Question description

 

comparing to this writing:

 

Human rights are fundamental to the success of any country. They enhance interaction in all areas such as social, political, and economic activities. They limit the powerful people in the same or different countries to exploit others economically. When giving preferential trading rights to a certain country, the government should ensure that the incoming country keeps a good record in adoring human rights. It is the responsibility of the host government to protect its citizens.

Human rights limit the incoming government from conducting some activities that may undermine human rights. The incoming country may engage in exploitative trade to the citizens making the trade not beneficial to the host country.

Human rights at some levels are threat to security. Trading activities are undermined by security. Since the consumers are protected by the human rights laws, they may wish to impose their personal embargo and wills. The traders might be exposed to only the good will of the consumers.

 

 What do you think about this?

 

 

Human rights is a complicated issue. I think, they should definitely be considered when granting preferential trading rights to countries, because we should all be granted those fundamental rights. However, each country is different in their political views and type of government and their sovereignty which is their fundamental right of independence is at risk when other countries try to dictate what they should do. I don’t know how much of an impact it actually makes, because there is no real way to enforce these rights. PTA’s have become a way for countries with strong human rights beliefs to try and expand them to countries lacking of such rights by dictating their expectations. However, some of the countries entering into such agreements do so under pressure of the economic gain that expanding their markets would mean, but don’t necessarily intend to enforce such agreements.