is restricted to members of the IMF. See World Bank, International Bank for Reconstruction and Development: Articles of Agreement art. II, 1 (1944) [hereinafter IBRD Articles of Agreement]. In turn, membership in the IFC, IDA, and MIGA is restricted to members of the IBRD. See International Finance Corporation, Articles of Agreement art. II, 1 (1956); International Development Association, Articles of Agreement art. II, 1 (1960); Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency, Convention Establishing the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency art. 4 (1985). Contracting states that have signed ICSID need not be members of the IBRD. See International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, Report of the Executive Directors on the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States art. 67 (1965).
Both the IMF and the IBRD were products of the United Nations Monetary and Financial Conference held at Bretton Woods, New Hampshire, from July 1-22, 1944, under the leadership of the United States. See generally U.S. Department of State, Pub. No. 2866, Proceedings and Documents of the United Nations Monetary and Financial Conference, Bretton Woods, New Hampshire, July 1-22, 1944 (1948). Though initially involved in the process of creating the IMF and the IBRD, the Soviet Union later declined to join either institution, choosing instead to exercise its political influence through its position as a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council. See Harold James, International Cooperation Since Bretton Woods 48-58 (1996).
33. See James, supra note 28, at 27-57.
The [IMF] is an adjustment institution whose short-term loans are directed to financing deficits that are either inherently temporary or intended to be temporary because of the adoption of adjustment policies, [while] the World Bank is a development institution whose long-term loans are directed to the promotion of development...
...
This division of labor became blurred after 1974.
John Williamson, The Lending Policies of the International Monetary Fund, in IMF Conditionality 605, 617 (John Williamson ed., 1983) (emphasis in original). Over the years, there has been considerable convergence in the activities of the IMF and the World Bank as it has become clear that macroeconomic adjustment and balance of payments problems (IMF areas of expertise) are linked to economic development and microeconomic policies concerning investment in such areas as infrastructure, training, and education (World Bank areas of expertise). Also, the constituencies of the two institutions have converged. Originally concerned with the problems of all countries, the IMF now only provides funds to developing or poor countries (including former communist countries). Thus, its constituencies are the same as those of the World Bank. See James, supra note 28, at 143-44, 325-27, 527-29. See generally International Monetary Fund, Annual Report 1996, at 3 (1996) [hereinafter IMF] (the International Monetary Fund provides funds to low-income and heavily indebted poor countries, including countries in transition from command to market economies, to help them cope with balance of payments problems); World Bank, supra note 28, at 6 (the central purpose of the World Bank Group is to promote economic and social progress in developing countries by offering them loans, grants, co-investment financing, and investment insurance).
From 1992 to 1995, total world exports of merchandise and commercial services amounted to the following (in billions of dollars):
[Table not reproduced.]
See Overview of World Trade in 1995 and Outlook for 1996, WTO Focus, May 1996, at 2 tbl. 1 (World Trade Org.) (data for 1993-95) [hereinafter WTO Focus, May 1996]; Overview of World Trade in 1994 and Outlook for 1995, WTO Focus, Mar.-Apr. 1995, at 5 tbl. 1 (World Trade Org.) (data for 1992) [hereinafter WTO Focus, Mar.-Apr. 1995]. Theoretically, total world exports should equal total world imports. In practice, however, total world exports differ from total world imports because of differences in evaluation, definition, and data collection. See WTO Focus, May 1996, supra, at 4 tbl. 3 (giving total world imports of merchandise at $ 5,015 billion for 1995).
Merchandise trade consists of goods -- manufactured goods and primary commodities such as minerals or agricultural, fishery, and forestry products. Commercial services fall into broad categories of transportation, travel (tourism), and other private services (insurance, banking, telecommunications, etc.) and income. Cf. id. at 3-4; WTO Focus, Mar.-Apr. 1995, supra at 5. In 1994, the six leading exporters and importers of commercial services, in billions of dollars (value) and as percentages of total world trade in commercial services (share), were as follows:
[Table not reproduced.]
See WTO Focus, May 1996, supra, at 8 tbl. 7.
In 1995, exports and imports of merchandise trade were as follows for the European Union and the following countries:
[Table not reproduced]
See id. at 6 tbl. 5 (export and import data for Russian Federation; figure includes trade with former republics of the USSR), 7 tbl. 6 (export and import data for all but Russia; European Union figures exclude intra-European Union trade).
[Table not reproduced.]
See Survey of Current Business, July 1996, supra note 40, at 47 tbl. 3, 50 tbl. 4 (giving total foreign direct investment in the United States and total American foreign direct investment abroad by historical cost at year-end 1995); Jon Choy, Foreign Direct Investment in Japan Rebounds, Japan Econ. Inst., July 21, 1995, No. 27B, at 8, 9 (giving foreign direct investment in Japan as of March 31, 1995, based on notifications, not actual transactions, and excluding disinvestments); Japan's FY 1994 Foreign Direct Investment, Japan Econ. Inst., July 7, 1995, No. 25B, at 6, 7 (giving Japanese foreign direct investment abroad as of March 31, 1995, based on notifications, not actual transactions, and excluding disinvestments). Foreign direct investment is foreign investment in domestic real estate, businesses, and factories (as contrasted with "portfolio investment," foreign investment in domestic financial assets such as stocks and bonds). A more technical definition is that a foreign resident has ownership or control, directly or indirectly, of 10% or more of the voting securities of a domestic corporation or the equivalent interest in an unincorporated domestic business. See Raymond J. Mataloni, Jr., A Guide to BEA Statistics on U.S. Multinational Companies, Survey of Current Business, Mar. 1995, at 38 (Bur. Econ. Anal., U.S. Dep't Com.).
