Trade justice
Supporters of free trade, typically those in economics, business, lobbying, and the mainstream press, trust in the "invisible hand" of the market to provide on its own for the needs of societies around the world.
[1][2] Fundamental to their beliefs is the value of individual liberty, believed to be the least infringed upon when the market is used to replace most of the centralized government's responsibilities of allocating resources.
Today, the trade justice movement concentrates more on the abolition of agricultural subsidies and dumping, and to a much lesser extent on offsetting penalties on "unfair" goods.
The term trade justice has been widely adopted internationally by campaign groups, for example by the over 100 national platforms of the Global Call to Action Against Poverty where it is one of the four main demands.
Campaigners also lobby their own governments with the intention of creating pressure on them to prioritise poverty reduction when making international trade rules.
[3] They can agree that free trade policies have contributed to the rising debt of developing countries, the widening wealth gaps, economic instability, environmental degradation, human rights abuses, and poverty.
[3] Academics such as Thomas Alured Faunce argue that the insertion of a constructive ambiguity such as valuing innovation in bilateral trade agreements (and then according normative and ongoing lobbying power to such textual negotiating truces by formally linking them with non-violation nullification of benefits provisions) may undermine democratic sovereignty with regard to construction of domestic policy, particularly in areas such as the environment and public health.
For example, they argue that the European Union's agricultural export subsidies encourage overproduction of goods such as tomatoes or sugar, which are then sold cheaply or 'dumped' in poor countries.
As the world looks to transition towards a more environmentally friendly economy, global demand for lithium-ion batteries – a key component in electric vehicles – is expected to reach 2.2 million tonnes by 2030.
Moreover, power imbalances within the WTO, the United Nations and other international governing bodies have allowed developed countries to control environmental trade regulations.
This has led to disagreements regarding whether environmentalism protects the global South and its resources or is an imperialist tool to stunt the economic and industrial growth of developing nations.
This perspective has been enhanced by controversies of the Summers memo and many instances of improper waste disposal in the Global South based on weak political infrastructures that allow large organizations to avoid strict regulation.
[18] Ultimately, the debate continues as environmentalists prioritize environmental protection over economic growth and governing bodies and organizations stall to implement binding policy.
The authors assert that multilateral forums found in the UN are perceived as places where progressive agendas go to die as they are hindered by opposition or disinterest from powerful states who prioritize their national interests over the common good.
A solution is to strengthen the language surrounding environmental regulations in treaties to match those found in the investment rights sections of trade deals.
