In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

106 Private Global Enterprises, Intern ational Trade, and Finance Elizabeth Evatt, Australia When I was a member of the CEDAW Committee in the mid-1980s, my colleagues and I spent much energy on the struggle between competing ideologies. Members from the Soviet Union and the Eastern bloc countries, which dominated the Committee, insisted that women could achieve equality only under their centrally controlled socialist economies. Members from Western countries did not agree. This led to many hotly contested debates. Now, however, that struggle between competing ideologies is over. It is no longer a question of which national economic system delivers the best outcomes. The new issue, of which we were hardly aware in those early days, is that of the impact of globalization on the implementation of the CEDAW Convention. The ability of some States, particularly developing countries, to improve the situation of women has been seriously affected by the expansion of private global enterprises with the strength and resources to challenge the power of governments and by the power and policies of international trade and finance organizations. These forces have led the CEDAW Committee to call for codes of ethics for multinationals and for corporate responsibility toward women workers (CEDAW 2002, 70, para. 429 [g]). The Committee has also confronted international organizations with questions about how their economic policies affect women. These are the themes considered in this essay. The Impact of Private Global Enterprises on Women’s Rights Under the CEDAW Convention, States must not only prohibit discrimination by public acts, policies, and laws, but also must prevent discrimination by private perpetrators in employment, education, delivery of health services, and the provision of credits and loans. Some States have found it difficult to fulfill these obligations under the Convention because of the operations of powerful private global enterprises, or “multinationals.” These enterprises have extensive resources that enable them to operate in a number of countries and to move their investments and operations from country to country to seek advantages such as tax concessions, cheap private global enterprises, international trade, and finance l 107 labor, and open markets. Their operations can have a huge effect on the economies of developing countries and on their people (Habbard 2001). Although nominally subject to the laws and regulations of the countries in which they operate, their financial power may be so great that they are effectively beyond the control of a single developing country. These factors can often cause particular disadvantages to women. Some developing countries have established export processing zones (EPZs or maquiladoras) in order to attract foreign investment by providing tariff concessions and cheap labor. Recent studies have shown that the areas set aside as EPZs in developing countries are dominated by foreign companies (IWRAW Asia Pacific 2004). The majority of the labor force in these zones are usually women. Although the EPZs provide opportunities for employment that might not otherwise be available, this has to be set against the apparent unwillingness or inability of the home State to enforce its antidiscrimination laws and other labor standards on the enterprise. The result can be increased discrimination against women, combined with poor working conditions and low remuneration. In many cases, women are subject to pregnancy tests. They are also exposed to hazardous chemicals and other risks. The resort by multinationals to casual employment, outworking, and homeworking is another factor that leaves many women without the protection of labor standards (UNDAW 2001, paras. 23–42). The CEDAW Committee has condemned the practice of compulsory pregnancy tests and the violence and sexual harassment commonly experienced by women in the EPZs and maquiladoras. It has been critical of those States that have permitted women’s rights, and in particular their rights to safety and health, to be violated in these zones. The Committee considers that States must take responsibility for combating discrimination in their jurisdiction, despite the difficulties in ensuring that global enterprises meet the necessary standards. It has recommended that States strictly enforce labor legislation and health and industrial safety regulations in maquila industries to protect the women working there or has asked for laws to be amended. States where these issues have arisen include the Dominican Republic (CEDAW 2004a, 146, 147, paras. 306; 307), El Salvador (CEDAW 2003, 44, paras. 269; 270), Guatemala (CEDAW 2002, 174, paras. 186–87), Mauritius (CEDAW 1995, 49, 52, paras. 191; 216), and Nicaragua (CEDAW 2001, 76, paras. 314–15). In 2002 Human Rights Watch drew the Committee’s attention to the pregnancy-based sex discrimination endured...

Share