As a percentage of all direct investment, the figure for foreign direct investment in Japan is among the lowest for the industrialized countries. In most industrialized countries, foreign direct investment has had a long and substantial presence. Since the 1980s, the United States has experienced a substantial increase in foreign direct investment. See Edward M. Graham & Paul R. Krugman, Foreign Direct Investment in the United States 31-33 (3d ed. 1995). The shares of foreign-owned firms for manufacturing sales, value added, and employment in France, the United Kingdom, and the United States were as follows for 1985 and 1990 (in percentages):
[Table not reproduced]
See id. at 33 tbl. 1.9.
The manufacturing companies of most developed countries produce a substantial percentage of their output in foreign countries. See Douglas Ostrom, MITI Looks to United States, Europe for Lessons on Restructuring, Japan Econ. Inst., June 21, 1996, No. 23B, at 3 (reporting that in 1994 manufacturing companies of Japan, Germany, and the United States produced 7.9%, 17.5%, and 20.1%, respectively, of their output outside of their home country). Even Japanese companies, which have been latecomers in shifting manufacturing production overseas, now produce more in foreign factories than the total amount of Japanese exports. For example, Japanese manufacturing companies produced 41.2 trillion worth of goods in overseas plants in fiscal year 1995 (ending in March 1996), a figure greater than the total amount of exports from Japan, 39.6 trillion ($ 412 billion and $ 396 billion, respectively, using a $ 1 = 100 exchange rate, cf. Currency Markets, N.Y. Times, Apr. 2, 1997, at D17 (as of April 1, one dollar was worth about 120)). See Sumie Kawakami, Exporting a Surplus [Focus Japan], Far East. Econ. Rev., July 4, 1996, at 44.
43. See Porter, supra note 2, at 7-9.
[Table not reproduced.]
See Fortune's Global 500: The World's Largest Corporations, Fortune, Aug. 5, 1996, at 102, F-1, F-11 (data for 1995 fiscal year ending on or before March 31, 1996) [hereinafter Global 500]; Peter Dworkin, The Fortune Directory of the 500 Largest U.S. Industrial Corporations, Fortune, May 7, 1979, at 268, available in LEXIS, News Library, Fortun File (data for 1978). Employment went down as sales (adjusted for inflation) went up. From March 1979 (end of fiscal year 1978) to March 1996 (end of fiscal year 1995), the consumer price index changed from 69.8 to 155.7, an increase of about 123%. See Bureau of Labor Statistics Data (visited Oct. 15, 1996) <http://stats.bls.gov:80/cgi-bin/surveymost> (website for Bureau of Labor Statistics, providing consumer price index for all urban consumers). The five companies listed above increased their sales by considerably more than 123%, and four out of five increased sales by over 200%.
Downsizing, of course, is not restricted to the United States. For many employees, not just in America but also in Japan and Europe, globalization has been a bane, exposing them to foreign competition and throwing them out of work. See, e.g., Teresa Watanabe & David Holley, Japanese Jolted by Demands of Future: As Nation Recovers from Brutal Recession, Traditional Business Practices Mean Little, Older Men Lose Guarantees on Pay, Jobs, Respect, L.A. Times, July 14, 1996, at A1; Joan Warner et al., Clinging to the Safety Net, Bus. Wk., Mar. 11, 1996, at 62 (regarding European workers).
[Table not reproduced.]
See Survey of Current Business, July 1996, supra note 40, at 5 tbl. 1.1, 68 tbl. 1 (GDP data for 1994-95, and trade data for 1992-95); National Income and Product Accounts, Survey of Current Business, Jan.-Feb. 1996, at 36 tbl. 1.1 (Bur. Econ. Anal., U.S. Dep't Com.) (GDP data for 1992-93). The definition of services differs from that of the World Trade Organization for commercial services, e.g., by including certain military goods. See Survey of Current Business, July 1996, supra note 40, at 68 tbl. 1, 87 n.3. The figure for 1995 merchandise trade also differs by 1%-3% from that of the WTO, primarily due to different methods of calculation. See generally supra note 40 (WTO trade figures). Figures from different organizations often differ because of varying definitions and methods of calculations.
a market in which perfect competition exists. The traditional conditions for perfect competition are rather stringent: all items sold must be exactly alike in order to avoid product differentiation; there must be numerous buyers and sellers to prevent any one buyer or seller from influencing the market price; entry or exit barriers to the market must be absent to allow resources like labor or raw materials to enter or leave the market quickly; and market participants must have accurate and instantaneous knowledge of important information, such as the market-determined price of the commodity. The virtue of perfect competition is that it efficiently allocates resources and that it maximizes the welfare of society with respect to the particular market commodity being sold.
