Corporate Obligations under the Human Right to Water

Almost a billion people do not have access to clean and safe water. Access to safe drinking water and sanitation is increasingly being considered a fundamental human right. Corporations play an important role in the realisation of the right to water. For example, they can become violators of the right to water where their activities deny access to clean and safe water or where water prices increase without warning. Corporations can have a positive or negative impact on the human rights of individuals, wider communities and indigenous peoples. This paper argues that corporations bear a certain responsibility for the realisation of the human right to water, which can be derived from international as well as national (constitutional) law. Corporate obligations under the human right to water can potentially be based on the right to water as set in national law and in the international human rights treaties and in corporate codes of conduct. It is asserted that this responsibility is different and separate from the responsibility of state governments and should never undermine state obligations to observe the human right to water. In short, the paper argues that corporations have an obligation to respect, protect and fulfil the right to water deriving primarily from national legal orders

Corporate Human Rights Obligations and International Investment Law

Globalisation has blurred the artificial borders that exist between economies and societies around the world. The activities of corporations in this globalised environment have often served as the catalyst for human rights violations; due to the lack of institutional protection, some corporations are able to exploit regulatory lacunae and the lack of human rights protection. It appears that the paradigmatic change demands an equal emphasis of rights and obligations of corporations. This article discusses and critically analyses corporate human rights obligations and the lack thereof under stabilization clauses in foreign investment contracts. First, stabilization clauses in foreign investment agreements are examined in relation to corporate obligations and responsibility for fundamental human rights. In doing so the substantive and procedural dimension of stabilization clauses is analysed. Second, using the concrete examples of the Mineral Development Agreement between Mittal Steel and the Government of Liberia Mittal Steel Agreement and of the Baku‐Tblisi‐Ceyhan Pipeline Project as case studies, this article considers an application of stabilization clauses in foreign investment contracts in relation to the fundamental human rights obligation of states and of corporations. Third, a proposal for reform in the form of a fundamental human rights clause is introduced. To be clear, the argument here is that the fundamental human rights obligations of investors, particularly of corporations, must be included in foreign investment agreements.La globalización permeó las fronteras artificiales existentes entre la economía y la sociedad alrededor del mundo. Las actividades empresariales en este ambiente globalizado ha servido como catalizador de las violaciones de derechos humanos como consecuencia de la ausencia de la protección institucional algunas empresas han explotado los vacíos jurídicos y la falta de protección de los derechos humanos. Al respecto, para lograr un cambio paradigmático requiere un fuerte énfasis en los derechos y las obligaciones de las empresas. Este artículo presenta un análisis crítico de las obligaciones de las empresas en material de derechos humanos frente a la falta de cláusulas de estabilización en los contratos de inversión extranjera. En primer lugar, estas cláusulas son examinadas en relación con la responsabilidad en las obligaciones corporativas con relación a los derechos humanos fundamentales. De acuerdo con lo anterior, se analizan las dimensiones sustantivas y procesales de las cláusulas de estabilización. En segundo lugar, apelando a los ejemplos concretos del Acuerdo para el desarrollo de la Minería entre Mittal Steel y el Gobierno de Liberia, así como el proyecto del Oleoducto de Baku‐Tblisi‐Ceyhan como casos de análisis, este artículo busca la aplicación de las cláusulas de estabilidad en las inversiones extranjeras con relación a la protección de los derechos humanos por parte de los Estados y de las empresas. En tercer lugar, se propone una modificación a la forma como se introduce la cláusula relativa a los derechos humanos. En este orden de ideas, los derechos humanos de los inversionistas, específicamente de las empresas, deben ser incluidos en los acuerdos de inversión extranjera

Corporate responsibility for human rights: Analyzing the ILO Tripartite Declaration of Principles Concerning Multinational Enterprises and Social Policy

This article analyses the Tripartite Declaration of Principles Concerning Multinational Enterprises and Social Policy of the International Labour Organization. It argues that given the current lack of a legally binding international document on human rights obligations of corporations, the focus on work towards legally-enforceable, existing international standards must be sharpened and new standards should be drafted

Družbena odgovornost podjetij v tranzicijskih demokracijah (Corporate social responsibility in transitional democracies)

Družbena odgovornost podjetij pomeni, da podjetja ne stremijo samo k pridobivanju čim višjih prihodkov in dobičkov, temveč da v poslovanje vključujejo tudi spoštovanje in spodbujanje človekovih pravic ter skrb za okolje. Družbena odgovornost od podjetij zahteva dosledno spoštovanje in izpolnjevanje zakonskih obveznosti, ker morajo v notranjem in zunanjem okolju dejavno spodbujati in podpirati spoštovanje vsakokratne ustavnopravne ureditve. Da so vprašanja o družbeni odgovornosti gospodarskih družb do človekovih pravic in varstva okolja vedno bolj aktualna je razvidno iz podatkov, da številne domače in mednarodne nevladne organizacije pripisujejo posredno odgovornost za kršenje temeljnih človekovih pravic in za onesnaženje okolja tudi kitajskim, ameriškim, britanskim, ruskim, indijskim ter francoskim nacionalnim in transnacionalnim podjetjem, ki že dalj časa poslujejo in posredno podpirajo totalitarne režime v Afriki, Aziji in južni Ameriki

