Search Results

Market access for agricultural products is still largely distorted in the international trade. The World Trade Organization (WTO) has not been able to lead to significant changes which means that market access stays highly unfavorable to developing countries. Legal literature has not discussed much those matters despite their impacts on multilateral negotiations and developing countries' economies. Thus, this article intends to analyse the impact of legal tools supposed to rebalance market access for agricultural products in WTO law. It firstly analyses the effect of the Special and Differential Treatment (SDT) on the market access for agricultural products to conclude that it does not lead to a significant reduction of the distortions affecting agricultural products trade. Regarding the Agriculture Agreement, it establishes that the latter offers a framework that gives an important room of manoeuver to developed countries thus contributing to a highly-unbalanced market access. Secondly, this article compares tools offered to developing countries to their diversity. It concludes that that those tools fail to answer the needs of the vast majority of developing countries because they do not take into account the huge differences between the economies and agricultural sectorsof those states. It also established that less competitive agricultural sectorswill suffer from an opening of markets especially if they cannot benefit from efficient tools rebalancing market access. Lastly, it argues that more leeway must be given to weaker developing countries so they can protect their agriculture from, often subsidized, more competitive products of developed countries and some advanced developing countries. Without those tools, most fragile countries amongst developing countries might be tempted to use solutions running parallel to the WTO framework.

Labour and the Gérin-Lajoie doctrine share an intimate story. Ratification of conventions adopted by the International Labour Organization (ILO) has been instrumental in the recognition of the exclusive power of Provinces to implement treaties concluded by Canada in provincial jurisdictions. This power has been used by Quebec to affirm the Gérin-Lajoie doctrine, according to which it has the power to sign international ententes within its jurisdictions. Until recently, Quebec has not been very active internationally in the field of labour. The situation has evolved in relation with ratification of ILO conventions by Canada and side-agreements on labour signed together with free-trade agreements. Also, few international ententes signed by Quebec deal with labour-related issues. The landscape is changing, however, regarding access to labour market and attraction of migrant workers, as best illustrated by the 2008 entente with France on mutual recognition of professional qualifications.

This paper explores a concept considered by the author as being central to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court's architecture: the principle of complementarity. Considered to be a balance between state sovereignty to prosecute alleged perpetrators of international crimes and the development of an autonomous and independent judicial institution, the principle of complementarity is discussed from a critical perspective. This paper focuses on the cases of the Democratic Republic of Congo, Kenya, Ivory Coast and Libya, in view of recent development and decisions rendered by the Court until now. More specifically, it focuses on the attempts by different actors to exploit the principle of complementarity and the interpretation of the concept to achieve their own interest. The author attempts to determine if the principle of complementarity serves the interest of justice or rather acts as a political instrument. This paper also emphasizes the almost-forgotten concept of proactive complementarity that promotes a more active role for the ICC to achieve the Rome Statute's objectives by assisting and collaborating with member and non-member States. This concept was discussed, in particular, during the State Party Assembly in November 2012.

Designed in the Cold War period, the Statute of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reveals the diverging interest of powers disposing of nuclear weapons and of those others States who nonetheless wished to make a civilian use of nuclear technologies. Thus, the IAEA is vested with a twofold mission-statement: on one hand to control the military dissemination of nuclear weapons and on the other the management of the sanitary risks for persons and property. Based on the observation of the Agency's culture and behaviour, the author maintains that the agency's failings in performing its mandate rest on an inadequate perception of its place within the international legal order and on a short-sighted understanding of the terms of its Statute. ln light of international law governing international organisations and their relations with States, the author presents five of those failings: (1) the absence of an effective autonomy from the Member-States; (2) a defective conception of the guaranties regime; (3) insufficient results in the application of safety norms; (4) a misunderstanding of the legislative assistance competence and (5) a lack of respect for the principles of independence of international officials. The author concludes that if the IAEA wants to be in a position to keep on playing its capital part in the post Cold War world order, it has to modernize both conceptually and factually its working practices, reform its institutional culture and restructure its action.

Sociological debates around the question of globalization have for a long time portrayed the present era in contrast with the post-war international order depicted in realist accounts. In so doing they have propagated the common perception of a golden age of the sovereign nation-state taken over by an era of globalization. Analyzing recent contributions from different international relations theories, we assess the need to nuance this linear historical narrative. We focus our attention on the ways in which a historical sociology of capitalist processes and neoliberal institutions can provide the debate between Realists and Globalists with fresh insights. Finally, we will re-evaluate the transformation of the modalities through which sovereignty and power are institutionalized in contemporary international relations by identifying the limits of theories that emphasize the threatening effects of globalization, allegedly jeopardizing states' (including the United States) capacity to exercise their sovereignty.

This paper explores the Multi-party Interim Appeal Arbitration Arrangement Pursuant to Article 25 of the Dispute Settlement Understanding (hereafter the “MPIA”), aimed at overcoming the paralysis of the Appellate Body of the World Trade Organization. Following a brief historical overview, the MPIA and its annexes will first be outlined. Subsequently, the MPIA will be analyzed in the light of “classic” dispute settlement, and some questions of judicial policy raised by this provisional arrangement will be identified. Albeit mirroring in many ways the proceedings before the Appellate Body, the MPIA incorporates recommendations from the Walker process, which envisaged various solutions to the complaints of certain Members against the Appellate Body.

