How World Trade Organization (WTO) rules relate to human rights norms, and whether one takes precedence over the other in the event of conflict remains a subject of contention. This article aims to demonstrate why human rights have primacy over WTO rules. Three lines of argument are advanced here. First, trade is merely a means to advance socioeconomic ends (most of which are recognized as human rights). Should conflict arise between the two, it remains to reason that the end must trump the means. Second, while WTO rules are ordinary treaty rules of reciprocal nature, at least certain human rights norms have peremptory status. Moreover, the U.N. Charter is the foundation for modern human rights law. Thus, the overriding character of the U.N. Charter, it is argued here, accords human rights a superior value compared to ordinary treaty rules. Finally, their peremptory status notwithstanding, human rights are distinct in that they are not statutory norms; they are inherent, inalienable, and universal entitlements of individuals, not of states. On the contrary, human rights are primarily meant to constrain the power of the state (including its contractual power) vis-d-vis the individual. Therefore, human rights transcend the reciprocal interests of trading nations.
↧