No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Fair Trade as an Instrument for the Regulation of Risks in the Cross-Border Surrogacy Market
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 20 January 2017
Abstract
Cross-border surrogacy transactions [CBST] entail several risks for the participants and the resulting child and, consequentially, for their states. In the absence of clear standards or coherent legal rules, the global industry depends on private contracts, the result of negotiations between parties from different countries with unequal bargaining power, which distributes risks and benefits unfairly. In this article I suggest a Fair Trade model as an instrument for the regulation of these transactions.
The Fair Trade model addresses market failures and the externalization of risks. The basic principles of Fair Trade include trading process according to proper standards of quality and ethics based on a certification mechanism, a minimum price to producers, direct purchasing, transparent rules and fair distribution. In addition to quality and ethics, Fair Trade is a developmental tool, ensuring more of the economic benefits to producers in the global south.
Applying these elements on the cross-border surrogacy market can be fruitful for the regulation of risks entailed in CBST. Certification of surrogacy services can ensure proper medical standards and fundamental rights, and decrease health risks; direct purchasing through democratically elected surrogates’ co-operatives could improve the surrogates’ power of negotiation and decrease contractual risks; a minimum price could guarantee a greater income to surrogates, and social premium could be used to fund communal projects and help surrogates to improve their social position. Finally, transparency can address administrative risks and ensure that children’s rights are not violated.
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016
References
1- E.g. McEwen, A.G., ‘So You’re Having Another Woman’s Baby: Economics and Exploitation in Gestational Surrogacy [1999] 32 Vanderbilt J. Transn’l L. 287 Google Scholar. On pull factors to India, see Gupta, jyotsna Agnihotri, ‘Reproductive Biocrossings: Indian Egg Donors and Surrogates in the Globalized Fertility Market’ [2012] 5 Int’l J. Feminist Approaches to Bioethics 25, 32CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Qadeer, Imrana, ‘Social and Ethical Basis of Legislation on Surrogacy: Need for Debate’ [2009] 6 Indian J. Med. Ethics 28 Google ScholarPubMed, 28 (prices are about 25% of what quality reproductive services would cost in the West); Kari Points, ‘Commercial Surrogacy and Fertility Tourism in India: The Case of Baby Manji’ (The Kenan Institute for Ethics at Duke University) 3 <http://www.duke.edu/web/kenanethics/CaseStudies/BabyManji.pdf> accessed June 25, 2014.
2- Center for Social Research, Surrogate Motherhood - Ethical or Commercial 23 (2012) <http://www.womenleadership.in/Csr/SurrogacyReport.pdf> [hereinafter, Social Research]; Neeta Lai, ‘Risks Flagged in India’s Fertility Tourism’ (Asia Times Online, Aug. 1, 2012), <http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/NH01Df01.html>.
3- Twine, Frances Winddance, Outsourcing the Womb: Race, Class and Gestational Surrogacy in a Global Market (Routledge 2015) 17 Google Scholar.
4- Donchin, Anne, ‘Reproductive Tourism and the Quest for Global Gender Justice’ [2010] 24 Bioethics 323, 330CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Pande, Amrita, Transnational Commercial Surrogacy in India: Gifts for Global Sisters?’ [2011] 23 Reprod. BioMed. Online 618, 619CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Social Research (n2) 22.
5- Palattiyil, George et al., ‘Globalization and Cross-Border Reproductive Services: Ethical Implications of Surrogacy in India for Social Work’ [2010] 53 Int’l Soc. Work 686, 687Google Scholar (arguing that the services delivered are comparable with similar services provided in the developed countries, but prices are much cheaper).
6- The Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR), National Guidelines for Accreditation, Supervision & Regulation of ART Clinics in India (2005) <http://icmr.nic.in/art/art_clinics.htm> [hereinafter ICMR]+[hereinafter+ICMR]>Google Scholar.
7- Whittaker, Andrea, ‘Challenges of Medical Travel to Global Regulation: A Case Study of Reproductive Travel in Asia’ [2010] 10 Global Soc. Pol’y 396, 400CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
8- Qadeer (n 1) 28.
9- Donchin (n 4) 326; Sama-Resource Group for Women and Health, Birthing A Market: A Study on Commercial Surrogacy 95 (2012) <http://www.samawomenshealth.org/downloads/Birthing%20A%20Market.pdf>>Google Scholar.
10- Social Research (n 2) 40.
