title: The international law gaze: protection of labour rights in free trade agreements: mission impossible?

authors: Alvarez-Jimenez, Alberto

abstract: The inclusion of the protection of labour rights in free trade agreements (FTA) and the use of inter-State dispute settlement have been regarded as a paramount expression of the regard of the international trade regime for workers’ rights. The inclusion also responds to a concern: low enforcement of labour legislation in some countries means lower costs for their exporters, which makes them more competitive in international markets. These are the reasons behind the inclusion of provisions aimed at improving such enforcement in FTAs. New Zealand is or will be a party to some of them, such as the New Zealand – Korea Free Trade Agreement and the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP). This is why the panel report adjudicating the first international dispute in this realm, between the United States and Guatemala, under the Dominican Republic – Central America – United States Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA-DR) is of interest to us. (Final Report of the Panel, “In the Matter of Guatemala – Issues Related to the Obligation Under Article 16.2.1(a) of the Dominican Republic – Central America – United States Free Trade Agreement”, 14 June 2017. (U.S v Guatemala).

Is the inclusion of trade & labour provisions (T&LP) a positive development for workers? Yes. Is it enough for them? U.S v Guatemala illustrates that it is not. The text of the CAFTA-DR T&LP and similar provisions in other FTAs might make it difficult to find a violation whose remedy is a better enforcement of the legislation by the exporting country. Is this surprising? Certainly not. There is a political and economic power imbalance between exporters and labour unions in many parts of the world that favours the former in trade negotiations. The text of T&LPs reflect this asymmetry. There is also the issue of sovereignty: how much States enforce their legislation is a matter for them to decide. T&LPs limit this freedom of action, but the limitation is not significant as U.S V Guatemala illustrates. Guatemala prevailed in the dispute at the end: no violation of CAFTA-DR was proven. (at [594]).

text: The international law gaze: protection of labour rights in free trade agreements: mission impossible? The inclusion of the protection of labour rights in free trade agreements (FTA) and the use of inter-State dispute settlement have been regarded as a paramount expression of the regard of the international trade regime for workers’ rights. The inclusion also responds to a concern: low enforcement of labour legislation in some countries means lower costs for their exporters, which makes them more competitive in international markets. These are the reasons behind the inclusion of provisions aimed at improving such enforcement in FTAs. New Zealand is or will be a party to some of them, such as the New Zealand – Korea Free Trade Agreement and the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP). This is why the panel report adjudicating the first international dispute in this realm, between the United States and Guatemala, under the Dominican Republic – Central America – United States Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA-DR) is of interest to us. (Final Report of the Panel, “In the Matter of Guatemala – Issues Related to the Obligation Under Article 16.2.1(a) of the Dominican Republic – Central America – United States Free Trade Agreement”, 14 June 2017. (U.S v Guatemala).

Is the inclusion of trade & labour provisions (T&LP) a positive development for workers? Yes. Is it enough for them? U.S v Guatemala illustrates that it is not. The text of the CAFTA-DR T&LP and similar provisions in other FTAs might make it difficult to find a violation whose remedy is a better enforcement of the legislation by the exporting country. Is this surprising? Certainly not. There is a political and economic power imbalance between exporters and labour unions in many parts of the world that favours the former in trade negotiations. The text of T&LPs reflect this asymmetry. There is also the issue of sovereignty: how much States enforce their legislation is a matter for them to decide. T&LPs limit this freedom of action, but the limitation is not significant as U.S V Guatemala illustrates. Guatemala prevailed in the dispute at the end: no violation of CAFTA-DR was proven. (at [594]).

