Thursday, 29 October 2015
For instance when it comes to standardisation of codes, procedures, equipment and terminology, it falls very much into the usual trade dynamics, where there are several mutual recognition agreements with countries around the world under the aegis of ISBT128. In that regard there is a semi-functioning global single market.
When it comes to ethics, practices, treatments and rights - fuhgeddaboudit! The likelihood of an ethical convergence between the USA and anybody at all is somewhere around nil. The Americans are staunch defenders of doing things their way. It's not surprising TTIP has stalled as many times as it has.
Meanwhile, the likelihood of convergence between Africa, Europe and Arabia are also fairly slim. Even within Europe we find several registered opt outs to global conventions and treaties. There are guiding principles forged by the WHO which are not binding but very much form the blueprint for new treaties.
Where rights are concerned we find they arrive in Europe as Council of Europe treaties, which is notationally intergovernmentalism. The Council of Europe is not an EU institution. In such efforts to bring about ever more precise human rights, we find than nation states can and do refuse to ratify such agreements. At other times they will sign but have the right of reservation and may list procedural opt outs.
There is actually nothing wrong with that in principle. Except of course that the EU is its own legal entity at the Council of Europe and may also ratify such treaties over the heads of member states. Thus while the non-signatories are not bound by the treaty provisions, the EU is bound by them and the EU makes directives to which the member states are bound - Another example of the democracy by-pass. So you might ask, what's the actual point of the Council of Europe ratification process if we end up obeying anyway? The answer... none at all.