Michigan Journal of International Law Volume 22 Issue 1 2000 Cultural Resistance to Global Governance Joel Richard Paul University of California Hastings College of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mjil Part of the Comparative and Foreign Law Commons, Indian and Aboriginal Law Commons, International Trade Law Commons, and the Law and Gender Commons Recommended Citation Joel R. Paul, Cultural Resistance to Global Governance, 22 MICH. J. INT'L L. 1 (2000). Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mjil/vol22/iss1/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Michigan Journal of International Law at University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Michigan Journal of International Law by an authorized editor of University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. CULTURAL RESISTANCE TO GLOBAL GOVERNANCE Joel RichardPaul* I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................. 2 II. CULTURAL EXCEPTIONS TO GENDER EQUALITY ......................... 9 A. The Norm of Gender Equality ............................................ 9 B. U.N. Debates on Cultural Relativism ............................... 14 C. Female Genital Cutting ................................................... 19 D. The Norm of Gender Equality and the Third World.......... 22 E. Conclusion........................................................................ 27 III. CULTURAL EXCEPTIONS TO FREE TRADE ..................... 30 A. The Norm of Nondiscriminatory Open Trade ................... 30 B. Inter-state Conflicts over Cultural Exceptions to Trade ....... 37 C. Analysis of the Cultural Exception to Free Trade ................. 40 D. W. T. 0. Decision on Canadian CulturalMeasures ............ 43 E. Other Cultural Exceptions to GATT ................................. 52 F. Conclusion ........................................................................ 54 IV. CULTURAL EXCEPTIONS TO INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL NORMS ........................................................... 55 A . Introduction..................................................................... 55 B. Japanese and Norwegian Whaling .................................... 57 C. Indigenous Nations .......................................................... 66 D . Sum m ary .......................................................................... 73 V. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CULTURE AND THE GENDER EQUALITY NORM .......................................................... 74 A. CulturalExceptions FacilitateGlobalization .................. 74 B. FirstAlternative Hypothesis: Economic Interests Trump All .......................................................... 78 C. Second Alternative Hypothesis: The International Community DistinguishesRationality and Non-rationalityClaims ...................................................... 80 D. Third Alternative Hypothesis: Gender Subordination.......... 81 E. Conclusion ........................................................................ 83 Professor, University of California Hastings College of the Law. I am grateful for the insights of my colleagues Professors Lama Abu-Odeh, Paul Berman, Jo Carrillo, David Caron, Amy Chua, William Dodge, Karen Engle, Andrew Guzman, Janet Halley, Cheryl Hanna, Robert Howse, David Kennedy, Virginia Leary, Nell Newton, Naomi Roht-Arriaza, Eileen Scallen, Reva Siegel, Leti Volpp, Joan Williams, and John Yoo and the support of my research assistants Cecillia Chu, Chris Clay, Todd Meadow, and Theresa Swinehart. I also appreciate the comments I received presenting this paper to colloquia at U.C. Hastings, Stan- ford, and U.C. Boalt Hall Law Schools and the Harvard European Law Research Center. Michigan Journal of InternationalLaw [Vol. 22:1 I. INTRODUCTION We often frame the debate over global governance as a conflict between some set of international legal norms, like free trade or human rights, and something we posit as national "culture."' State actors and legal scholars assert cultural claims as a strategy for resisting global governance. For example, European states seek exemption from inter- national trade agreements prohibiting barriers to the importation of U.S. films, music and television, which they believe threaten European cul- ture.2 Japan, Norway, and some indigenous North American tribal nations claim a cultural right to whale that supersedes the international moratorium on whale hunting.3 Some theocratic and developing states, like Iran, Bangladesh, China, Argentina, Kenya, and Zimbabwe, claim cultural exceptions to engage in practices that otherwise contravene the international human rights of women and sexual minorities. In general, the international community5 does not regard practices that implicate commercial trade or environmental resources as cultural. By contrast, the international community acknowledges that gender norms and roles 1. I am using the term "global governance" here to refer to the whole constellation of international norms and relationships that affect public and private actors. Global govern- ance is distinguishable from supranational government, and it has developed in tandem with globalization. See generally David Kennedy, New Approaches to Comparative Law: Com- parativism and International Governance, 1997 UTAH L. REV. 545, 551, 563-575, (1997)(describing how public international law manages the conflict between national cul- ture and global governance). 