Two other important conditions are also implicit in the concept of perfect competition. First, market prices must account for all costs and benefits associated with the sale of the market commodity. Second, market commodities must not be "public goods" which are freely available to all. If these two conditions are not met, an efficient allocation of resources does not occur.
Although these conditions indicate that perfect competition exists nowhere in our world, the ideal of a perfectly competitive market yields useful and accurate predictions when applied to markets that closely resemble it. The stock and foreign exchange markets are often cited by economists as examples which approach perfect competition.
Alex Y. Seita, Common Myths in the Economic Analysis of Law, 1989 B.Y.U. L. Rev. 993, 1041-43 (footnotes omitted).
58. See WTO to Boost Global Income by $ 500 Billion, Focus (GATT Newsletter), Oct. 1994, at 1.
The rise in the number of formal democracies continued in 1995. This year's survey shows that there are now 117 democracies ... This represents just over 61 percent of the world's 191 countries. From the perspective of a decade ago the gain is all the more impressive. Ten years ago, less than 42 percent of the world's countries were formal democracies.
Today, 3.1 billion persons out of a world population of 5.7 billion live under democratically elected governments. While not yet a universal standard, democracy has deepening and widening roots in all parts of the world ...
That 61 percent of all countries and nearly 55 percent of the world's population live under governments and legislatures elected in generally free and fair political processes represents a landmark shift. Today it is the expectation of the clear majority of citizens that their governments be accountable to them through regular elections. Such a broadening global consciousness does not guarantee full freedom, but it does create the basis for more free societies and for greater engagement by citizens in public affairs. Widening public democratic consciousness throughout the world, as well as growing expectations by the Western advanced industrial democracies that countries which receive significant aid should respect fundamental human rights and democratic procedures reinforces this trend.
Adrian Karatnycky, The Comparative Survey of Freedom 1995-1996: Democracy and Despotism: Bipolarism Renewed?, in Freedom in the World: The Annual Survey of Political Rights & Civil Liberties 1995-1996, at 3, 4-5 (Roger Kaplan ed., 1996) [hereinafter Freedom in the World 1995-96] (annual Freedom House survey).
All human rights are universal, indivisible and interdependent and interrelated. The international community must treat human rights globally in a fair and equal manner, on the same footing, and with the same emphasis. While the significance of national and regional particularities and various historical, cultural and religious backgrounds must be borne in mind, it is the duty of States, regardless of their political, economic, and cultural systems, to promote and protect all human rights and fundamental freedoms.
United Nations World Conference on Human Rights: Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action art. 5, U.N. Doc. A/CONF.157/24, pt. 1 (1993), 32 I.L.M. 1661, 1665 (1993). See generally Human Rights: An Agenda for the Next Century (Louis Henkin & John L. Hargrove eds., 1994) [hereinafter Human Rights].
More countries have formally pledged to protect human rights. For example, there have been numerous state parties to the following human rights instruments: Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, supra note 32 (122 parties); International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, supra note 32 (135 parties); International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, supra note 32 (135 parties); and International Covenant on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, supra note 32 (148 parties). See Texts of the International Human Rights Instruments (visited Dec. 11, 1996) <http://193.135.156.15/html/intlinst.htm> (U.N. human rights webpage containing links to the status of ratification of over 90 human rights instruments) [hereinafter Human Rights Instruments]. "Parties" to a treaty (whether by ratification, accession, etc.) are states that have "consented to be bound by the treaty and for which the treaty is in force." Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties art. 2, para. (1)(g), U.N. Doc. A/CONF.39/27 at 289, 1155 U.N.T.S. 331 (1969). However, since some of the parties are countries that lack democratic governments and have a poor human rights record, it is clear that for these countries, the human rights instruments have no real meaning. See, e.g., Human Rights Instruments, supra (Cambodia and Rwanda are parties to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide; Iraq, to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights).
Since most of the founding members of the United Nations were participants in the Allied cause which had fought against the Axis Powers, some common agreement on U.N. purpose and action could have been expected. But soon after World War II ended, the Cold War began, crippling the ability of the United Nations to act as an arbitrator or enforcer of peace. See, e.g., Righter, supra note 30, at 315. Perhaps even without the Cold War, the United Nations would have been ineffective. It was incapable of handling the new type of warfare that became dominant after World War II: "wars of liberation, civil wars, transfrontier guerrilla operations, and even jihad." Id. Further, throughout the Cold War, the promotion of democracy and human rights by the United States was secondary in priority to American national security concerns. To contain communism, the United States allied itself with dictatorships or nondemocracies in Argentina, Brazil, Chile, El Salvador, Greece, Guatemala, Indonesia, Portugal, South Africa, South Korea, South Vietnam, Spain, Taiwan, and numerous other countries. See, e.g. Tom J. Farer, On a Collision Course: The American Campaign for Human Rights and the Antiradical Bias in the Third World, in Human Rights and American Foreign Policy 263 (Donald P. Kommers and Gilburt D. Loescher eds., 1979).
