Corporate accountability for human rights violations

Last updated

Holding corporations accountable for either direct conduct or complicity for human rights violations has become an increasing area of attention in promoting human rights. Multinational corporations in particular have been singled out as important figures, for better or worse, in the maintenance of human rights given their economic status and international dimension. As it currently stands there is no mechanism at the international level which can hold corporations legally accountable. Reliance has instead been placed upon a number of soft law instruments the most important one of which is the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. With the potential exception for redress under the Alien Tort Statute corporations are only legally accountable for human rights violations under the municipal law of the Nation in which the violation is alleged to have occurred or the company is based.

Contents

Multinational corporations and human rights

Multinational corporations emerged in the 1990s as one of the most significant challenges to the dominance of states in the social and economic international order. [1] In 2013 37 of the top 100 economies in the world were corporations, with Wal-Mart Stores annual revenue exceeding the GDP of all but the top 27 states in the world. [2] As a result, there have been increasing concerns over the role multinationals have in promoting and protecting international human rights. [3] Under an orthodox view of international law the obligation to protect human rights lies with the nation state. The power of multinationals has been recognized as diminishing the ability of weaker states to enforce human rights. Furthermore, concerns have been raised over the operation of multinationals in countries which have a poor human rights record. Numerous cases such as Doe v. Unocal Corp. alleging gross human rights violations carried out by multinationals or their associates in countries such as Burma (Myanmar) exist. Whilst concern has been raised over the role multinationals have played in human rights violations, recognition has also been given to the fact that multinationals have the potential to promote human rights in states with a poor track record beyond the ability of other nation states.

Accountability under the International human rights framework

Under the International human rights framework corporations can only be held directly accountable for human rights violations which constitute international crimes as provided for in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. [4] Under the orthodox view States are the primary “subjects” of international law, and whilst International Organizations hold international legal personality, individuals and corporations hold limited standing [5] There has been extensive debate on what status multinational corporations should hold at international law. Those arguing that multinationals should hold rights and duties do so on the ground that this is necessary given their size and influence. [6] Those who argue against the imposition of international law upon multinationals contend that to do so would mean conveying rights which would inevitably enhance the influence and power they hold. [7] Recent developments have seen the articulation of the human rights obligations of corporations but no enforceable regulatory mechanism exists at the international level.

United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights

The United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights stand as the authoritative statement on the human rights standards corporations should adhere to. The Principles consist of a three pillar framework: protect, respect and remedy. The Principles do not create new law or impose obligations on corporations, instead they provide what should constitute best practice. [8] The protect pillar retains the orthodox position that is the responsibility of states to protect human rights. The respect pillar holds that corporations should respect human rights, undertaking due diligence to ensure that their conduct does not infringe upon any rights. The remedy pillar calls for remedies both judicial and non-judicial to be provided for those whose human rights have been infringed by a corporation. The response to the Principles has been mixed. The OECD, European Commission, and the United Nations Global Compact have all endorsed the Principles as providing clarity and a point of reference for future developments. [9] Of most significance the United Nations Human Rights Council formally endorsed the Principles shortly after their publication. [10] The Principles not been met with universal favour. The International Federation for Human Rights, which represents numerous human rights groups, criticized the Principles for failing to provide an effective remedy for victims on an international level and failing to recognize the responsibility of states for the actions of their companies abroad. [11] Although currently non-binding there has been speculation by scholars that the Principles could provide a platform for a binding instrument or solidify into customary international law therefore creating legally binding obligations. [12] [13]

United Nations Global Compact

OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises

The OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises is a soft-law instrument containing information on the standards of conduct Multinational corporations should aim to meet. “They provide non-binding principles and standards for responsible business conduct in a global context consistent with applicable laws and internationally recognised standards.” [14] Section IV of the updated 2011 version of the Guidelines deals directly with human rights and reiterates much of the content present in the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. As such the Guidelines directly endorse the UN Guiding Principles. [15] Section IV provides: [16]

