2005/06/07

貧困削減か、経済成長か

ニューヨーク国連フォーラムの皆様、

UNICEFコンサルタント、兼、ニューヨーク国連フォーラム幹事の仲居宏太郎です。今回は、UNICEFのコンサルタントというよりは、国際人権法をつい最近まで勉強していた者として投稿させていただきたいと思います。

久木田さん、興味深いスティグリッツ教授の講演内容とコメント、ありがとうございます。貧困削減か、経済成長か? どちらも人間の発展にとって大切なので、たいへんに難しい問題であると思います。「援助は増やすべきだという議論をしました。援助は万能薬ではないが、援助がなければMDGsは達成できない。正しいフォーカスをすると同時に援助の量をもっと増やすべきだ。貿易上の特権を貧しい国に与えるべきだ。知的所有権の問題を見直すべきだ。武器の取引をやめるべだ。最後に、先進国は熱帯雨林の保持にお金を払うべきだ...」 私もスティグリッツ教授の意見に賛成です。
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

私自身の立場からの結論から申し上げたいと思います。

私の意見としましては、仮に経済成長に重点を置くとしても、社会権規約(ICESCR)や児童の権利条約(CRC)のような国連の人権条約の立場から、見逃せない視点があるとおもいます。国際金融機関が貧困削減、または、経済的、社会的権利の保障を軽視する(例えば、生活水準・貧富の差、少数民族の経済的、社会的権利などの軽視、経済成長重視のための過度のPrivatisation、地域産業、貧困層を無視した度を越した貿易自由化の促進など)のは、上記の国連人権条約の義務と矛盾しているかのように思われます。

社会権規約や児童の権利条約は、締約国に国際的な援助及び協力を通じて、発展途上国をはじめとする国々の人々の経済的、社会的権利を実現に近づけるための努力をする義務を定めています(ICESCR 第2条 ・General Comment on the Implementation of the ICESCR No.3、CRC 第4条「国際的協力の枠内で...措置を講ずる」)。それ故、これらの条約の締約国であり、かつ、国際金融機関の意思決定に関与する国家はその意思決定に際して、これらの条約の義務に違反しないように相当な注意を払う義務があると考えられます。(ちなみに、日本、ドイツ、フランス、UK等は両方の条約の締約国です。残念な話ですが、アメリカはどちらの条約の締約国でもありません。)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

以下、特に社会権規約と国際金融機関に関して、より詳しい説明を加えたいと思います。

社会権規約とは?
社会権規約(The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights -ICESCR) は、1966年に国連総会で採択され、1976年に発効した国連の条約です。2005年4月27日の時点で151カ国がこの条約の締約国です。この社会権規約は、世界人権宣言よりもより包括的な経済的、社会的、文化的権利を含んでいます。
例えば...
社会保障についての権利
家族、母親、児童の保護
生活水準についての権利
教育についての権利(無償義務教育など含む)
健康を享受する権利
人種、性、宗教、政治的意見等に基づく差別をせずに、上記の権利をはじめとする権利を各々の締約国は、必要な措置を講ずることにより漸進的に人々に対して実現していく義務を負っています。また、締約国は、国際的な援助及び協力を通じて行動をとる義務を負っていることもたいへん重要なポイントです。
(参照: http://www.ohchr.org/english/law/cescr.htm)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

それでは、国際人権法の立場から、なぜ、国際金融機関は社会権規約を念頭において行動すべきなのか? 私なりの法的な正当性について、1.国連憲章と世界人権宣言、2.社会権規約第2条のそれぞれを基礎にした議論をしたいと思います。(私が以前に書いたTerm Paperからの引用に若干の変更を加えたものなので英語になってしまいますが、どうか御容赦ください。)

1. "UN Charter Argument"

Today, almost all states are party to the UN Charter. Human rights provisions of the Charter as well as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) are binding on them, including members of International Financial Institutions.

Someone might disagree with this argument, claiming that the UN Charter does not assume any binding normative obligation to respect human rights of individuals. The UDHR is a mere declaration, not a treaty, thus not legally binding. Moreover, UN human rights covenants, such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination against Women, and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), do not create legal obligations unless agreed otherwise.

However, these arguments are misconceived. By entering into an international pact with other states, a Party may be presumed to have agreed that the matters covered are no longer exclusively within its concerns.
According to the UN Charter, membership in the body requires that member cooperate with the UN organization to promote, as Article 55 and 56 of the UN Charter provide, “universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion.” While those provisions are not specific and very general, they are realized and particularized in the UDHR, so that all UN member states are legally obligated to comply with the provisions in the UDHR. The UDHR covers not all, but several rights in the ICESCR. Hence, all member states should observe the obligations as outlined in the ICESCR.
In addition, the Committee expressed its wishes “to emphasize that in accordance with Article 55 and 56 of the UN Charter, with well-established principles of international law, and with the provisions of the Covenant itself, international cooperation for development and thus for the realization of economic, social and cultural rights is an obligation of all states.”