11- For success rates, see Malizia, B Beth A. et al., ‘Cumulative Live-Birth Rates After In Vitro Fertilization’ [2009] 360 New Eng.J. Med. 236, 239, 241CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.
12- For concerns regarding informed consent in cross-border transactions, see Saravanan, Sheela, ‘An Ethno Methodological Approach to Examine Exploitation in the Context of Capacity, Trust and Experience of Commercial Surrogacy in India’ [2013] 8 Phil. Ethics & Human. Med. 1, 6 (reporting that according to official figures, about 3000 registered clinics across India offer surrogacy services. In light of anecdotal reports in the media, it is possible that not all of them offer high standard services.)Google Scholar; Storrow, Richard F., ‘Quest for Conception: Fertility Tourists, Globalization and Feminist Legal Theory’ [2006] 57 Hastings L. J. 295, 309Google Scholar; Qadeer (n 1) 28.
13- Rowland, Robyn, Living Laboratories: Women and Reproductive Technologies 76 (Indiana University Press, 1992)Google Scholar. For risks in surrogacy, see Pande, Amrita, ‘Not an ‘Angel’, Not a ‘Whore’ - Surrogates as ‘Dirty’ Workers in India’ [2009] 16 Indian J. Gender Stud. 141, 147CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
14- Ibid. 147; Social Research (n 2) 41 (reporting that 51.7% of the surrogate mothers in Anand were illiterate); SAMA (n 9) 40.
15- Satz, Debra, Why Some Things Should Not Be For Sale: The Moral Limits of Markets 196 (Oxford University Press, 2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
16- ICMR, §§ 3.2.7, 3.5.12.
17- Donchin (n 4) 328; Saravanan (n 12) 8; Social Research (n 2) 44; SAMA (n 9) 66.
18- For other human rights violations, see Bassan, Sharon, ‘Can Human Rights Protect Surrogate women in The Cross-Border Market?’ in Jänterä-Jareborg, M. & Tigroudja, H. (eds.) Women’s Human Rights and the Elimination of Discrimination The Hague Academy of International Law (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 2016) Chap. 15Google Scholar.
19- For critiques on the insufficiency of the guidelines, see Sarojini, N. B. & Sharma, Aastha, ‘Guidelines Not Enough, Enact Surrogacy Laws’ (Hindustan Times Aug. 7, 2008) <http://www.hindustantimes.com/comment/platform/guidelines-not-enough-enact-surrogacy-laws/article1-329578.aspx>Google Scholar; Sehgal, Priti, ‘Reproductive Tourism Soars in India: Adoption and Surrogacy Laws Have Yet to Catch Up’ (The WIP, Oct. 7, 2008) <http://thewip.net/2008/10/07/reproductive-tourism-soars-in-india-adoption-and-surrogacy-laws-have-yet-to-catch-up/>Google Scholar.
20- Social Research (n 2) 6; Lal (n 2).
21- Sehgal(n 19).
22- Pande (n 13) 149; SAMA (n 9) 91-92.
23- Social Research (n 2) 5, 29 (mentioning cases in which couples refused to take a baby of a specific sex, or when a defective baby was born and they filed suit against the surrogate arguing she had broken the contract); SAMA (n 9) 107.
24- Social Research (n 2) 43-44.
25- Qadeer (n 1) 31; SAMA (n 9) 93. Williams, Holly, ‘India’s Surrogate Mothers Exploited?’ (CBSNews, Apr. 11, 2013) <http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=50144661n> (telling the story of a surrogate, mother of two, who died due to complications. Her contract had no clause to protect her and her children from such risk.)Google Scholar.
26- Saravanan (n 12) 9 (“very little social and psychological support was given to the surrogates in the clinic, leaving them feeling miserable post-relinquishment.”); Social Research (n 2) 76; SAMA (n 9) 71.
27- McEwen (n 1) 277 n. 35; Saravanan (n 12) 10; Social Research (n 2) 46.
28- Malizia et al. (n 11) 239, 241.
29- Social Research (n 2) 43, 67, 80.
30- Ibid 60.
31- Ibid 67.
32- Trimmings, Katarina & Beaumont, Paul, ‘General Report on Surrogacy’ in Trimmings, Katarina & Beaumont, Paul (eds.) International Surrogacy Arrangements (Bloomsbury Publishing 2013) 504 Google Scholar [hereinafter International Surrogacy Arrangements].