"States have the duty to protect human rights. Enterprises should, within the framework of internationally recognised human rights, the international human rights obligations of the countries in which they operate as well as relevant domestic laws and regulations:

  1. Respect human rights, which means they should avoid infringing on the human rights of others and should address adverse human rights impacts with which they are involved.
  2. Within the context of their own activities, avoid causing or contributing to adverse human rights impacts and address such impacts when they occur.
  3. Seek ways to prevent or mitigate adverse human rights impacts that are directly linked to their business operations, products or services by a business relationship, even if they do not contribute to those impacts.
  4. Have a policy commitment to respect human rights.
  5. Carry out human rights due diligence as appropriate to their size, the nature and context of operations and the severity of the risks of adverse human rights impacts.
  6. Provide for or co-operate through legitimate processes in the remediation of adverse human rights impacts where they identify that they have caused or contributed to these impacts."
-- OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises (2011), Section IV

The above six points mirror the three pillars of the UN Guiding Principles; State duty to protect, corporate responsibility to respect, and access to remedy. The Guidelines require participating states to establish National Contact Points (NCP). Allegations from individuals can be brought forward to the NCP. These are referred to as specific instances. The merits of the claim are then addressed by the NCP and if a case is found then an investigation will be undertaken. Mediation may take place between the company in question and the complainant as one of the final stages in the process. If a company is found to be in breach of the guidelines then a Final Statement will be produced outlining the violations of the Guidelines which occurred along with an impact assessment. Although remedies for any breaches of human rights are sought they cannot be enforced under the Guidelines. Amnesty International has commented that the Guidelines provide a "lens for examining business conduct with regard to human rights." [17] In this sense it has been argued that the OECD Guidelines have the potential to promote a degree of accountability. Amnesty International in its Briefing for the UK National Contact Point advised on the potential repercussions of a Final Statement for companies found to be non-compliant. Reputation, ability to operate, and value of shares may all be detrimentally affected by a finding of non-compliance. [18] Amnesty believes that this may act as a deterrent, leveling the playing field for those companies who ensure they adhere to human rights standards. [19] The rationale behind this being that the cost-benefit relationship is altered in favour of adherence to human rights.

Company codes

Many companies have taken it upon themselves to adopt their own codes of conduct which are self-imposed ethical standards. Most contain provisions on human rights. The Business and Human Rights Resource Centre maintains a list of companies which have a human rights policy in place. [20] Whilst codes promote accountability, critics have argued that given their voluntary nature, and generally speaking lack of enforcement mechanisms, they are of limited value. [21]

Alien Tort Statute

Several organisations and commentators have recognised that many victims of human rights violations at the hands of multinational corporations will not have a means of redress in the country the violation has occurred. [22] [23] As such victims often rely on the exercise of extraterritorial jurisdiction. In Europe jurisdiction is granted to hear civil claims against via Resolution 44/2001 of the European Council but this requires that the corporation in question be domiciled in a Member State. [24] The Alien Tort Statute is unique in that it in principle provides Federal courts in the United States of America with near universal jurisdiction to hear claims alleging serious violation of customary international law or the "law of nations", the only nexus required being that the defendant be present in the United States. [25] However, the application of the statute to claims made against multinational corporations for human rights violations occurring abroad remains uncertain. Corporate liability for extraterritorial harms has been allowed by the Seventh, Ninth, Eleventh and D.C. Circuits but an increasing number of procedural limitations restricting access of foreign plaintiffs to redress have emerged. [26] The recent decision of the Supreme Court in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co. ruled that there is a presumption against the extraterritorial application of the Alien Tort Statue. [27] The Business and Human Rights Resource Centre cites Kiobel as a turning point in the use of the Alien Tort Statue as a means for redress for human rights violations at the hands of corporations, and part of a wider trend globally in which avenues for extraterritorial claims are closing. [28]