In the following decades, the United Nations proved itself incapable either in preventing or in resolving, by diplomacy or military force, wars and internal conflicts -- a number involving wars of independence. Several conflicts grew out of wars of independence in which colonized peoples sought to liberate themselves from European powers. Anti-colonial revolts, some quite bloody, broke out all over the world, eventually leading to independence for European colonies. See, e.g., Raymond K. Kent, From Madagascar to the Malagasy Republic (1962) (French Madagascar); Donald Lancaster, The Emancipation of French Indochina (1961) (French Indochina); Mahfoud Bennoune, The Making of Contemporary Algeria: 1830-1987 (1988) (French Algeria). For other new nations, independence from colonial rule was considerably less violent. See, e.g., Brian Lapping, End of Empire (1985) (nations emerging from the dismantling of the British Empire after World War II); Federal Research Division, Library of Congress, Philippines: A Country Study 38-39, 41-43 (Ronald E. Dolan ed., 4th ed. 1993) (independence of the Philippines from America). When the United Nations was born in 1945, about 750 million people, nearly a third of the world's population, lived in dependent territories; today, about 1.5 million do. See Decolonization, U.N. Chron., Sept. 1995, at 10.
While no single war of the magnitude of the World Wars occurred, numerous other conflicts emerged, with lethal results. The list of wars, hostilities, conflicts, and suppressions running from the late 1940s through the 1990s is long and depressing: e.g., the Communist-Nationalist battle for China; the French Suppression in Madagascar; the French Vietnam War; the Chinese Suppression in Tibet; the Soviet Suppression in Hungary; the Korean War; the French Algerian War; the U.S. Vietnam War; the Soviet Suppression in Czechoslovakia; the three Arab-Israeli Wars; the Cambodian Massacres; the Soviet Afghanistan War; the Argentine-British Falklands War; the Iraq-Iran War; the Gulf War; the Bosnian War; and the Rwandan Massacres. During its first four decades, "the U.N. proved manifestly incapable of preventing close to 150 conflicts, including more than 125 in the Third World, which cost some 22 million lives." Righter, supra note 30, at 311.
The absence of major wars on the scale of World War II or World War I is attributable not so much to U.N. influence, but to nuclear deterrence -- the horrible prospect that another such war would involve the massive use of nuclear weapons and cause the probable destruction of human civilization. One relatively successful U.N. action to punish aggression was the Persian Gulf War of 1991, in which U.N. forces, comprised primarily of United States military personnel, defeated the Iraqi invaders who had conquered Kuwait. See Anthony C. Arend & Robert J. Beck, International Law and the Use of Force: Beyond the UN Charter Paradigm 53-55 (1993). In that conflict, American leadership together with military assistance from U.S. European allies and political acquiescence from China and Russia allowed the United Nations to take decisive action against a belligerent nation. Even in that "success" story, the root cause of Iraqi aggression -- Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein -- was not removed; he continues to rule Iraq. The U.N.-sanctioned invasion of Haiti by American troops might be considered another successful action. See, e.g., UN Efforts Give "Exemplary Illustration of Diplomacy of Democratization," Says Secretary-General, U.N. Chron., Spring 1996, at 4; Richard D. Lyons, U.N. Authorizes Invasion of Haiti to Be Led by U.S., N.Y. Times, Aug. 1, 1994, at A1.
Even with colonialism long disappeared and the end of the Cold War, the United Nations has difficulty dealing with conflicts involving civil wars, guerilla operations of minority or occupied populations, and persecution of particular groups by government authorities. See, e.g., Righter, supra note 30, at 315. Many hostilities or acts of violence were purely internal to a country, and thus, more difficult for the U.N. to intervene. See, e.g., Michael R. Gordon, Chechnya Toll Is Far Higher, 80,000 Dead, Lebed Asserts, N.Y. Times, Sept. 4, 1996, at A3 (Russian presidential security adviser Lebed estimating that, to date, 80,000 people have been killed and 240,000 wounded in the fighting between Chechen separatists and Russia troops in the Russian republic of Chechnya); Clestine Bohlen, War on Rebel Kurds Puts Turkey's Ideals to Test, N.Y. Times, July 16, 1995, 1, at 3 (Turkish government war against minority Kurds displacing over 300,000 villagers from their homes and resulting in a death toll approaching 18,000).
[Table not reproduced]
Id. at 8. Other sources also rate the political rights and civil liberties of individual countries. See, e.g. Human Rights Watch, Human Rights Watch World Report 1996 (1995); Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 1994, Report Submitted to the Committee on Foreign Relations U.S. Senate and the Committee on International Relations U.S. House of Representatives by the Department of State, 104th Cong. (1995) [hereinafter Human Rights Practices 1994]. See generally Marcus W. Brauchli, More Nations Embrace Democracy -- and Find It Often Can Be Messy, Wall St. J., June 25, 1996, at A1.
Many of these democracies, however, remain fragile and often are incapable of providing for the basic rights of their citizens ...
Many of these fragile democracies are at risk because of internal division, rampant corruption, overarching influence by militaries and oligarchies, and destabilization from abroad. As a result 37 democracies are only Partly Free.
Inter-ethnic and inter-sectarian strife is a major contributing factor in the erosion of political rights and civil liberties in many formal democracies.
