The EU-China CAI and the Uyghur Challenge in the Context of China's Domestic Law Barriers to International Labor and Human Rights Standards

Authors

Ronald C. Brown, University of Hawaii Law SchoolFollow

Abstract

While China engages in world commerce as a global player and is signatory to international labor and human rights standards, at the same time it uses treaty reservations and its own domestic laws to limit and undermine the full application of those standards. Concern from Western governments and global human rights groups regarding China’s longstanding treatment of the Uyghur people has resulted in a freeze in negotiations for the EU-China Comprehensive Investment Agreement (CAI). This was also a result of China’s failure to ratify or implement relevant United Nations (U.N.) covenants and International Labour Organization (ILO) conventions and placing reservations or domestic legal barriers on them, as well as foreign accusations of forced labor. Now that China has recently ratified ILO Convention Nos. 29 and 105 prohibiting forced labor, what will be the effect on the currently frozen negotiations of the EU-China CAI, now at an impasse due to issues relating to China’s alleged discrimination and forced labor treatment of Uyghurs in Xinjiang, China? In unbundling the legalities of this stalled draft agreement, this paper progressively examines the global obligations of the U.N. covenants and ILO conventions, as well as relevant provisions in the draft CAI, in the context of the Chinese approach to international labor and human rights standards, including the EU’s emerging due diligence laws and the 2021 Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act in the U.S.

Following Part I, Part II of this paper outlines the key international labor and human rights obligations of which China is a signatory, such as the Declaration of Human Rights, U.N. treaties, ILO labor standards, free trade agreements, and national legislation. Part III addresses the legal consequences of alleged non-compliance as it may affect the Uyghurs; and Part IV provides analysis and presents the dichotomy between international standards and Chinese practices. Part V offers a conclusion suggesting the use of national legislation and more effective remedies in international standards.