See also

Related Research Articles

Multinational corporation Corporation operating in multiple countries

A multinational corporation (MNC) or worldwide enterprise is a corporate organization that owns or controls production of goods or services in at least one country other than its home country. Black's Law Dictionary suggests that a company or group should be considered a multinational corporation if it derives 25% or more of its revenue from out-of-home-country operations. A multinational corporation can also be referred to as a multinational enterprise (MNE), a transnational enterprise (TNE), a transnational corporation (TNC), an international corporation, or a stateless corporation. There are subtle but real differences between these three labels, as well as multinational corporation and worldwide enterprise.

In taxation and accounting, transfer pricing refers to the rules and methods for pricing transactions within and between enterprises under common ownership or control. Because of the potential for cross-border controlled transactions to distort taxable income, tax authorities in many countries can adjust intragroup transfer prices that differ from what would have been charged by unrelated enterprises dealing at arm’s length. The OECD and World Bank recommend intragroup pricing rules based on the arm’s-length principle, and 19 of the 20 members of the G20 have adopted similar measures through bilateral treaties and domestic legislation, regulations, or administrative practice. Countries with transfer pricing legislation generally follow the OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises and Tax Administrations in most respects, although their rules can differ on some important details.

The Alien Tort Statute, also called the Alien Tort Claims Act (ATCA), is a section of the United States Code that reads: "The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action by an alien for a tort only, committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States." Since 1980, courts have interpreted this statute to allow foreign citizens to seek remedies in U.S. courts for human-rights violations for conduct committed outside the United States.

International Commission of Jurists organization

The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) is an international human rights non-governmental organization. It is a standing group of 60 eminent jurists—including senior judges, attorneys and academics—who work to develop national and international human rights standards through the law. Commissioners are known for their experience, knowledge and fundamental commitment to human rights. The composition of the Commission aims to reflect the geographical diversity of the world and its many legal systems.

Social responsibility is an ethical framework and suggests that an entity, be it an organization or individual, has an obligation to act for the benefit of society at large. Social responsibility is a duty every individual has to perform so as to maintain a balance between the economy and the ecosystems. A trade-off may exist between economic development, in the material sense, and the welfare of the society and environment, though this has been challenged by many reports over the past decade. Social responsibility means sustaining the equilibrium between the two. It pertains not only to business organizations but also to everyone whose any action impacts the environment. It is a concept that aims to ensure secure healthcare for the people living in rural areas and eliminate all barriers like distance, financial condition, etc. This responsibility can be passive, by avoiding engaging in socially harmful acts, or active, by performing activities that directly advance social goals. Social responsibility must be intergenerational since the actions of one generation have consequences on those following.

<i>Filártiga v. Peña-Irala</i>

Filártiga v. Peña-Irala, 630 F.2d 876, was a landmark case in United States and international law. It set the precedent for United States federal courts to punish non-American citizens for tortious acts committed outside the United States that were in violation of public international law or any treaties to which the United States is a party. It thus extends the jurisdiction of United States courts to tortious acts committed around the world. The case was decided by a panel of judges from the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit consisting of Judges Feinberg, Kaufman, and Kearse.

Global Reporting Initiative organization

The Global Reporting Initiative is an international independent standards organization that helps businesses, governments and other organizations understand and communicate their impacts on issues such as climate change, human rights and corruption.

Privacy law refers to the laws that deal with the regulation, storing, and using of personally identifiable information of individuals, which can be collected by governments, public or private organisations, or other individuals.

The OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises are an annex to the OECD Declaration on International Investment and Multinational Enterprises. They are recommendations providing principles and standards for responsible business conduct for multinational corporations operating in or from countries adhering to the Declaration. The Guidelines are legally nonbinding, but the OECD Investment Committee and its Working Party on Responsible Business Conduct encourage implementation among adherents. Originally, the Declaration and the Guidelines were adopted by the NP in 1976. The Guidelines were subsequently revised in 1979, 1982, 1984, 1991, 2000 and 2011.