Adrian Karatnycky, The Comparative Survey of Freedom 1994-1995: Democracies on the Rise, Democracies at Risk, in Freedom in the World: The Annual Survey of Political Rights & Civil Liberties 1994-1995, at 3, 4 (James Finn ed., 1995). As examples of democracies at risk, Freedom House listed countries with inter-ethnic or inter-sectarian conflict (e.g., Bosnia, India, Turkey, Mali, Niger); countries in transition from communist rule (e.g., Albania, Romania, Russia); countries recovering from extended periods of guerrilla insurgencies, terrorism, and civil war (e.g., El Salvador, Nicaragua, Mozambique); and countries where the political process and judicial system are tainted by corruption, such as the influence of drug cartels (e.g., Brazil, Colombia, the Dominican Republic, Guatemala, Honduras, Paraguay, Venezuela). See id. at 4-5.
77. See, e.g., John Yemma, The Americanization of the World, Boston Globe, July 28, 1996, at F1.
[Table not reproduced.]
Id. Many tourists are likely to come from neighboring countries. For example, in 1994, out of 46.4 million Americans traveling to foreign countries, 28.3 million went to Canada or Mexico, while of 45.5 million foreigners traveling to the United States, 26.3 million came from Canada or Mexico. See Bureau of the Census, Dep't of Com., Statistical Abstract of the United States 1995, at 266-67 tbls. 430-31 (115th ed., Sept. 1995)) (estimate) [hereinafter 1995 Statistical Abstract]. As for business-related travelers and students, in 1993 there were approximately 3.5 million nonimmigrants admitted to the United States in connection with a business purpose: 2,962,000 business travelers; 145,000 treaty traders and investors; 224,000 temporary workers and trainees; 21,000 representatives of foreign information media; and 132,000 intracompany transferees. See id. at 11 tbl. 7. In fall 1993, there were 449,000 foreign students enrolled in U.S. colleges and universities. Id. at 188 tbl. 295.
envisions the superhighway as a seamless web of communications networks, computers, databases, and consumer electronics -- built, owned, and operated principally by the private section -- that will put vast amounts of information at users' fingertips. It believes that the superhighway, if freed from the constraints imposed by rigid regulatory regimes, can fundamentally change the way we work, learn, get health care and public services, shop, communicate, and entertain ourselves.
General Accounting Office, Information Superhighway: An Overview of Technology Challenges, supra, at 2.
[Table not reproduced.]
See Survey of Current Business, July 1996, supra note 40, at 47 tbl. 3. More than half of all U.S. investment is in countries with a European culture (Hong Kong and Bermuda are British colonies). Of the twenty countries in which U.S. direct investment is the highest, fourteen have a European culture. Further, six (including Ireland) have a British cultural heritage and are largely English-speaking. The United Kingdom and Canada are by far the largest recipients of U.S. direct investment. To some extent, the attractiveness of Europe, the United Kingdom, and Canada lies in the common heritage that they have with America. The proximity of Canada and the relatively high standard of living in all three are other factors.
The sovereignty of the people, the supremacy of law, the absolute guarantee of basic rights and liberties, the independence of the courts, the recognition of the individual -- these must of necessity be the fundamental requirements. Through what machinery they are provided, how they are to be obtained and assured, presents a problem the solution of which may differ widely among men.
Id. (quoting General MacArthur, from Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers, Political Reorientation of Japan, p. 92).
111. See Muravchik, supra note 103, at 8-9.
112. See generally supra note 37 (giving examples of human rights).
The total number of inmates (including unconvicted persons) at local, state, and federal institutions in America was approximately 1.37 million in 1993. See Bureau of Just. Stat., supra, at 534 tbl. 6.13, 548 tbl. 6.26. By contrast, the average daily population of penal institutions in Japan (including unconvicted persons) was 45,057 in 1993 and 45,573 in 1994. See Government of Japan, Summary of the White Paper on Crime 1995, at 68 tbl. III-1. Although the population of the United States is twice that of Japan's, America incarcerates 30 times as many people. See World Bank Atlas 1996, at 8-9 (1995) (giving 1994 population figures of 260,529,000 for the United States and 124,782,000 for Japan) [hereinafter World Bank Atlas]. The United States today has the world's highest reported imprisonment rate and has been at the top for some time. See Jon Jefferson, Doing Soft Time, ABA J., Apr. 1994, at 62. Between 1990 and 1991, incarceration rates per 100,000 population were:
[Table not reproduced.]
Id. at 63 (excluding nations from the former Soviet Union).
123. Cf. supra note 26 (listing the ties that bind OECD members).
124. As former Secretary of State Kissinger has stated,
Integrating Russia into the international system is a key task of the emerging international order. It has two components which must be kept in balance: influencing Russian attitudes and affecting Russian calculations. Generous economic assistance and technical advice is necessary to ease the pains of transition, and Russia should be made welcome in institutions which foster economic, cultural, and political cooperation -- such as the European Security Conference.
Henry Kissinger, Diplomacy 818 (1994).
131. For a discussion of environmental concerns, see infra notes 179-186 and accompanying text.
135. See infra notes 170-186 and accompanying text.
136. Cf. supra note 108 and accompanying text.
The "other [rich nations]" mentioned in Table 1 are Australia, Canada, Iceland, New Zealand, Norway, and Switzerland. They, together with the United States, Japan, and the nations of the EU, are classified by the International Monetary Fund as the twenty-three industrialized nations, and are what this Article refers to as the "West." Cf. World Economic Outlook, supra note 25, at 155-57. All of the 23 nations except for Greece and Iceland provide foreign aid to developing countries. See OECD Press Release, supra, at 9. Countries that provide foreign aid but that are not among the 23 industrialized nations are not included in the ODA figure. Such non-ODA foreign aid, however, is small by comparison with ODA foreign aid. See, e.g., OECF to Close Seoul Office as S. Korea Aid Role Grows, Daily Yomiuri, Aug. 17, 1996, at 12, available in LEXIS, News Library, Curnws File (reporting that in 1994 South Korea provided $ 150 million in foreign economic assistance).
