<div class="gmail_quote">From: <b class="gmail_sendername">Sofia Monsalve</b> <span dir="ltr"><a href="mailto:monsalve@fian.org">monsalve@fian.org</a></span><br><span style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; COLOR: #1f497d"> </span><span style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt"><br>
<br>There is an urgent need to position yourself and/or your organisation on states obligations under human rights in the context of big business:<br><br>There is no need to alert you to the importance of states’ obligations to individually and jointly regulate business, including agribusiness, banks etc. and that this regulation has to be based on the economic, social and cultural rights of the people.<br>
There has been resistance by many corporations and by the governments close to them. The UN Secretary Generals have been soft peddling on the issue, whereas human rights people at the UN have used (fairly) clear language.<br>
<br>On November 22, John Ruggie, the UN Secretary General’s special representative on business and human rights put his “Guiding Principles for the implementation of the Protect, Respect, Remedy framework” online for consultation under <a href="http://www.srsgconsultation.org/" target="_blank">http://www.srsgconsultation.org</a>. This consultation forum, intended to gather views from a broad range of stakeholders, will remain open until 31 January 2011. John Ruggie’s plan is to ask the Human Rights Council in June to vote on these Guiding Principles.<br>
<br>The Ruggie draft tends to undermine rather than strengthen people’s protection by international human rights law. For this matter, FIAN International - in cooperation with other concerned organizations - prepared two public statements (on two separate subjects) which we ask you to sign in order to clearly signal that civil society organizations and individuals working in the field reject this tendency.<br>
<br>Please let us know asap whether you can support one or both of these statements. <br><br>Please sign, and send your feedback on or before January 20 to <a href="mailto:kuennemann@fian.org" target="_blank">kuennemann@fian.org</a>.<br>
</span>
<div lang="DE" vlink="purple" link="blue">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div class="im">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="BACKGROUND: white"> <span style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt"><br><br>*****************************************<br></span><b><span lang="EN-US"> </span></b></p></div></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="EN-US">States’ obligations to respect and protect human rights abroad</span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="EN-US">Comments on John Ruggie’s Draft GPs</span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">The „Draft Guiding Principles for the Implementation of the UN `protect, respect and remedy framework`” (henceforth: the draft) in their introductory part emphasise: “Nothing in these Guiding Principles limits or undermines any legal obligations a State may have undertaken or be subject to under international law with regard to human rights.”</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">The following observations show, on the contrary, that the draft tends to undermine obligations of states under international human rights law. The observations refer to two Principles of human rights law which are affected by the deliberations of the draft: </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="EN-GB">1. States carry a legal duty under international human rights law to respect human rights abroad.</span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">The draft is quiet on any legal ET obligation to respect. If a company is owned by the state all that is mentioned<a title="" href="https://mail.google.com/mail/?ui=2&view=js&name=main,tlist&ver=4NGb8kRDZ_0.en.&am=!U8qYy82zslH7BT6irnU2Wog4WXuu9sV28pbjdTb0Dag8S88CwZ-BeCE&fri#12d940747bece98a__ftn1" name="12d940747bece98a__ftnref1"><span><span><span lang="EN-GB" style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman','serif'">[1]</span></span></span></a> is that there are “sound policy rationales” for the state to ensure that this company respects the enjoyment of human rights abroad. A legal duty is not mentioned. Acts of such a company, however, are attributable to the state, which in turn is under a legal obligation to respect human rights abroad.<a title="" href="https://mail.google.com/mail/?ui=2&view=js&name=main,tlist&ver=4NGb8kRDZ_0.en.&am=!U8qYy82zslH7BT6irnU2Wog4WXuu9sV28pbjdTb0Dag8S88CwZ-BeCE&fri#12d940747bece98a__ftn2" name="12d940747bece98a__ftnref2"><span><span><span lang="EN-GB" style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman','serif'">[2]</span></span></span></a></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">The position taken in the draft also contradicts the clear and consistent view of the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) that states must respect human rights abroad.<a title="" href="https://mail.google.com/mail/?ui=2&view=js&name=main,tlist&ver=4NGb8kRDZ_0.en.&am=!U8qYy82zslH7BT6irnU2Wog4WXuu9sV28pbjdTb0Dag8S88CwZ-BeCE&fri#12d940747bece98a__ftn3" name="12d940747bece98a__ftnref3"><span><span><span lang="EN-GB" style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman','serif'">[3]</span></span></span></a></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="EN-GB">2. States are required under international human rights law to regulate the extraterritorial activities of businesses domiciled in their territory and/or jurisdiction to the extent that such regulation does not infringe on the rights of other states to protect and fulfil human rights in their territories.