Since about 1970, several major business and government excesses were seen in the United States to generate subsequent legal, public and political reaction. The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act is perhaps the legislation with the most significant influence in the development of ethics and compliance programs; similar ideas are encoded in the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations, and the Federal Sentencing Guidelines.

Theo van Boven Dutch legal scholar

Theodoor Cornelis (Theo) van Boven is a Dutch jurist and professor emeritus in international law.

Bowoto v. Chevron Corp. was a lawsuit against Chevron Nigeria Ltd., a subsidiary of Chevron USA, which went to trial in 2008 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The plaintiffs, Nigerian citizens who had been injured during or who had survived human rights violations perpetrated by Nigerian military personnel, alleged that the Chevron subsidiary backed the military action and that the parent company thus should bear liability in US courts for the resultant fallout. The suit was decided on December 1, 2008, when nine jurors unanimously agreed Chevron was not liable for any of the numerous allegations. Judgment was entered the next day, officially exonerating Chevron.

Human Rights Impact Assessment is a process for systematically identifying, predicting and responding to the potential human rights impacts of a business operation, capital project, government policy, or trade agreement. It is designed to complement a company or government’s other impact assessment and due diligence processes and to be framed by appropriate international human rights principles and conventions. It is also rooted in the realities of the particular project by incorporating the context within which it will operate from the outset, and by engaging directly with those peoples whose rights may be at risk.

The United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs) is an instrument consisting of 31 principles implementing the United Nations ‘Protect, Respect and Remedy’ framework on this issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises. Developed by the Special Representative of the Secretary-General (SRSG) John Ruggie, these Guiding Principles provided the first global standard for preventing and addressing the risk of adverse impacts on human rights linked to business activity, and continue to provide the internationally accepted framework for enhancing standards and practice regarding business and human rights. On June 16, 2011, the United Nations Human Rights Council unanimously endorsed the Guiding Principles for Business and Human Rights, making the framework the first corporate human rights responsibility initiative to be endorsed by the United Nations.

Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 569 U.S. 108 (2013), was a United States Supreme Court decision in which the court found that the Alien Tort Claims Act presumptively does not apply extraterritorially.

Global human rights and development (GHRAD) Human rights and development aims converge in many instances and are beneficial only to the government and not the people although there can be conflict between their different approaches. Today, a human rights-based approach is viewed by many as essential to achieving development goals. Historically, the "minority clauses" guaranteeing civil and political rights and religious and cultural toleration to minorities were significant acts emerging from the peace process of World War I relating to a peoples rights to self-determination. Overseen by the League of Nations Council the process allowed petitions from individuals and was monitored under the jurisdiction of the Permanent Court of International Justice. The 'clauses' are an important early signpost in both the human rights and development histories.

The Voluntary Principles on Security and Human Rights is a collaborative effort by governments, major multinational extractive companies, and NGOs to provide guidance to companies on tangible steps that they can take to minimize the risk of human rights abuses in communities located near extraction sites. The principles documents provide guidance to companies in developing practices that maintain the safety and security of their operations while respecting the human rights of those who come into contact with security forces related to those operations. The Principles give guidance on risk assessment, public safety and security, human rights abuses, and the interaction between companies and private and public security.

Jesner v. Arab Bank, PLC, No. 16-499, 584 U.S. ___ (2018), was a case before the United States Supreme Court concerning the scope of the Judiciary Act of 1789. At issue was whether the Judiciary Act of 1789, now known as the Alien Tort Statute, allows foreign corporations to be named as defendants. The Alien Tort Statute gives federal courts jurisdiction over civil suits brought by foreign nationals “for a tort only, committed in violation of the law of the nations or a treaty of the United States.” In an opinion delivered by Justice Kennedy, The Supreme Court held 5-4 that foreign corporations cannot be sued under the Alien Tort Statute.

