Corporate Initiatives: A Second Human Rights Revolution?

This Essay examines the role of multinational corporations in protecting human rights around the globe. Part I analyzes the conduct of corporations, describes examples of corporations\u27 involvement in human rights violations, and discusses the merits of greater responsibility of corporations. Part II suggests that the level of responsibility for a multinational corporation depends on the proximity of the corporation\u27s operations to human rights violations, in combination with the seriousness of the violations, and proposes five gradations of responsibility. This Essay concludes that the evolving nature of the global economy is producing a shift in responsibilities from government to the private sector, particularly multinational corporations, and that those responsibilities may include the power and duty to safeguard human rights

Lessons from the Americas: Guidelines for International Response to Amnesties for Atrocities

The impunity enjoyed by perpetrators of human rights violations, thanks in part to amnesty laws, is summarized. The international community should adopt guidelines to assist their own officials in responding to future amnesties

Corporate Aiding and Abetting of Human Rights Violations: Confusion in the Courts

This article explores whether transnational corporations or their executives can be held criminally or civilly liable for aiding and abetting human rights violations committed by governments, militaries or other actors in foreign countries where they do business. The article particularly examines the mens rea element under international law: whether the aider or abettor must knowingly—or instead purposefully—assist the principal to commit a crime. At present, the principal concern of major corporations about liability for aiding and abetting is the risk of being held liable in U.S. courts under the Alien Tort Statute. But whatever happens with ongoing ATS litigation, the issue of aiding and abetting may become more important in the future in other contexts - including the International Criminal Court, national courts in the home countries of major corporations, and national courts in developing countries where large companies do business. If the standards were clarified for aiding and abetting, and especially for the mens rea element, the resulting legal certainty would be fairer for both corporate managers and victims of human rights violations, while avoiding needless sources of friction among states. As aiding and abetting liability evolves for corporate actors, several principles of international law should be borne in mind. First, even if corporations per se cannot be prosecuted before international criminal tribunals, corporate executives have long been subject to international criminal jurisdiction. Second, international criminal law has long recognized criminal responsibility for aiding and abetting. Third, international law recognizes that civil liability of corporations is widely accepted by national justice systems. Fourth, international law increasingly encourages states to hold corporations criminally responsible for aiding and abetting violations of international law. Combining these principles, whatever may have been the status of corporate aiding and abetting liability in the apartheid era, international norms against corporate aiding and abetting of violations of international criminal law are now widely accepted internationally

The Globalization of Human Rights: Consciousness, Law and Reality

Human rights have suffered sharp setbacks in the four years since the paper that follows was delivered in London in the summer of 2000. The terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001, and the Bush Administration’s ensuing “war on terrorism,” have led not only to a demotion of human rights on the list of American foreign policy priorities, but also to gross violations of human rights by Washington. Among other recent assaults on the rule of law are the prolonged detentions of hundreds of prisoners without trial or due process of law at the United States Naval Base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Repressive regimes around the world have happily seized on American regression as precedent and pretext to trample on due process of law and to crack down on political dissent. The question is whether this is merely a temporary overreaction by a conservative administration, echoing the pattern of past American violations of civil liberties in times of war and emergency, or is instead the first sign of a long-term reversal of the human rights gains of the twentieth century. One hopes that this, too, shall pass. Because the question remains open, however, I thought it best to leave the following essay as it stands, in its pre-9/11 innocence. Time will tell whether Washington and other governments regain their senses and come back to an appreciation of the hard-won gains for human rights in the twentieth century. For the reasons stated in the essay, I believe there is reason to remain guardedly optimistic. This paper assesses the rights revolution in historical context and asks, What drives it

A Framework of Norms: International Human-Rights Law and Sovereignty

The international legal boundary between states; rights and human rights is not fixed. Long ago, the Permanent Court of International Justice - the judicial arm of the League of Nations and the precursor to the present International Court of Justice - recognized that the question whether a certain matter is or is not solely within the jurisdiction of a State is an essentially relative question; it depends on the development of international relations. In recent decades international relations concerning both sovereignty and rights have developed quickly. An examination of those rights and the evolving realities of sovereignty are examined