33- Ibid 506-07; Storrow (n 12) 305.
34- Storrow, Richard F., ‘Assisted Reproduction on Treacherous Terrain: The Legal Hazards of Cross-Border Reproductive Travel’ [2011] 23 Reprod. Biomed. Online 538, 543CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
35- Convention on the Rights of the Child (Nov. 20, 1989) U.N. Doc. A/44/49, sec. 7.
36- See also Council of Europe, European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, by Protocols Nos. 11 and 14, 4 Nov., 1950, ETS 5, § 8 <http://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6b3b04.html> [accessed Oct. 11, 2015]+[accessed+Oct.+11,+2015]>Google Scholar.
37- Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness (Aug. 30, 1961) 989 U.N.T.S. 175, U.N. Doc. a/res/896.
38- Mennesson v. France, (App no. 65192/11) June 26, 2014. Judgment of the Fifth Section of the European Court of Human Rights.
39- Labassee v. France, (App no. 65941/11) June 26, 2014. Judgment of the Fifth Section of the European Court of Human Rights. The same judges as in the Mennesson case but the judgment is unavailable in English.
40- Paradiso and Campanelli v. Italy, (App no. 25358/12) Jan. 27, 2015. Judgment of the Twelfth Section of the European Court of Human Rights. Unavailable in English.
41- As most of these rulings are not available in English, information is taken from: Beaumont, P. and Trimmings, K., ‘Recent Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights in the area of Cross-Border Surrogacy: is there still a need for global regulation of surrogacy” (2015) 1 <https://www.abdn.ac.uk/law/documents/Recent_Jurisprudence_of_the_European_Court_of_Human_Rights_in_the_area_of_cross-border_surrogacy.pdf> [hereinafter Recent jurisprudence of the ECtHR]+[hereinafter+Recent+jurisprudence+of+the+ECtHR]>Google Scholar.
42- The Mennessons’ and the Labassees’ applications were jointly lodged and discussed.
43- Para. 99.
44- Bundesgerichtshof decision No XII ZB 463/13, Dec. 10, 2014.
45- Instrucciόn de 5 de octubre de 2010, de la Direcciόn General de los Registros y del Notariado, sobre regimen registral de la filiaciόn de los nacidos mediante gestaciόn por sustituciόn, in International Surrogacy Arrangements (n 32) 350.
46- International Surrogacy Arrangements (n 32) 352-53.
47- Spanish Supreme Court decision 835/2013, Feb. 6, 2014.
48- Hague Conference on Private International Law, The Parentage/Surrogacy Project, cit., Annex I, par. 3. Moreover, on Dec. 11, 2014, the Spanish Minister of Justice announced that an amendment was planned to the draft Spanish Law on Civil Registries with the view of ensuring compliance with the ECtHR jurisprudence.
49- Recent jurisprudence of the ECfHR (n 41) 8.
50- ‘IVF Centres Direct Foreigners to Consulates over Surrogacy Issue’ (Hindustantimes, July 15, 2010) <www.hindustantimes.com/India-news/Mumbai/IVF-centres-direct-foreigners-to-consulates-over-surrogacy-issue/Article1-572534.aspx>
51- Foreign & Commonwealth Office, Surrogacy Overseas (June 19, 2013, updated June 26, 2014), <https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/324487/Surrogacy_overseas updated_june_14_.pdf>>Google Scholar
52- ‘Hague Conference on Private International Law’ <http://www.hcch.net/index_en.php> (accessed Sept. 2, 2014).
53- International Trade Centre, ‘Market Access, Transparency And Fairness In Global Trade: Export Impact For Good’ 6 (2010) [hereinafter: Market Access, Transparency and Fairness].
54- Nicholls, Alex & Opal, Charlotte, Fair Trade - Market-Driven Ethical Consumption (Sage 2004) 13 Google Scholar.
55- Ibid 5-6.
56- Ibid 6.
57- Ibid 34.
58- Ibid 35.
59- Ibid 37-38.
60- Stiglitz, Joseph E. & Charlton, Andrew, Fair Trade For All - How Trade Can Promote Development 52 (New York 2005)Google Scholar.
61- Market Access, Transparency and Fairness (n 53) 78.
62- Stiglitz & Charlton (n 60) 117.