Ashfaq Khalfan is an international jurist in human rights law, Director of the Law and Policy Programme at Amnesty International, and Chair of the Board of Governors of the Centre for International Sustainable Development Law.

UN General Assembly Resolution 60/147

UN General Assembly Resolution 60/147, the Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law, is a United Nations Resolution about the rights of victims of international crimes. It was adopted by the General Assembly on 16 December 2005 in its 60th session. According to the preamble, the purpose of the Resolution is to assist victims and their representatives to remedial relief and to guide and encourage States in the implementation of public policies on reparations.

References

  1. ↑ Robert C. Blitt “Beyond Ruggie’s Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights: Charting an Embracive Approach to Corporate Human Rights Compliance” (2012) 48 Tex Int’l L J 33 at 36
  2. ↑ , Transnational Institute"Planet Earth: A corporate world" (24 January 2013) <www.tni.org>
  3. ↑ , Transnational Institute "Architecture of Impunity" (23 January 2015) <www.tni.org>
  4. ↑ Emeka Duruigbo "Corporate Accountability and Liability for International Human Rights Abuses: Recent Changes and Recurring Challenges" (2008) 6 Nw U J Int'l Hum Rts 222 at 224
  5. ↑ Dapo Akande "International Organizations" in Evans, MD (ed) International Law (3rd ed, Oxford, Oxford, 2010) at 256
  6. ↑ Mirela V. Hristova "The Alien Tort Statute: A Vehicle for Implementing the United Nations Guiding Principles for Business and Human Rights and Promoting Corporate Social Responsibility" (2012) 47 USFL Rev 89 at 91
  7. ↑ Philip Alston, and Ryan Goodman International human rights: the successor to International human rights in context (Oxford, Oxford, 2013) at 1496
  8. ↑ Robert C. Blitt, above n 1, at 43
  9. ↑ at 50
  10. ↑ , "UN Human Rights Council endorses principles to ensure businesses respect human rights" UN News Centre (16 June 2011) <www.un.org>
  11. ↑ , International Federation for Human Rights "UN Human Rights Council adopts Guiding Principles on business conduct, yet victims still waiting for effective remedies" (17 June 2011) <www.fidh.org>
  12. ↑ John H. Knox "The Human Rights Council Endorses “Guiding Principles” for Corporations" (2011) 20 Am Soc'y Int'l L Insights 1 at 5,
  13. ↑ Robert C. Blitt, above n 1, at 41
  14. ↑ , OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises 2011 Edition, 25 May 2011 at 3
  15. ↑ Robert C. Blitt. above n 1, at 50
  16. ↑ OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises 2011 Edition at 31
  17. ↑ , Amnesty International United Kingdom, Briefing for UK National Contact Point on Human Rights Implementation of OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises (Amnesty International, June 2013) at 6
  18. ↑ at 7
  19. ↑ at 8
  20. ↑ "Company policy statements on human rights". business-humanrights.org. Retrieved 2016-05-24.
  21. ↑ John C. Anderson "Respecting Human Rights: Multinational Corporations Strike Out" (2000) 2 U Pa J Lab & Emp L 463, at 490
  22. ↑ , International Federation for Human Rights Corporate Accountability for Human Rights Abuses: A Guide for Victims and NGOs on Recourse Mechanisms (FIDH, March 2012) at 179
  23. ↑ Business and Human Rights Resource Centre Annual Briefing: Corporate Legal Accountability (www.business-humanrights.org, January 2015) at 1
  24. ↑ International Federation for Human Rights, above n 21, at 216
  25. ↑ at 181
  26. ↑ Mirela V. Hristova, above n 6, at 106
  27. ↑ Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum, 621 F.3d 111 (2d Cir. 2010).
  28. ↑ Business and Human Rights Resource Centre, above n 22, at 1
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.