Labor Provisions from NAFTA to CAFTA: Standards That Work, or a Work in Progress?

The emerging U.S. approach linking free trade to domestic labor protections is a practical framework on which to base substantive and procedural rights. Nevertheless, much more can be done in future agreements to improve these safeguards for workers in a way that will maximize the gains from trade and reduce the most harmful effects of development. In order to improve future agreements, the U.S. should expand access to consultations within the dispute resolution mechanism, focus complaints on core rights such as organization and bargaining, encourage the development of small independent unions in corporatist cultures, and incorporate the ILO into the dispute settlement process. Finally, the civil law systems of Central America and the Anglo-American common law system may have fundamentally different understandings of the rule of law. This difference in understanding may pose a significant disadvantage for developing or civil law systems entering treaties with the U.S., and should be better understood by both sides in order to maintain the credibility of the law and the effectiveness of the treaty.

Supporting Parallel Legal Systems as a Means of Improving Access to Justice in Guatemala

Parallel legal systems can and do exist within a single sovereign nation, and rural Guatemala offers one example. Such parallel systems are generally viewed as failures of legal penetration which compromise the rule of law. The question addressed in this paper is whether the de facto existence of parallel systems in Guatemala benefits the indigenous population, or whether the ultimate goal of attaining access to justice requires a complete overhaul of the official legal system. Ultimately, the author concludes that while the official justice system needs a lot of work in order to expand access to justice, especially for the rural poor, the existence of a parallel legal system can be a vehicle for, rather than a hindrance to, expanding such access.

New Standards of Justice: Uncovering Motivations for Mexico’s Recent Judicial Reforms amid a Security Crisis

From the introduction: Mexico is in a state of siege. In recent years, organized crime and drug-related violence have escalated dramatically, taking innocent lives and leaving the country mired in bloodshed. The Mexican government, under the leadership of President Felipe Calderón, has responded in part by significantly extending the reach of its security operations, deploying thousands of federal police officers and military troops to combat the activities of drug cartels, and collaborating with the United States on an extensive regional security plan known as the Mérida Initiative. In the midst of the security crisis, however, the government has somewhat paradoxically adopted judicial reforms that protect human rights and civil liberties rather than erode them, specifically the presumption of innocence standard in criminal proceedings and the implementation of oral trials. Assuming that the new laws on the books will be applied in practice, these reforms represent an important commitment on the part of the government to uphold human rights and civil liberties. This is in stark contrast to the infamous judicial reforms in Colombia—the institutionalization of anonymous or “faceless” prosecutions in special courts—implemented after a surge in leftist and cartel brutality, and the murders of several prominent public and judicial officials in the 1980s.