彼德斯曼与阿尔斯通贸易与人权论战评析

自西雅图事件爆发以来,贸易自由化与人权保护的关系一直是国际法领域里争论最激烈的重大理论问题。传统进路认为,贸易自由化天生促进人权保护,而批判进路则宣称其阻碍人权进步。彼德斯曼创立权利取向贸易理论,力主贸易与人权关系宪法化,因其遭到阿尔斯通批判而与之展开全面论战。这场论战不仅折射出自由贸易与人权保护关系的复杂性,而且质疑全球贸易治理中行使公共权力与追求集体目标相分离的合理性。在多边贸易体制晚近转型的主流叙事即"从政治到法律"的影响下,论战双方只把贸易与人权论战定格为一种"制度关系"之争而不去发掘相关制度转型背后内在知识结构的重构,因而该论战没有为两者关系指明出路。作为世界上第一大贸易与人口规模国以及一个社会主义发展中大国,中国理应透过学术争论的表象看到其实质,并进而意识到自身意识形态安全当前所面临的严峻挑战。

Comments on Alston-Petersmann Debate on Trade and Human Rights

The relationship between trade liberalization and human rights protection has been the most controversial philosophical issue in international law since the battle in Seattle. The traditional approach presumes that trade liberalization tends to promote human rights, while the critical approach emphasizes that trade liberalization will undermine the progress in human rights protection. Petersmann has developed the theory of Rights-based Trade Constitutional- ism, advocating that the relationship between trade and human rights should be constitutionalized. The Trade and Human Rights Debate took place between Alston and Petersmann with the former criticizing the theory of Trade Constitutionalism which was promulgated by the latter. This debate not only indicates the complexity in the relationship be- tween trade and human rights, but also questions on the justification of separation between the exercise of public power and the pursuit of collective purposes in global trade governance. In the context of dominant narrative about the multilateral trade System＇s transformation, namely ＂from politics to law＂, both parties focus on the ＂institutional rela- tion＂ of the Trade and Human Rights Debate rather than explore the reconstruction of knowledge structure behind the institutional transformation, therefore fail to find the solution. Being a developing socialist country with the largest population and trade volume in the world, China should transcend beyond the phenomenon of the academic debate in- to its essence, and be aware of the grave challenge to its own ideological safety.