Global and Comprehensive Regimes: The un System
The scope of multinational economic policy regimes must be defined in at least two different dimensions: 1) geographic or political scope, referring to spatial and/or other jurisdictional dimensions of the regime; and 2) functional scope, referring to the kinds of activities over which the regime is intended to have some influence. The geographic/political scope of the European Union (EU), for example, is limited to certain countries in Europe that have opted and been accepted for membership. The functional scope of most multinational regimes is also typically limited; they deal only with the specific set of concerns (e.g., trade, air travel, environmental issues) agreed upon among their participants. A regime that is (at least in principle) open to all participants that might have an interest in its activities, or that takes actions intended to affect all parts of the world, may be termed global. A regime that may (again, at least in principle) address any and all concerns that might arise among its participants, without regard to specific prior agreement as to the appropriateness of the inquiry, may be termed comprehensive. (National political regimes, i.e., governments, are functionally comprehensive within their individual borders.)
Implementing international codes of conduct for multinational enterprises
tary character and not legally binding. This comment will deal only with one specific aspect, perhaps the most difficult of all: the manner of implementation. Before going into the subject I shall first give a bird's eye view of the Codes and an analysis of its legal character. Then the implementation provisions contained in the OECD Guidelines, the ILO Principles and the draft of the UN Code will be given closer consideration, followed by some provisional conclusions which might be drawn from that comparison. In reviewing the present situation, three Codes can be mentioned which are already, or nearly, in effect:
Implementation of the International Code of marketing of breast milk substitutes by the EEC
The marketing of breast milk substitutes by multinational companies has given rise to criticism and concern, mostly in developing countries. The World Health Organization has taken an initiative in recommending an international code to its member states, including those of the EEC. The paper discusses legal means of implementing these recommendations on an EEC level. The possibilities are restricted; an export ban cannot be realized owing to well-established EEC trade policy. Finally, the paper comments on a voluntary initiative taken by European producers, an initiative that from a consumer point of view has to be regarded as only partly satisfactory.ZusammenfassungDer Vertrieb von Muttermilch-Ersatzprodukten hat unter gesundheitspolitischen Gesichtspunkten vor allem in Entwicklungsländern Anlaß zu Beanstandungen und Vorwürfen gegen multinationale Unternehmen gegeben. Die Weltgesundheitsorganisation hat daraufhin einen Verhaltenskodex verabschiedet, der den Mitgliedsstaaten (einschließlich der EG) zur Annahme empfohlen wurde. Der Beitrag diskutiert die rechtlichen Möglichkeiten und Grenzen einer Umsetzung in EG-Recht. Die Zuständigkeiten der EG sind begrenzt; ein Exportverbot scheitert an handelspolitischen Zielsetzungen einschlägiger EG-Rechtsakte. Er würdigt weiterhin eine freiwillige Verhaltensrichtlinie der europäischen Babymilch-Hersteller. Diese Initiative kann aus verbraucherpolitischer Sicht nur zum Teil befriedigen; insbesondere sind die dort vorgesehenen Kennzeichnungsvorschriften unzureichend.