Corporate Human Rights Obligations and International Investment Law

Globalisation has blurred the artificial borders that exist between economies and societies around the world. The activities of corporations in this globalised environment have often served as the catalyst for human rights violations; due to the lack of institutional protection, some corporations are able to exploit regulatory lacunae and the lack of human rights protection. It appears that the paradigmatic change demands an equal emphasis of rights and obligations of corporations. This article discusses and critically analyses corporate human rights obligations and the lack thereof under stabilization clauses in foreign investment contracts. First, stabilization clauses in foreign investment agreements are examined in relation to corporate obligations and responsibility for fundamental human rights. In doing so the substantive and procedural dimension of stabilization clauses is analysed. Second, using the concrete examples of the Mineral Development Agreement between Mittal Steel and the Government of Liberia Mittal Steel Agreement and of the Baku‐Tblisi‐Ceyhan Pipeline Project as case studies, this article considers an application of stabilization clauses in foreign investment contracts in relation to the fundamental human rights obligation of states and of corporations. Third, a proposal for reform in the form of a fundamental human rights clause is introduced. To be clear, the argument here is that the fundamental human rights obligations of investors, particularly of corporations, must be included in foreign investment agreements.La globalización permeó las fronteras artificiales existentes entre la economía y la sociedad alrededor del mundo. Las actividades empresariales en este ambiente globalizado ha servido como catalizador de las violaciones de derechos humanos como consecuencia de la ausencia de la protección institucional algunas empresas han explotado los vacíos jurídicos y la falta de protección de los derechos humanos. Al respecto, para lograr un cambio paradigmático requiere un fuerte énfasis en los derechos y las obligaciones de las empresas. Este artículo presenta un análisis crítico de las obligaciones de las empresas en material de derechos humanos frente a la falta de cláusulas de estabilización en los contratos de inversión extranjera. En primer lugar, estas cláusulas son examinadas en relación con la responsabilidad en las obligaciones corporativas con relación a los derechos humanos fundamentales. De acuerdo con lo anterior, se analizan las dimensiones sustantivas y procesales de las cláusulas de estabilización. En segundo lugar, apelando a los ejemplos concretos del Acuerdo para el desarrollo de la Minería entre Mittal Steel y el Gobierno de Liberia, así como el proyecto del Oleoducto de Baku‐Tblisi‐Ceyhan como casos de análisis, este artículo busca la aplicación de las cláusulas de estabilidad en las inversiones extranjeras con relación a la protección de los derechos humanos por parte de los Estados y de las empresas. En tercer lugar, se propone una modificación a la forma como se introduce la cláusula relativa a los derechos humanos. En este orden de ideas, los derechos humanos de los inversionistas, específicamente de las empresas, deben ser incluidos en los acuerdos de inversión extranjera

National Security – a Trump Card? The European Court of Human Rights decisions in Herri Batasuna and Batasuna v. Spain, Etxeberria and Others v. Spain and Herritarren Zerrenda v. Spain

On 30 June 2009, the European Court of Human Rights delivered three decisions deriving from the situation in the Basque country, Herri Batasuna and Batasuna v. Spain, Etxeberría and Others v. Spain and Herritarren Zerrenda v. Spain. In Herri Batasuna and Batasuna v. Spain, the European Court of Human Rights upheld the dissolution of the political parties Herri Batasuna and Batasuna, whereas it held in Etxeberría and Others v. Spain and Herritarren Zerrenda v. Spain that the political groups, which wished to continue the activities of the illegal political parties, are also prohibited from presenting candidates in municipal, regional and autonomous community elections. This article will briefly explore some of the basic legal questions arising from the above decisions. It attempts to demonstrate that the Court's analysis is entirely at odds with the functioning of democratic society, and it argues that the extreme measure of dissolution of Herri Batasuna and Batasuna, Etxeberría and Herritarren Zerrenda may have been avoided by employing less drastic and individualized measures. Despite the Court holding that the dissolution of the political parties and groups was necessary and proportionate, it may have failed to establish the factual basis and therefore also its conclusions are subjected to criticism

Global witness v. Afrimex ltd. : decision applying OECD guidelines on corporate responsibility for human rights

Published online: 23 January 2009On August 28, 2008, the United Kingdom's National Contact Point (UK-NCP) issued its decision in Global Witness v. Afrimex Ltd. In this case, Global Witness, a non-governmental organization, alleged that Afrimex Ltd. (Afrimex), a British corporation, violated the Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises of the Organization for Economic Development and Cooperation (OECD Guidelines) by paying bribes to a rebel group in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and purchasing minerals from mines in the DRC that employ child and forced labor. This Insight analyzes this case and its importance for efforts to heighten corporate responsibility for the protection of human rights

Application of the Convention on the Prevention of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v Serbia and Montenegro): Catching the Conscience of the Judges

Earlier this year, on 27 February, a mass demonstration was held in Sarajevo, where 10,000 victims of the Srebrenica genocide expressed their disillusionment with the judgment of the International Court of justice ('ICJ') handed down a day earlier. On 26 February 2007, the ICJ had delivered its decision in the Case Concerning the Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v Serbia and Montenegro) {'Genocide Convention Case (Merits)'). One of the victims in the demonstration carried a banner where it was ironically written that 8,000 Bosnian Muslim men were killed by 'aliens'. This is just one indication that the ICJ's decision will have far-reaching consequences regarding the stability of this troubled region. This article examines the decision from a substantive point of view and attempts to shed new understanding on the decision