Thus, under this argument, all Members of International Financial Institutions or International Financial Institutions themselves should take into consideration of these rights.


2. "Arguments based on ICESCR Article 2"

The ICESCR is not binding on International Financial Institutions themselves. However, at least, States Parties to the ICESCR must respect the rights in the Covenant when they make decisions in International Financial Institutions.

As Article 2(1) of the ICESCR provides, each State Party is to take steps individually and through international assistance and co-operation, to the maximum of its available resources, to realize the rights recognized in the Covenant by all appropriate means. The Committee notes that the phrase “to the maximum of its available resources” was intended by the drafters of the Covenant to refer to both the resources existing within a state and those available from the international community through international cooperation and assistance. Moreover, the Committee maintains that any "deliberately retrogressive measures" would require the most careful consideration and would need to be fully justified by reference to the totality of the rights provided for in the Covenant and in the context of the full use of the maximum available resources. Economic growth policies without paying attention to the rights of every single person under the Covenant in this regard are incompatible with this General Comment or the intention of the drafters.

Article 26 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties provides that once a state becomes a Party to a treaty, it is bound by the treaty and must perform obligations under it in good faith. In this regard, the International Law Commission (ILC) said in its commentary of 1966 that there is much authority in the jurisprudence of international tribunals for the proposition that in the present context, the principle of good faith is a legal principle which forms an integral part of the rule 'pacta sunt servanda' (promises should be observed). The Permanent Court of International Justice insisted that obligations [under a treaty] not be evaded by a merely literal application of the clauses.
This argument made by the ILC could mean that States Parties to the ICESCR must respect the rights in the Covenant when they make decisions in International Financial Institutions, so that their decision makes sense to the realization of the rights recognized in the ICESCR. Since voting for a certain decision is weighted in accordance with the size of each country’s economy and its contribution to the capital of funds, this interpretation has meaningful influence on countries with strong finance which are States Parties to the ICESCR, at the same time, to International Financial Institutions, such as Japan, Germany, France and the UK.....
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

今回は、主に国連社会権規約の立場からの議論でしたが、それぞれの国際金融機関の設立条約をはじめとする、国際金融機関の文書も充分に分析する必要があると思います。

いかがでしたでしょうか? もし、皆様に新しい視点を提供することができたなら、たいへんに幸いです。
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

以下、参考文献です。

Bennett, A. LeRoy and James K. Oliver. “International Organizations:
Principles and Issues, 7th edition”. Pearson Education, Inc., 2002.

Bayefsky, Anne F. “The UN Human Rights Treaty System: Universality at the Crossroads”. Transnational Publishers, 2001.

Damrosch, Lori F., Louis Henkin, Oscar Schachter and Hans Smit “International Law: Cases and Materials, 4th edition”. West Group Publishing, Co., 2001.

Malanczuk, Peter. “Akehurst’s Modern Introduction to International Law, 7th revised edition”. Routledge, 1997.

Alston, Philip. “UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights”.
In The United Nations and Human Rights: A Critical Appraisal. Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 473-508, 1992.

Stiglitz, Joseph E. “Globalization and its Discontents”. W. W. Norton & Company, Inc., 2002.

Lucas, Michael. “The International Monetary Fund’s Conditionality and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights: An Attempt to Define the Relation”. Revue Belge de Droit International, 104-135, 1992.

Buergenthal, Thomas, Dinah Shelton and David Stewart. “International Human Rights, 3rd edition”. West Group, 2002.

Steiner and Philip Alston. “Globalization, Development and Human Rights”.
In International Human Rights in Context: Law, Politics, Morals, 2nd edition, 2000.

Henkin, Louis. “Age of Rights”., 1990.

3 Comments:

At 4:40 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

how can i unblock hotmail
[url=http://www.viddler.com/explore/hotmail_sign_in]hotmail
[/url] hotmail email address

 
At 10:06 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Understandably your article helped me very much in my college assignment. Hats high to you send, choice look progressive in behalf of more cognate articles soon as its sole of my pick issue to read.

 
At 2:47 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sorry for my bad english. Thank you so much for your good post. Your post helped me in my college assignment, If you can provide me more details please email me.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home


Click Here