The figures for world population and GNP, which were taken from the World Bank, apparently omit data from the Republic of China (i.e., Taiwan), a relatively rich and populous nation. See World Bank Atlas, supra note 122, at 8-9, 18-20. In 1995, Taiwan's population of 21.3 million was larger than Australia's, and its GNP, by exchange rate conversion, was $ 253.82 billion, ranking 18th in the world. See Sofia Wu, ROC Ranks 18th in Terms of GNP, Central News Agency, May 30, 1996, available in LEXIS, News Library, Curnws File; cf. World Bank Atlas, supra note 122, at 8 (giving a 1994 population figure of 17.8 million for Australia).
[SEE TABLE IN ORIGINAL]
See id. at 143.
Other important multilateral economic institutions include regional development banks such as the Asian Development Bank (ADB) and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD), which provide funding and technical assistance for development in their respective regions. As of December 31, 1995, the ADB had approved loans totaling $ 31,426,926,000, of which $ 17,530,101,000 were outstanding, to member countries in the Asian and Pacific region. See Asian Development Bank, Annual Report 1995, at 154 (1995) [hereinafter ADB]. As of December 31, 1995, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development provided ECU 7,853,000,000 (approximately $ 10.072 billion) in financing through loans, equity participation, and guarantees to countries and projects in central and eastern Europe. See European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, Annual Report 1995, at 15-17, 53 n.2 (1995) (using ECU 1.2826 = $ 1 exchange rate) [hereinafter EBRD]. The ECU, or European currency unit, is a composite currency and a unit of account used by the European Union. Similar to the SDR, its value is determined through a basket of EU member country currencies, which is composed of the individual currencies of the twelve member nations of the EU prior to the addition of Austria, Finland, and Sweden in 1995. The currency composition of the ECU will be frozen until the Euro, the single European currency, is introduced. See Europe in Figures 342-43 (4th ed. 1995). The ECU will be replaced by the Euro on January 1, 1999. See The Road to Economic and Monetary Union (visited Oct. 15, 1996) <http://europa.eu.int/en/agenda/emu/enscsc.html> (from website of the European Union).
Another important international financial institution is the Bank for International Settlements (BIS), whose objectives are "to promote the cooperation of central banks, to provide additional facilities for international financial operations and to act as trustee or agent for international financial settlements." Bank for International Settlements, 66th Annual Report, Apr. 1, 1995-Mar. 31, 1996, at 186. The members of the BIS are central banks, and its seventeen-member board of directors consists of the governors of the central banks of Belgium, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and the United States, and appointed directors from Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, the United Kingdom, and the United States. See id. at 186, 194. Until recently, there were 32 member central banks; in September 1996, nine central banks were admitted as new members (Brazil, China, Hong Kong, India, Mexico, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, and South Korea). See The BIS: Join the Club, Economist, Sept. 14, 1996, at 78.
Also, either GNP or GDP can be calculated by the use of foreign exchange rate conversions or by purchasing power parities (PPP). Exchange rate conversion emphasizes the international purchasing power of a currency (e.g., dollar or yen), whereas PPP emphasizes the domestic purchasing power of a currency (e.g., how much of that currency is needed to buy a basket of goods and services in domestic markets). In comparing national economies, whether in terms of GDP or GNP, Table 1 uses data based on foreign exchange rate conversions. In the foreign exchange rate method, actual market rates are used to compare national economies. The foreign exchange rate is what one currency is worth in terms of another. For instance, a visitor to Japan will need yen to buy goods and services, and would receive 1,000,000 if she went to a bank to exchange $ 10,000 for yen (at a foreign exchange rate of $ 1 = 100). The foreign exchange rate method makes possible the comparison of the U.S. economy (which is expressed in dollars) with the Japanese economy (which is expressed in yen). See World Bank Atlas, supra note 122, at 33. Thus, for example, the GDP of Japan in yen terms is converted into dollars by using market foreign exchange rates, and the Japanese GDP can be compared with that of the United States.
The foreign exchange rate conversion method disregards the domestic purchasing power of dollars and yen -- the concept of purchasing power parity. See Seita, supra note 79, at 483 n.44; see also McCurrencies: Where's the Beef?, Economist, Apr. 27, 1996, at 82 (providing a brief summary description of PPP). A given amount of yen may actually buy much less in Japan than what the market foreign exchange rate for dollars and yen would suggest. For instance, if the same basket of goods and services would cost $ 100 in America and 15,000 yen in Japan, the PPP method would yield a PPP exchange rate of $ 1 = 150. Thus, if the U.S. economy was $ 6 trillion and the Japanese economy, 450 trillion, a PPP exchange rate of $ 1 = 150 would make the U.S. economy twice that of Japan's ($ 6 trillion to $ 3 trillion), while a market foreign exchange rate of $ 1 = 100 would make the U.S. economy only one-third larger than Japan's ($ 6 trillion to $ 4.5 trillion). There is often a difference between market foreign exchange rates and the exchange rates implied by PPP. Both methods are used in international measurements. See World Bank Atlas, supra note 122, at 18-19, 33 (giving GNP by market foreign exchange rates and giving per capita GNP in PPP terms).