2. See, e.g., John David Donaldson, Television without Frontiers: The Continuing Ten- sion Between Liberal Free Trade and European Cultural Integrity, 20 FORDHAM INT'L. L. J. 90 (1996) (discussing European Union concerns with imported television programming). 3. See, e.g., M. R. Freeman, Social and Cultural Significance of Whaling in Contempo- rary Japan: A Case Study of Small-Type Coastal Whaling, in KEY. ISSUES IN HUNTER- GATHERER RESEARCH (Ernest S. Burch, Jr. and Linda J. Ellanna, eds. 1994); Martha How- ton, International Regulation of Commercial Whaling: The Consequences of Norway's Decision to Hunt the Minke Whale, 18 HASTINGS INT'L & COMP. L.REv. 175 (1994); Kazu Sumi, The "Whale War" Between Japan and the United States: Problems and Prospects, 17 DEN. J. INT'L L. & POL'Y 317 (1989). 4. See generally HUMAN RIGHTS OF WOMEN: NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL PER- SPECTIVES (Rebecca Cook, ed., 1994); THE INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS OF WOMEN: INSTRUMENTS OF CHANGE 11-72 (Carol Elizabeth Lockwood, Daniel Barstow Macgraw, Margaret Faith Spring & S. I. Strong, eds., 1998) (describing the resistance of developing and theocratic states to the progressive development of women's rights through the United Nations); WOMEN'S RIGHTS HUMAN RIGHTS: INTERNATIONAL FEMINIST PERSPECTIVES (Julie Peters & Andrea Wolper, eds., 1995); Ann Elizabeth Mayer, Universal Versus Islamic Hu- man Rights: A Clash of Cultures or a Clash with a Construct?, 15 MICH. J. INT'L L. 307 (1994) (discussing how certain interpretations of Islamic law regarding women's rights dis- place international law). 5. 1 use this term to reference both state actors and international legal scholars who contribute to the creation and understanding of international legal norms. Fall 20001 CulturalResistance to Global Governance are intrinsic to national culture and accords them great deference.6 How and why do we posit some social behavior as authentically "cultural," and when does "culture" trump international legal norms? This article explores how state actors? and legal scholars make cultural claims in different legal contexts and suggests a linkage between the deployment of cultural exceptions and the project of globalization8 . Human rights scholars are familiar with the problem of cultural re- sistance to global governance. 9 Yet other areas of international legal scholarship largely disregard the question of cultural relativism pre- cisely because scholars do not acknowledge these contested practices as cultural. Most international trade law scholars, for example, dismiss cultural resistance as transparent protectionism." Some scholars in 6. Throughout this article I will refer interchangeably to "gender equality norms" or "the fights of women and sexual minorities." I use the term "sexual minorities" to include all lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered persons. There is obviously a close connection between gender and sexual roles or sexuality, Some argue that discrimination against sexual minorities is based upon, and perpetuates, stereotypes of men and women. See generally Sylvia Law, Homosexuality and the Social Meaning of Gender, 1998 Wis. L. REV. 187 (1998). The most egregious examples of gender discrimination often occur in countries with extreme forms of discrimination against sexual minorities, such as Iran. Moreover, as dis- cussed more fully below, countries opposing international rights for women often allege that gender equality promotes homosexuality. See Felice D. Gaer, And Never the Twain Shall Meet? The Struggle to Establish Women's Rights as International Human Rights, in THE INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS OF WOMEN: INSTRUMENTS OF CHANGE 46 (Carol Elizabeth Lockwood et. al eds., 1998). 7. I realize, of course, that non-state actors, especially nations within states, also in- voke cultural exceptions. I compare below one example of a cultural exception invoked by an indigenous tribal nation with a comparable cultural exception invoked by states. 8. Globalization