Advertisement

Globalization with Human Faces: Managed Mutual Recognition and the Free Movement of Professionals

  • Kalypso Nicolaïdis

Abstract

While short-term capital flows and foreign direct investment have never moved across borders so freely, neither has the international movement of people been so ‘managed’. This is one of the apparent paradoxes at the heart of today’s pattern of globalization. In an era of much-proclaimed liberalism, rules at the national level governing conditions for the granting of visas, work or residence permits, and ultimately permanent residence and naturalization, constitute perhaps the strongest remaining expression of state power. These rules are hardly subject to any international oversight, or even coordination, save in the restricted realm of asylum, where the national norms relating to the movement of people become subject to international human-rights norms. The paradox, of course, is only apparent. The weight of forces driving the liberalization of capital movement dwarfs those driving the free movement of people. More fundamentally, policies addressing migration, bound up as they are with the ‘who is “us”’, the definition of political as well as economic boundaries, and, ultimately, the flexibility or lack thereof of group identities, escape the sole constraint of economic rationality.

Keywords

Host Country Home Country Professional Service Mutual Recognition Host State 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 1.
    See Nicolaïdis, K., ‘Mutual Recognition of Regulatory Regimes: Some Lessons and Prospects’, in Regulatory Reform and International Market Openness, OECD Publications, November 1996.Google Scholar
  2. 5.
    See Ascher, B., ‘Trade Agreements and the Professions’, Paper presented at Euroservices: Transatlantic Trade in the 21st Century, US Department of Commerce, 18 June 1996, p. 4.Google Scholar
  3. 6.
    See Nicolaïdis, K., International Trade in Information-Based Services: Beyond the Uruguay Round’, in Drake, W. (ed.), The New Information Economy, New York: Twentieth Century Fund, 1995; OECD Secretariat, Liberalization of Trade in Professional Services, Paris, OECD publications, 1995; and OECD Secretariat, International Trade in Professional Services: Assessing Barriers and Encouraging Reform, Paris, OECD publications, 1996 (referred to hereafter as OECD Documents, 1995 and 1996). Measures are recorded in the OECD Inventory of Measures Affecting Trade in Professional Services and the survey on Regulation on Access to the Professions and their Activities.Google Scholar
  4. 21.
    See Orzack, L., ‘The General Systems Directive: Education and the Liberal Professions’, in Hurwitz and Lequesnes (eds), The State of the European Community, Boulder, Lynne Rienner, 1991.Google Scholar
  5. 22.
    For an extensive analysis, see Coyne, S., International Trade in Legal Services, Little, Brown & Co., 1996.Google Scholar
  6. 23.
    Commission of the European Communities, Proposal for a European Parliament and Council Directive to Facilitate Practice of the Profession of Lawyer on a Permanent Basis in a Member State Other Than That in Which the Qualification Was Obtained, COM (94) 572 final, Brussels, 21.12.1994, 94/0299 (COD); Amended Proposal, Com (96) 446 fin. For a description of the negotiations, see Coyne, S., International Trade in Legal Services, Little, Brown & Co., 1996.Google Scholar
  7. 24.
    See Leebron, D. in OECD Proceedings, Regulatory Reform and International Market Openness, 1996.Google Scholar
  8. 27.
    The Convention was signed between UNESCO (CEPES), the Council of Europe, and the European Union, through their respective national information networks on academic recognition, such as the European National Information Centres on Academic Recognition and Mobility (ENIC). See Uvalic-Trumbic, S., ‘Guidelines and Recommendations from the Working Group on Europe—U.S.A.: Mutual Recognition of Qualifications’, CEPES-UNESCO, 1996.Google Scholar
  9. 38.
    See, notably, the contributions by Knapp, U. and J. Murray, ‘Liberalization and the Consumer’, in OECD Documents, 1996.Google Scholar
  10. 56.
    For a discussion of the importance of this idea in the context of the Uruguay Round, see Drake, W. and Nicolaïdis, K. ‘Ideas, Interests and Institutionalization: “Trade in Services” and the Uruguay Round’, in International Organization, vol. 46, no.1, Winter 1992, pp. 37–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 57.
    This line of thinking can be presented under the general category of ‘securing insecure contracts’. For a discussion, see Nicolaïdis, K., ‘Mutual Recognition of Regulatory Regimes: Some Lessons and Prospects’, in Regulatory Reform and International Market Openness, OECD Publications, November 1996, pp. 18–20. This section draws heavily on this chapter.Google Scholar
  12. 59.
    See Ascher, B., ‘Trade Agreements and the Professions’, Paper presented at Euroservices: Transatlantic Trade in the 21st Century, US Department of Commerce, 18 June 1996, p. 7.Google Scholar
  13. 62.
    See Ascher, B., ‘Trade Agreements and the Professions’, Paper presented at Euroservices: Transatlantic Trade in the 21st Century, US Department of Commerce, 18 June 1996, p. 8 and our earlier discussion, in p. 146.Google Scholar
  14. 66.
    Ascher, B., ‘Trade Agreements and the Professions’, Paper presented at Euroservices: Transatlantic Trade in the 21st Century, US Department of Commerce, 18 June 1996, p. 7.Google Scholar
  15. Nicolaïdis, K., ‘Mutual Recognition of Regulatory Regimes: Some Lessons and Prospects’, in Regulatory Reform and International Market Openness, OECD Publications, November 1996.Google Scholar
  16. 68.
    This section draws extensively from Nicolaïdis, K., ‘Mutual Recognition of Regulatory Regimes: Some Lessons and Prospects’, in Regulatory Reform and International Market Openness, OECD Publications, November 1996.Google Scholar
  17. 70.
    In the field of law, for instance, the USA requested that the EU grant US lawyers the same treatment accorded to English solicitors (e.g. right to advise) on behalf of all non-EU lawyers. US negotiators may have been illadvised to make such a universal demand, for this was seized upon by the EU to refuse to consider the request. Under the draft establishment Directive for lawyers, non-EU lawyers who qualify as English solicitors by passing the English Qualified Lawyers Test (e.g. from Canada, the USA or Australia) or as Avocat by passing the French Special Exam would not be entitled to the benefits of the Directive unless they were EU nationals. See Coyne, S., International Trade in Legal Services, Little, Brown & Co., 1996.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kalypso Nicolaïdis 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kalypso Nicolaïdis

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations