1 / 26

Business and Human Rights Menno Kamminga

Business and Human Rights Menno Kamminga. Emergence of non-state actors. IGOs NGOs Individuals MNEs. Race to the bottom. Elimination of boundaries Freedom of foreign direct investment (FDI) Competition between states to attract investment produces lowering of standards

perry
Download Presentation

Business and Human Rights Menno Kamminga

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Business and Human Rights Menno Kamminga

  2. Emergence of non-state actors • IGOs • NGOs • Individuals • MNEs

  3. Race to the bottom • Elimination of boundaries • Freedom of foreign direct investment (FDI) • Competition between states to attract investment produces lowering of standards • Investment protection

  4. Accountability (or governance) gap • Not subject to one legal system • One brand and one profit but limited liability • Rights but no duties under international law • States unable or unwilling to hold companies accountable • Market provides ineffective accountability mechanism

  5. Positive impact of MNEs • Jobs • Technology transfer • Revenues • Schools/medical facilities

  6. Union Carbide (Bhopal) • Explosion in 1984 • 16.000 killed, 50.000 permanently disabled • Lawsuits in New York and India • $470 million out of court settlement

  7. Curse of the minerals • Extractive industries • Collusion with host state government • Revenues to Swiss bank accounts • Lack of transparency • Angola, Congo, Nigeria, Sudan, Myanmar

  8. Who is responsible under int. law? • Host state • Home state • Multinational enterprise

  9. 1. Host state responsibility • Traditional approach • Positive obligations. Due diligence • But doesn’t work if government is unable or unwilling • Myanmar(Burma) and the ILO

  10. 2. Home state responsibility • Examples of extraterritorial legislation • Problems with this approach • Except if home state actively supports foreign investment e.g. through export credits

  11. 3. Direct corporate responsibility • Preferred approach • Just as for states and individuals • International minimum standards • International supervision • International Criminal Court?

  12. Three types of corporate liability • Direct abuses (e.g. by security guards) • Taking advantages of abuses (e.g. involuntary resettlement or abuses in supply chain) • Failing to speak out against abuses (sphere of influence)

  13. International codes of conduct • ILO Tripartite Declaration of Principles Concerning Multinational Enterprises and Social Policy (1977) • OECD Declaration on International Investment and Multinational Enterprises (1976, revised several times) • UN Global Compact (2000) • But vague language and limited supervision systems

  14. Corporate codes of conduct • Impressive texts on corporate websites • But usually lack of supervision • Impact on consumers? • Legal significance?

  15. Multistakeholder initiatives • Characteristics • Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative • Voluntary Principles on Security and Human Rights • Kimberley Process Certification Scheme • Advantages and disadvantages

  16. UN Special Representative John Ruggie • Mandate (since 2005): “identify and clarify” international standards • Fantastic networker • Managed to establish global consensus • Ruggie framework: Protect, Respect and Remedy • Guiding Principles (2011)

  17. Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (2011) • Adopted by UN Human Rights Council without any change (!) • Not binding • Don’t cover home state obligations • Corporate due diligence obligation: ticking the boxes; obligation of effort

  18. Lawsuits • Purpose: relief for victims and establish precedents by bottom-up approach • So far mainly in USA (ATCA) • But increasingly also in other countries: no ATCA required

  19. Legal hurdle 1: Competent court • Forum non conveniens • EU Regulation 44/2001 on Jurisdiction and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil Matters (EEX): company may be sued where it has its statutory seat • ECJ case C-281/102, Owusuwu, par. 46

  20. Legal hurdle 2: Applicable law • Lex loci delicti • Public policy exception • Customary international law (Unocal) • But see Kiobel v. Shell

  21. Legal hurdle 3: Imputability • Limited liability of subsidiary • Lifting corporate veil • Enterprise (or corporate group) liability

  22. Out of court settlements • Union Carbide/Dow Chemicals (India): $470 million • Unocal (Myanmar/Burma): secret amount • Trafigura (Cote d’Ivoire): app. $250 million • Wiwa v. Shell (Nigeria): $15.5 million • Texaco/Chevron (Ecuador) next? • Problems with settlements

  23. The future • Disasters needed? • Demand for level playing field? • A convention codifying international corporate obligations • With a binding enforcement mechanism

  24. Want to know more?

More Related