63- E.g. Dee, & Hanslow, , Multilateral Liberalization of Services Trade (Productivity Commission Staff Research Paper 2000)Google Scholar; Hertel, et al., ‘Liberalizing Agriculture and Manufactures in a Millennium Round: Implications for Developing Countries’ [2000] 23 World Econ. 455–69 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Brown, Drusilla K., Deardorff, Alan V., & Stern, Robert M., ‘US trade and other policy options and programs to deter foreign exploitation of child labor’ in Topics in Empirical International Economics: A Festschrift in Honor of Robert E. Lipsey 233 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Francois, J.F., van Meijl, H., & van Tongeren, F., ‘Trade Liberalization and Developing Countries under the Doha Round’ (CEPR discussion Paper 4032, London, Centre for Economic Policy Research, 2003)Google Scholar; Verikios, G. & Zhang, Xiao-Guang, ‘The Economic Effects of Removing Barriers to Trade in Telecommunications and Financial Services’ (paper presented at the Fourth Annual Conference on Global Economic Analysis, West Lafayette, Ind., 2001)Google Scholar.
64- Nicholls & Opal (n 54) 131.
65- Fair-Trade International, ‘What We Do - Our Main Tasks’ <www.fairtrade.net/what-we-do.html> (accessed, 12.10.15); For what consists of FLO’s Board of Directors, see Nicholls & Opal (n 54) 129.
66- Ibid 128.
67- For human rights implications of cross-border surrogacy transactions, see Bassan (n 18).
68- For human rights as the minimal threshold, see Pogge, Thomas, World Poverty and Human Rights (2nd ed. Polity, 2008) 25 Google Scholar.
69- Market Access, Transparency and Fairness (n 53) 7 (suggesting that international institutions will encourage private standards bodies to adopt transparent framework for developing Fair Trade standards.).
70- WHO, ‘The Constitution of the World Health Organization’ July 22, 1946) §§ 2(b)(c) <http://apps.who.int/gb/bd/PDF/bd47/EN/constitution-en.pdf?ua=1>>Google Scholar.
71- Cohen, Glenn I., ‘Medical Tourism, Access to Health Care, and Global Justice’ [2011] 52 Va.J. Int’l L. 1, 50–51 Google Scholar.
72- WHO, ‘Trade and Health’ <http://www.who.int/trade/resource/tradewp/en/> (accessed Nov. 16, 2013).
73- Constitution of the World Health Organization (n 70) §§ 2(l).
74- WHO, ‘Data Collection Tools’ <http://www.who.int/healthinfo/tools_data_collection/en/> (accessed 12.10.15)
75- WHO, ‘Everybody’s Business, Strengthening Health Systems to Improve Health Outcomes - WHO’s Framework for Action’ (WHO 2007) 10, 17, 23, 32 <http://www.who.int/healthsystems/strategy/everybodys_business.pdf>>Google Scholar.
76- ‘WHO Global Code of Practice on the International Recruitment of Health Personnel’ (WHO 2010), <http://www.who.int/hrh/migration/code/WHO_global_code_of_practice_EN.pdf>.
77- See, e.g., ‘The Center for Policy Analysis on Trade and Health’ <http://www.cpath.org> (publishing a list on globalization and health, and posting brief descriptions and contact information for additional key organizations attempting to address the public health effects of global trade).
78- UN Women ‘About UNwomen’ <http://www.unwomen.org/en/about-us/about-un-women> (accessed July 20, 2014) (“to hold the UN system accountable for its own commitments on gender equality, including regular monitoring of system-wide progress.”).
79- Nicholls & Opal (n 54) 40-41.
80- ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work and its Follow-up, Adopted by the International Labor Conference at its Eighty-sixth Session, Geneva, 18 June 1998 (Annex revised June 15, 2010), http://www.ilo.org/declaration/thedeclaration/textdeclaration/lang--en/index.htm.
81- ‘Advancing Gender Equality: Promising Practices’, UNWomen, http://www.unwomen.org/mdgf/overview.html (accessed July 20, 2014); ‘Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) employment indicators - The ILO’s role and activities’, ILO, <http://www.ilo.org/empelm/what/WCMS_114244/lang--en/index.htm>; ILO, ‘Jobs and livelihoods at the heart of the post-2015 development agenda’ (ILO Concept Note on the post-2015 development agenda) <http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---dgreports/---dcomm/documents/statement/wcms_205641.pdf>
82- Nicholls & Opal (n 54) 6-7.
83- Social Research (n 2) 52.