Nevertheless, this Article uses data based on foreign exchange rates because this method better measures the international importance of a nation's economy than the PPP method. The international purchasing power of a currency -- what it will buy in other countries -- is determined by foreign exchange markets, not by PPP. For example, whatever a yen might buy at home, what it can buys overseas determines the international importance of the yen. See Seita, supra note 79, at 482-84 & nn.43-45.
Also, there is some latitude in determining the financial strength of a nation's corporations. Table 1 uses a ranking based on corporate revenues. Other rankings are possible, such as that based on apparent market value. See The Business Week Global 1000, Bus. Wk., July 8, 1996, at 46, 49 (ranking the world's 1000 most valuable corporations by their market value on May 31, 1996, using May month-end exchange rates for foreign corporations). Under a market value ranking, the 1000 most valuable corporations would be distributed as follows:
[Table not reproduced.]
See id. at 49-80. Under this method, the United States has by far the single largest number of companies. It is a method, however, that probably has more variability than a ranking based on revenues. For example, while Japanese companies accounted for 48% of the $ 5.7 trillion market value of the global 1000 in 1988, they had dropped to just 23% of $ 11.2 trillion in 1996; U.S. companies went from 30% in 1988 to 46% in 1996. See William C. Symonds et al., The Globetrotters Take Over: Worldwide Champions Outpace Domestic Competitors, Bus. Wk., July 8, 1996, at 46. Regardless of the method, however, the dominance of the West is clear.
A policy of isolating Japan and treating it as a potential enemy would cause problems dwarfing current difficulties and lower Japan's incentive to make international contributions. See generally Seita, supra note 79 (discussing the frictions between the United States and Japan); Seita, supra note 25 (discussing the benefits of fully utilizing Japan's economic and human resources). It creates conflict where none presently exists and would be reminiscent of past colonial days when white, Christian nations dominated or subjugated most of the non-Christian world. Alternatively, it has been argued that a "mixed-race or nonwhite majority in the United States ... will emerge a few generations hence ... [and] ensure that a Euramerican bloc, far from being a 'white' alliance, would be the most racially diverse bloc on the planet." Lind, supra, at 5.
And yet, today, the Euramerica bloc is predominately white, and political power in the United States is exercised overwhelmingly by its white majority. Currently, there is one senator of Black heritage, two of Asian or Pacific Islander heritage, and none of Hispanic heritage. See Bureau of the Census, U.S. Dep't of Commerce, Statistical Abstract of the United States 1996, at 279 tbl. 442 (116th ed.) (as of January 3, 1995); Elizabeth A. Palmer, Women, Blacks Hold Steady, Dayton Daily News, Nov. 8, 1996, at 15A, available in LEXIS, News Library, Curnws File (reporting that the November 1996 elections produced no change in the number of minorities in the Senate). The two senators of Asian or Pacific Islander heritage are both from Hawaii. See Ed Henry, Seldom-Heard Akaka Takes the Floor to Assail the Treatment of Asians, Roll Call, Mar. 24, 1997, available in LEXIS, News Library, Curnws File (Senator Daniel Akaka and Senator Daniel Inouye). In addition, Senator Ben Campbell of Colorado states that he is partially of Northern Cheyenne Native American descent. See Steve Jackson, Athlete, Artist, Indian Chief: From Dark Horse to Nighthorse, It's Been One Hell of a Ride for Ben Campbell, Denver Westword, Sept. 12, 1996 (Features Section), available in LEXIS, News Library, Curnws File. Today, there are Asian-American governors in the states of Washington and Hawaii, but there are no Black governors. See Turnout Tuesday Hit a Record Low of 49 Percent of Eligible Voters, Agence France Presse, Nov. 6, 1996, available in LEXIS, News Library, Curnws File (Washington state elected the first Asian-American governor outside of Hawaii); Whitman Stands Out Among Her Peers: The Only Woman at Governors Meeting, Bergen Record, Aug. 1, 1995, at A9, available in LEXIS, News Library, Curnws File (Asian-American governor in Hawaii but no Black governor in any state); Louis Sahagun, American Album: Hawaii Governor Fights an Economic Undertow, L.A. Times, Dec. 21, 1995, at A5 (Governor Ben Cayetano of Hawaii, a Filipino American, eying a re-election bid in 1998). There is also only one nonwhite justice out of nine on the United States Supreme Court. Hawaii is a state where the nonwhite majority has arrived, a factor which no doubt has contributed towards its selection of nonwhites as well as whites to Hawaii's highest political and judicial offices. See Nancy Yoshihara, Benjamin Cayetano: On the Success of Asian American Politicians -- or Lack Thereof, L.A. Times, Sept. 17, 1995, at M3.
[Table not reproduced.]
See 1995 Statistical Abstract, supra note 78, at 11 tbl. 8. While immigration occurs primarily for economic reasons, this data suggests that democracy and human rights also positively influence immigration.