SummaryProfit sharing is becoming an important practice in American business. According to optimistic but still realistic estimates, profit sharing plans would reach the total of nearly 20,000. Every month, about a hundred new plans are put into effect.A good deal of research work and literature is concerned with profit sharing in the United States. Top scholars, serious organizations such as the « National Industrial Conference Board » and the « Industrial Relations Counselors », and the U.S. Government have steadily surveyed profit sharing. Since 1947, the « Council of Profit Sharing Industries », a private association sponsored by businessmen, is promoting this idea with great success and has created the « Profit Sharing Research Foundation », a dynamic and efficient institution. All these facts are an indication that profit sharing is a big thing.While one can find traces of profit sharing experiences as far back as the last decade of the eighteenth century, this idea has actually drawn considerable public interest and developed into a big-sized movement only in the last twenty years. The Senate investigation of 1938 is undoubtedly one of the most important landmarks in the history of profit sharing. It has focused national attention on this practice and laid the basis for future legislation. The report of the sub-committee was for some time the bestseller of the Government Printing Office.In the early days and also very lately, there have been instances of favorable labor unions' attitudes towards profit sharing, but generally speaking this idea and practice has been largely promoted by businessmen or by businessminded scholars or organizations. Among the advocates and supporters of profit sharing, a great number have given a considerable amount of emphasis on its virtue of making capitalism available and desirable to all. This was one of the main conclusions of the Senate report. It is also to be found frequently throughout the literature on this subject. The report of the 1956 convention of the « Council of Profit Sharing Industries» is entitled: «Every Man a Capitalist», which surnimarizes the spirit of many promoters and might be considered as a good slogan.Of course, the majority of stockholders and management representatives are still probably opposed to profit sharing, but the number of those who are becoming interested in this idea or actually putting it into effect in some way is steadily increasing. Most of them have adopted it because they wanted the workers to be more concerned with the results of the business. Many others are looking at it as a group incentive, while some consider it as a device to provide more security to the employees. In this last case, profit sharing is used to finance pension and welfare plans.Profit sharing is an expression that has been widely used to mean a lot a different practices which, in many cases, have very little to do with true and genuine profit sharing. This confusion is to be found very often throughout the literature on the subject. For instance, the United States Senate, in its 1938 survey, and even the « Council of Profit Sharing Industries » have adopted very loose definitions in order to cover what is usually being considered as such in the industry rather than what should strictly and technically be so designated. Normally, the workers' share should be fixed in advance and be the result of an agreement freely entered into.There is a great variety of plans which can be put into effect. All the promoters agree on the fact that in each case, the plan should be taylored to meet the particular circumstances. Among all the classifications that have been made, one of them seems to be the most significant and appropriate: the cash profit-sharing and the deferred profit-sharing plans. This latter category prevails in larger companies, while the former one is typical of smaller units. Combined plans are usually found in the medium-sized industry.The deferred profit-sharing plans have drawn a considerable amount of attention lately. One of their main features is the creation of a huge savings pool in the hands of trust institutions. Some companies use the savings, which in many cases axe built up to a certain extent by workers' contributions, to purchase their own stock or common stock of other companies. This source of finance is becoming more and more important, and it gives trust companies a greater influence.If such a trend should develop steadily, it is likely that it might have some influence on the economic cycle. In an expansion period, workers' contributions to a trust fund are not used as consumption expenditures but rather as savings for the purpose of investment. Since the workers have usually the right to withdraw the money vested in them only in special circumstances — retirement, lay-offs, sickness etc. — these sums are available when the worker needs them badly and will spend them. Profit sharing thus becomes, to a certain extent, a social security scheme operated on a private basis.It seems probable that profit sharing will develop in the future, because most of the companies which have put a plan into effect are satisfied with it. One of the most comprehensive surveys made lately has shown that, out of three hundred (300) companies covered, ninety-six of them (96) think that their experience has been a very great success, while 136 others think that it has been successful. So more than three-quarters of these companies feel that their profit-sharing venture has been a success.It is not likely, however, that profit sharing will ever be an overwhelming practice in American industry. One of the main reasons is that the labor unions have traditionally been either indiqerent or opposed to it. Some recent facts may suggest that this attitude will not be uniform in the future.Profit sharing in itself is not a bad thing, but what is still more important is to share the wealth as well as possible between stock owners, management representatives, workers and consumers.

In a context where dual-career couples are now the norm, the issue of balancing work and family cannot be ignored and it underlines the relevance of examining the effect of existing work-family practices in Quebec organizations on workers' wellbeing. A comparison by gender is also relevant, given the social relations of gender and the sexual division of labour. Nowadays, women still allocate more time to childcare and housework than men, while the latter are more engaged in career work. Using data from the Québec Survey on Working Conditions, Employment and Health and Safety at Work (EQCOTESST), the present study is based on Bakker and Demerouti's theoretical Job demands and resources (JD-R) model. Overall, the analysis indicates that work-family practices, especially those related to maternity and flexible management of working hours, reduce the psychological distress of women. After controlling for sociodemographic variables, working conditions, family responsibilities and organizational environment characteristics, having access to a large number of work-family practices (seven or more out of ten) decreases the probability of women experiencing a high level of psychological distress, but not that of men. Conversely, time spent doing housework or assuming family responsibilities increases the likelihood of men having high levels of psychological distress, whereas this is not the case for women.

Keywords: conciliation travail-famille, division sexuelle du travail, rapports sociaux de sexe, work-family balance, sexual division of labour, gender, equilibrio trabajo-familia, división sexual del trabajo, género