year: 2018

title: Talking the language to death: Observing Hawaiian language classes

authors: Johnson, Diane

subjects: communicative language teaching

abstract: In the late 19th century, when the United States began its illegal occupation of the Hawaiian Kingdom, the teaching of languages was dominated by an approach—grammar translation—that has been associated with élitism and cultural dominance. Since then, there have been major developments in language teaching. Among these has been the development of “communicative language teaching” (CLT), an approach intended to encourage learners to use the target language for genuine communication in culturally appropriate contexts. However, analysis of a sample of Hawaiian language lessons taught in the second decade of the 20th century revealed little evidence of any of these. Instead, an approach reminiscent of aspects of grammar translation was very much in evidence, with teacher talk, often in English, occupying over half of the lesson in each case, and with considerable evidence of confusion, frustration and minimal participation on the part of many of the students. What this suggests is the need for a comprehensive review of all those factors that have an impact on the teaching and learning of Hawaiian, including, in particular, curriculum design and teacher training. It is no longer possible to accept that while language teachers talk, often in the language/s of colonisers, language death continues to stalk those indigenous languages that have so far failed to succumb.

text: Talking the language to death: Observing Hawaiian language classes In the late 19th century, when the United States began its illegal occupation of the Hawaiian Kingdom, the teaching of languages was dominated by an approach—grammar translation—that has been associated with élitism and cultural dominance. Since then, there have been major developments in language teaching. Among these has been the development of “communicative language teaching” (CLT), an approach intended to encourage learners to use the target language for genuine communication in culturally appropriate contexts. However, analysis of a sample of Hawaiian language lessons taught in the second decade of the 20th century revealed little evidence of any of these. Instead, an approach reminiscent of aspects of grammar translation was very much in evidence, with teacher talk, often in English, occupying over half of the lesson in each case, and with considerable evidence of confusion, frustration and minimal participation on the part of many of the students. What this suggests is the need for a comprehensive review of all those factors that have an impact on the teaching and learning of Hawaiian, including, in particular, curriculum design and teacher training. It is no longer possible to accept that while language teachers talk, often in the language/s of colonisers, language death continues to stalk those indigenous languages that have so far failed to succumb.

year: 2017

title: Mentoring and teaching in academic settings:  Professional and cultural identities from one Pākehā’s perspective

authors: Middleton, Sue

subjects: biculturalism

abstract: When invited to respond to the paper on “Mentoring Māori in a Pākehā framework” by Hook, Waaka and Raumati (2007), I hesitated. Mentoring was not a term I had previously used in my professional thinking or academic writing: unlike Barbara Grant (Ratima & Grant, 2007), I had not been involved in formal mentoring programmes or immersed myself in the mentoring literature. As a Pākehā, I was not qualified to evaluate the authors’ definition of a Māori framework. At first glance, the target paper’s focus seemed to be on mentoring in commercial, rather than academic workplaces. My experience had been as a teacher, the last 30 years having been in a university School of Education. I was persuaded to undertake this commentary on the grounds that academic work involves nurturing, advising and supporting younger or less experienced colleagues, as well as students – tasks identified as mentoring in the Hook et al. paper. The following comments are informed by my everyday practices as teacher, thesis supervisor and researcher, and by my former management roles as an assistant dean of graduate studies and head of department. My angle of vision and conceptual resources are those of a (Pākehā and feminist) sociologist of education.

text: Mentoring and teaching in academic settings:  Professional and cultural identities from one Pākehā’s perspective When invited to respond to the paper on “Mentoring Māori in a Pākehā framework” by Hook, Waaka and Raumati (2007), I hesitated. Mentoring was not a term I had previously used in my professional thinking or academic writing: unlike Barbara Grant (Ratima & Grant, 2007), I had not been involved in formal mentoring programmes or immersed myself in the mentoring literature. As a Pākehā, I was not qualified to evaluate the authors’ definition of a Māori framework. At first glance, the target paper’s focus seemed to be on mentoring in commercial, rather than academic workplaces. My experience had been as a teacher, the last 30 years having been in a university School of Education. I was persuaded to undertake this commentary on the grounds that academic work involves nurturing, advising and supporting younger or less experienced colleagues, as well as students – tasks identified as mentoring in the Hook et al. paper. The following comments are informed by my everyday practices as teacher, thesis supervisor and researcher, and by my former management roles as an assistant dean of graduate studies and head of department. My angle of vision and conceptual resources are those of a (Pākehā and feminist) sociologist of education.

year: 2007-12