152. See, e.g., Dispute Settlement Understanding, supra note 146, art. 22.
More than one million people are dead to begin with. Included are not only the victims of Pol Pot's killing fields, where members of the former ruling elite were cut down, but also, hundreds of thousands of men, women, and children who died from disease and starvation directly resulting from the regime's misguided and draconian policies.
Out of 7.3 million Cambodians said to be alive on April 17, 1975, less than 6 million remained to greet the Vietnamese occupiers in the waning days of 1978. Although precise figures may never be known, present calculations suggest that in the Cambodian revolution a greater proportion of the population perished than in any other revolution during the twentieth century.
Karl D. Jackson, Introduction: The Khmer Rouge in Context, in Cambodia 1975-1978: Rendezvous with Death, supra, at 3 (footnote omitted); Chandler supra, at 1.
Acts of genocide cannot be tolerated by the community of nations. When people are being exterminated because of their ethnicity, race, or social class, outside powers have not only the right but the compulsion to intervene. Ideally they should do this in concert, whether through the United Nations or simply by joint agreement. It was shameful that the United States did not intervene in Rwanda in 1994 to stop the slaughter of half a million Tutsi by the rival Hutu tribe. France alone, to its credit, sent its troops to end the bloodshed. It was no less shameful that in the 1970s not a single Western nation moved against the Khmer Rouge that killed an estimated two million of their own people in their drive to "purify" Cambodia for communism. Finally, it was neighboring Vietnam that entered the killing fields to stop the genocide.
Ronald Steel, Temptations of a Superpower 130 (1995); see also New Republic, Aug. 7, 1995, at 7, 10-21 (various articles on Accomplices to Genocide: The Consequences of Appeasement in Bosnia). America is often blamed for a burden that it never accepted -- the job of policing the world. It might be better to have the United Nations policing the world in conflicts outside of major-power interests. The Security Council of the United Nations has the right to intervene, even in purely national conflicts, to prevent breaches of the peace or acts of aggression that involve massive human rights abuses (e.g., genocide). See U.N. Charter arts. 39-51. See generally Fernando R. Teson, Collective Humanitarian Intervention, 17 Mich. J. Int'l L. 323, 336-42, 369-71 (1996) (discussing Security Council authorized U.N. military intervention in countries to prevent massive human rights abuses). There are still conflicts - particularly in Africa -- that can potentially kill, or have killed, tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of human beings. See, e.g., Andrew Purvis, A Contagion of Genocide: The Civil Wars of Rwanda and Burundi Spread to Eastern Zaire, in a Bloody Conflict the World Ignores, Time, July 8, 1996, at 38.
175. See, e.g., sources cited supra note 174.
177. See, e.g., Odzer, supra note 176 (describing the Thai sex industry).
178. See, e.g., sources cites supra note 174.
182. See Don Hinrichsen, Coasts in Crisis, Iss. Sci. & Tech., Summer 1996, at 39.
The first instrument, the Rio Declaration on the Environment and Development, deals with the issues of sustainable economic development and achieving an equitable balance between the sometimes conflicting developmental and environmental needs of current and future generations and of different nations. See Rio Declaration on the Environment and Development, U.N. Conference on Environment and Development, 47th Sess., Annex 1, U.N. Doc. A/CONF.151/26, vol. 1, at 8 (1992), available in 31 I.L.M. 874. The massive text of Agenda 21, the second instrument, is contained in three U.N. volumes. See Agenda 21, U.N. Conference on Environment and Development, 47th Sess., Annex 2, U.N. Doc. A/CONF.151/26, vol. 1, at 14 et seq. [hereinafter Agenda 21]. Agenda 21 addresses numerous environmental issues, with the following major themes: the quality of life on earth, the efficient use of the earth's natural resources, the protection of the earth's global commons (the atmosphere and oceans), the management of human settlements, chemicals and waste, and sustainable economic growth. See Agenda 21: The Earth Summit Strategy to Save Our Planet, supra, at 8-19. See generally Agenda 21, supra; Agenda 21 & the UNCED Proceedings, vols. 1-6 (Nicholas A. Robinson ed., 1992 & 1993). The third instrument covers the treatment of forests. See Non-Legally Binding Authoritative Statement of Principles for a Global Consensus on the Management, Conservation and Sustainable Development of All Types of Forests, U.N. Conference on Environment and Development, 47th Sess., Annex 3, U.N. Doc. A/CONF.151/26, vol. 3 at 111 (1992), available in 31 I.L.M. 881.
The issue of sustainable development is one that has captured the attention of many commentators. See, e.g., Sustainable Development and International Law (Winfried Land ed., 1995); A Survey of Ecological Economics (Rajaram Krishnan et al. eds., 1995); Greening International Law (Philippe Sands ed., 1994); Investing in Natural Capital: The Ecological Economics Approach to Sustainability (AnnMari Jansson et al. eds., 1994); Toward Sustainable Development: Concepts, Methods, and Policy (Jeroen C. van den Bergh & Jan van der Straaten eds., 1994).
187. William Shakespeare, The Tempest act IV, sc. I, l. 156.
Pace Law School
Institute of International Commercial Law - Last updated October 5, 2005