Global Policy: Employment and Human Rights
| DOI | 10.1177/019251219001100305 |
| Date | 01 July 1990 |
| Published date | 01 July 1990 |
| Author | Richard L. Siegel |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
349
Global
Policy:
Employment
and
Human
Rights
RICHARD
L.
SIEGEL
ABSTRACT.
It
is
advantageous
to
combine
international
regime
and
global
policy
approaches
to
employment.
Sources
of
the
relative
ineffectiveness
of
regional
and
global
employment
policy
are
found
primarily
in
conflicting
missions
of
intergovernmental
organizations,
ideological
conflicts
and
the
inadequate
resources
and
powers
of
such
organizations.
Employment
suffers
from
the
existence
of
higher
economic
and
human
rights
priorities
in
virtually
all
international
policy
arenas.
Although
evolutionary
progress
can
be
expected
in
the
present
regime
structure,
fundamental
change
will
require
truly
global
policies
in
a
more
highly
developed
regime
that
integrates
economic
and
human
rights
principles
and
goals.
Given
the
severe
social
costs
of
unemployment
and
underemployment
throughout
much
of
the
world,
effective
international
responses
might
well
have
been
expected
long
before
the
1980s.
Thus
employment
would
seem
a
likely
addition
to
such
&dquo;global
policy&dquo;
problems
as
nuclear
proliferation,
economic
development,
human
rights,
ocean
resources,
pollution,
and
telecommunications
which
are
currently
being
addressed
by
international
institutions
(Soroos,
19$6).
Yet
the
global
response
has,
thus
far,
been
surprisingly
limited.
The
problem
of
wisespread
unemployment
meets
virtually
all
the
criteria
that
Soroos,
in his
introductory
essay,
suggests
may
trigger
international
treatment
of
a
major
problem
and
at
least
some
of
his
criteria
for
considerations
of
the
problem
as
&dquo;global&dquo;
(Soroos,
1986:
64-72).
Unemployment
may
involve
relationships
between
two
or
more
countries
and
the
problem
may
spill
over
national
boundaries.
It
is
also
manifest
in
the
international
community
as
a
whole,
at
least
of
each
principal
state
or
region,
and
is
a
domestic
problem
that
is
&dquo;common
to
many,
if
not
all,
countries&dquo;
(Soroos,
1986:
20).
It
is
doubtful,
however,
whether
unemployment
and
underemployment
in
foreign
countries
has
been
a
&dquo;special
interest&dquo;
of
the
international
community,
as
has
been
the
case
with
such
serious
human
rights
violations
as
apartheid
in
South
Africa.
The
strongest
cases
for
such
recognition
can
be
made
for
the
periods
from
about
1944-48,
and
for
the
second
half of
the
1970s.
The
&dquo;Declaration
of
Philadelphia,&dquo;
adopted
by
the
1944
International
Labour
Conference,
was
a
strong
call
for
&dquo;effective
international
and
national
action&dquo;
on
behalf
of
full
employment
in
the
context
of
the
memory
of
the
Great
Depression
and
the
strong
sense
of
international
solidarity
resulting
from
military
victory
(International
Labour
Organization,
1944:
623).
This
era
culminated
in
the
inclusion
of
the
right
to
work
(employment)
in
the
1948
To continue reading
Request your trial