</span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">The draft claims<a title="" href="https://mail.google.com/mail/?ui=2&view=js&name=main,tlist&ver=4NGb8kRDZ_0.en.&am=!U8qYy82zslH7BT6irnU2Wog4WXuu9sV28pbjdTb0Dag8S88CwZ-BeCE&fri#12d940747bece98a__ftn4" name="12d940747bece98a__ftnref4"><span><span><span lang="EN-GB" style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman','serif'">[4]</span></span></span></a>: “At present, States are not generally required under international human rights law to regulate the extraterritorial activities of businesses domiciled in their territory and/or jurisdiction.” This is not correct in the current context: The realisation of human rights (as the raison d’etre of all human rights law) requires that states take preventative, protective and punitive measures against corporate abuses whenever their resources – and the rights of host states to protect and fulfil – permit. Moreover such a duty to protect - unless it’s implementation is feasible unilaterally – has to be met through international cooperation<a title="" href="https://mail.google.com/mail/?ui=2&view=js&name=main,tlist&ver=4NGb8kRDZ_0.en.&am=!U8qYy82zslH7BT6irnU2Wog4WXuu9sV28pbjdTb0Dag8S88CwZ-BeCE&fri#12d940747bece98a__ftn5" name="12d940747bece98a__ftnref5"><span><span><span lang="EN-GB" style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman','serif'">[5]</span></span></span></a>. The regulation of domiciled businesses is a minimum of international cooperation for addressing abuses by such businesses. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">Under human rights law states have the obligation to protect. In the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), this duty does not carry a restriction on territory or jurisdiction. If jurisdictional aspects are to be considered this has to be done with a view to the object and purpose of human rights treaties – the protection and promotion of human rights. This means that extraterritorial human rights jurisdiction is only limited by the rights of other states under the purpose of the Covenant – i.e.: States acting extra-territorially to protect human rights must not interfere with the implementation of human rights obligations of the victims’ state. This, however, is well-understood and does not merit the sweeping statements of the draft. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">In its General Comment (GC) 14, the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) stresses such an obligation: “States parties have to respect the enjoyment of the right to health in other countries, and to prevent third parties from violating the right in other countries, if they are able to influence these third parties by way of legal or political means, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and applicable international law. The CESCR in GC 15.33 (and similarly in GC12.36, GC19.54) says that states should “take steps to prevent their own citizens and companies from violating the right to water of individuals and communities in other countries.” </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">The draft however, in principle 2, says that states should “encourage domiciled business” to respect human rights abroad. According to the draft the step to be taken is to encourage business to respect – rather than to prevent business from abusing. This tends to undermine the standards already set out by the CESCR. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="EN-GB">Conclusion:</span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">The draft claims<a title="" href="https://mail.google.com/mail/?ui=2&view=js&name=main,tlist&ver=4NGb8kRDZ_0.en.&am=!U8qYy82zslH7BT6irnU2Wog4WXuu9sV28pbjdTb0Dag8S88CwZ-BeCE&fri#12d940747bece98a__ftn6" name="12d940747bece98a__ftnref6"><span><span><span lang="EN-GB" style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman','serif'">[6]</span></span></span></a> that there is a “global movement of sorts in support of a successful mandate”. The mandate can hardly be seen as successful if it tends to undermine basic legal features of international human rights law, and the authoritative interpretations of treaty bodies. Moreover persons participating in consultations cannot be subsumed as a “movement”. </span></p>
<div style="BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; PADDING-RIGHT: 0cm; BORDER-TOP: medium none; PADDING-LEFT: 0cm; PADDING-BOTTOM: 1pt; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; PADDING-TOP: 0cm; BORDER-BOTTOM: windowtext 3pt dotted">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; PADDING-RIGHT: 0cm; BORDER-TOP: medium none; PADDING-LEFT: 0cm; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0cm; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; PADDING-TOP: 0cm; BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none"><span lang="EN-GB"> </span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="BACKGROUND: white; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 12pt"><span style="COLOR: #1f497d"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="EN-GB">Business enterprises carry a legal respect-obligation under international human rights law.</span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Comment on John Ruggie’s </span><span lang="EN-GB">„Draft Guiding Principles for the Implementation of the UN protect, respect and remedy framework`” </span><span lang="EN-US"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="EN-US"> </span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="EN-US"> </span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">The draft fails to mention that business enterprises carry a legal respect-obligation under international human rights law.