84- Saravanan (n 12) 8 (reporting that some surrogates were happy to stay in the surrogate home and escape daily household chores or domestic problems); Sama (n 9) 39, 123.
85- Nicholls & Opal (n 54) 30.
86- Ibid 41.
87- Ibid 42.
88- Ibid 6.
89- Ibid 48.
90- Ibid 205 & tl. 9.2.
91- International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, § 2(1), 993 U.N.T.S. 3 (1966); S. Exec. Doc. D, 95-2 (1978); S. Treaty Doc. No. 95-19, 6 I.L.M. 360 (1967).
92- Nicholls & Opal (n 54) 46.
93- Regarding the self-interest of developed countries in the regulation of the medical services market, see Cohen, Glenn I., ‘How to Regulate Medical Tourism (and why it Matters for Bioethics)’ [2012] 12 Dev. World Bioethics 9, 13CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Cohen (n 71) 16.
94- For the UK, see, e.g., Nicholls & Opal (n 54) 244.
95- Carey, C. & Guttenstein, E., ‘Governmental Use of Voluntary Standards: Innovation in Sustainable Governance’ (for ISEAL & Trade Standards Practitioners Network 2008)Google Scholar.
96- Renard, Marie-Christine, ‘Quality Certification, Regulation and Power in Fair Trade’ [2005] 21 J. Rural Stud. 419, 423CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
97- Ibid 421.
98- Permanent|Bureau, ‘A Preliminary Report on the Issues Arising from International Surrogacy Arrangements’ [2012] <http://www.hcch.net/upload/wop/gap2012pd10en.pdf> 22, n. 63+22,+n.+63>Google Scholar.
99- E.g. Mexico, international Surrogacy Arrangements (n 32) 271, Holland, Ibid 287.
100- India, international Surrogacy Arrangements (n 32) 193; international Surrogacy Arrangements (n 32) 439, 446.
101- Nicholls & Opal (n 54) 204.
102- Ibid 205.
103- Ibid 35.
104- Ibid 48.
105- Ibid 211.
106- Ibid 213.
107- E.g. Lyon, , ‘Evaluation of the Actual and Potential Benefits for the Alleviation of Poverty through the Participation in Fair Trade Coffee Networks: Guatemalan Case Study’ (2002) <www.colostate.edu/Depts/Sociology/FairTradeResearchGroup> (showing that the higher FT price allowed the majority of cooperative members to pay workers to harvest their crops, freeing their children to attend school)+(showing+that+the+higher+FT+price+allowed+the+majority+of+cooperative+members+to+pay+workers+to+harvest+their+crops,+freeing+their+children+to+attend+school)>Google Scholar.
108- Nicholls & Opal (n 54) 33. For success rates, see ibid 5, 29.
109- From an interview with Carol Wills, ‘Executive Director of the International Federation of Alternative Trade (IFAT)’ in Nicholls & Opal (n 54) 8.
110- Nicholls & Opal (n 54) 211-12. For studies, see e.g. Taylor, P., ‘Poverty Alleviation Through Participation in Fair Trade Coffee Networks: Synthesis of Case Study Research Questions and Findings’ (2002) <www.colostate.edu/Depts/Sociology/Fair-TradeResearchGroup> (showing how groups shared commercial opportunities and exchanged contacts and information)+(showing+how+groups+shared+commercial+opportunities+and+exchanged+contacts+and+information)>Google Scholar; Lyon (n 107) (showing how assemblies helped the town government to organize a rubbish collection program).
111- Nicholls & Opal (n 54) 48-49.
112- Ibid 31.
113- For critiques regarding the costs of compliance, potential anticompetitive behavior of strong actors, certification costs etc., see Market Access, Transparency and Fairness (n 53) 7.
114- Young, Iris Marion, ‘Responsibility and Global Justice: A Social Connection Model’ [2006] 23 Soc. Phil. & Pol’y 102, 127Google Scholar.
115- Renard (n 96) 423 (arguing that consumers will be willing to pay more for if they are guaranteed that ethical manufacturing is in order or a price premium will actually reach producers).
116- Nicholls & Opal (n 54) 201.
117- ‘Pundekaut Achrait’ [Responsible Surrogacy] <http://www.r-surrogacy.org/> (accessed July 20, 2014). A website that discusses which ethical problems may make the contract making undesirable for surrogates, and raises consciousness of, as well as market pressure on, potential consumers.
118- Nicholls & Opal (n 54) 201. On the importance of measurable impact see ibid 251.