Search Results

The lack of any explicit linkages of human rights and trade rules in WTO law contrasts with the integrated regulation of the common market and human rights in many national constitutions as well as in the 2004 EU Treaty Constitution. Most national constitutions protect freedom of trade inside national frontiers without authorizing sub-national authorities to introduce internal, discriminatory market restrictions vis-à-vis domestic citizens. This chapter aims to outline some of the issues related to the obligations of States and rights/obligations of private actors in the context of trade from the perspective of human rights law. It first examines what the treaties and their monitoring bodies say about the obligations of States parties to implement the rights contained in the treaties, as well as the obligations, both direct and indirect, of non-State actors.

The overseas Nestlé infant formula case has been well studied. According to conventional wisdom the World Health Organization (WHO) and UNICEF ‘code of conduct’, led by nongovernmental organizations and medical science, brought to heel a multinational corporation. At first glance the US infant formula case seemed to defy this book's proposed model. This chapter examines this case precisely for that reason, to test the propositions in a ‘least likely’ case. Developments in the USA reveal a picture marked by special interests and more compatible with this book's propositions. A revised interpretation is that Nestlé only agreed to abide by the WHO/UNICEF marketing code in 1984, more than a year after the two dominant US producers began a strategy to ban advertising as a barrier to Nestlé's growing entry into the US infant formula market. The US firms lobbied against the broader international WHO/UNICEF code at the same time as they opposed advertising in the USA. Advertising restrictions limit the sale or distribution of products, post-manufacturing, hence they are a product market-access restriction. Therefore, the US industry restrictions are categorized as a heterogeneous case of product market-access restrictions.

Game operators systematically attempt to attract customers and make them spend more money. The availability of gambling in terms of the ease of customers’ access to games influences both the amount of gambling and the problems arising from it. Regulations on game features, controlling access to funds and other inducements, risk awareness tools, exclusion policies, staff training, limit-setting, and marketing restrictions have been proposed as methods to counteract the effect of ready availability. In policy terms, efforts to regulate availability are usually combined with rules on game features and situational elements: when new opportunities to participate are created, game designs and situational characteristics also change, and in some cases policy changes aimed at reducing gambling activity are implemented to lower the risks for those who play.

Article 49 EC Within the framework of the provisions set out below, restrictions on freedom to provide services within the Union shall be prohibited in respect of nationals of Member States who are established in a Member State other than that of the person for whom the services are intended.

In addition to the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP), ICANN has established eight other consensus policies which apply to the gTLD spaces under its purview. Consensus policies are the product of policy development processes at the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) in its function to develop and recommend to the ICANN Board substantive policies relating to generic top-level domains. They are intended to produce a consensus of Internet stakeholders and relate to issues including interoperability, security and stability of the Internet or the registry database for a TLD, the provision of registry services or operations, or the resolution of domain name disputes. Only policies which are developed through the Policy Development Process and receive appropriate approval by the GNSO Council and ICANN board may be considered consensus policies. Consensus policies are incorporated into registry contracts and in the Registrar Accreditation Agreement, ensuring that GNSO recommendations are implemented. These policies apply to different groups of individuals and/or entities and are suited to different purposes, which will be briefly outlined in the sections below.

Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.