<a title="" href="https://mail.google.com/mail/?ui=2&view=js&name=main,tlist&ver=4NGb8kRDZ_0.en.&am=!U8qYy82zslH7BT6irnU2Wog4WXuu9sV28pbjdTb0Dag8S88CwZ-BeCE&fri#12d940747bece98a__ftn7" name="12d940747bece98a__ftnref7"><span><span><span lang="EN-GB" style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman','serif'">[7]</span></span></span></a> The legal quality of this respect-obligation is an immediate consequence of the states’ duties to protect which is a legal duty under international human rights law. This duty requires states to protect persons against measures of business enterprises which fail to respect the persons’ enjoyment of human rights. If the respect-obligation under international human rights law was not legal, but only moral, the legal duty to protect could not be implemented. Insisting on such legal duties of businesses in international human rights law does not elevate businesses to become subjects of international law, of course. The language for such breaches should therefore be “abuse” rather than violation (as in the case of states breaching their obligations). Ignoring the legal quality of the respect-obligation of business in international human rights law and making it a responsibility in the sense of a mere “expectation of society” (as in para.11)<a title="" href="https://mail.google.com/mail/?ui=2&view=js&name=main,tlist&ver=4NGb8kRDZ_0.en.&am=!U8qYy82zslH7BT6irnU2Wog4WXuu9sV28pbjdTb0Dag8S88CwZ-BeCE&fri#12d940747bece98a__ftn8" name="12d940747bece98a__ftnref8"><span><span><span lang="EN-GB" style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman','serif'">[8]</span></span></span></a> tends to undermine the states obligation to protect.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="BACKGROUND: white; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 12pt"><br><br></p></div></div></div></div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p></div></div>
<div><br clear="all">
<hr align="left" width="33%" size="1">
<div>
<p><a title="" href="https://mail.google.com/mail/?ui=2&view=js&name=main,tlist&ver=4NGb8kRDZ_0.en.&am=!U8qYy82zslH7BT6irnU2Wog4WXuu9sV28pbjdTb0Dag8S88CwZ-BeCE&fri#12d940747bece98a__ftnref1" name="12d940747bece98a__ftn1"><span><span><span style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman','serif'">[1]</span></span></span></a><span lang="EN-GB"> Para 8, similarly in the commentary to principle 2, </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p><a title="" href="https://mail.google.com/mail/?ui=2&view=js&name=main,tlist&ver=4NGb8kRDZ_0.en.&am=!U8qYy82zslH7BT6irnU2Wog4WXuu9sV28pbjdTb0Dag8S88CwZ-BeCE&fri#12d940747bece98a__ftnref2" name="12d940747bece98a__ftn2"><span><span><span style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman','serif'">[2]</span></span></span></a><span lang="EN-GB"> cf. ILC Article 8 on State Responsibility; Any alternative view would give rise to absurd consequences. If a government wants to violate human rights abroad, it could just form its own corporation to do it with impunity.</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p><a title="" href="https://mail.google.com/mail/?ui=2&view=js&name=main,tlist&ver=4NGb8kRDZ_0.en.&am=!U8qYy82zslH7BT6irnU2Wog4WXuu9sV28pbjdTb0Dag8S88CwZ-BeCE&fri#12d940747bece98a__ftnref3" name="12d940747bece98a__ftn3"><span><span><span style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman','serif'">[3]</span></span></span></a><span lang="EN-GB"> GC 12§36; GC 14§39; GC 15§31; GC 19§53. Principle 6 of the draft formulates only that states “should” take steps to require human rights compliance by state-owned companies, whereas the CESCR formulates a clear requirement for states to respect. Similarly in principle 8.</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p><a title="" href="https://mail.google.com/mail/?ui=2&view=js&name=main,tlist&ver=4NGb8kRDZ_0.en.&am=!U8qYy82zslH7BT6irnU2Wog4WXuu9sV28pbjdTb0Dag8S88CwZ-BeCE&fri#12d940747bece98a__ftnref4" name="12d940747bece98a__ftn4"><span><span><span style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman','serif'">[4]</span></span></span></a><span lang="EN-GB"> Para. 7, similarly in the commentary to principle 2.</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p><a title="" href="https://mail.google.com/mail/?ui=2&view=js&name=main,tlist&ver=4NGb8kRDZ_0.en.&am=!U8qYy82zslH7BT6irnU2Wog4WXuu9sV28pbjdTb0Dag8S88CwZ-BeCE&fri#12d940747bece98a__ftnref5" name="12d940747bece98a__ftn5"><span><span><span style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman','serif'">[5]</span></span></span></a> <span lang="EN-GB">UN Charter art 1.3, 56</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p><a title="" href="https://mail.google.com/mail/?ui=2&view=js&name=main,tlist&ver=4NGb8kRDZ_0.en.&am=!U8qYy82zslH7BT6irnU2Wog4WXuu9sV28pbjdTb0Dag8S88CwZ-BeCE&fri#12d940747bece98a__ftnref6" name="12d940747bece98a__ftn6"><span><span><span style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman','serif'">[6]</span></span></span></a><span lang="EN-GB"> Para 15</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p><a title="" href="https://mail.google.com/mail/?ui=2&view=js&name=main,tlist&ver=4NGb8kRDZ_0.en.&am=!U8qYy82zslH7BT6irnU2Wog4WXuu9sV28pbjdTb0Dag8S88CwZ-BeCE&fri#12d940747bece98a__ftnref7" name="12d940747bece98a__ftn7"><span><span><span style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman','serif'">[7]</span></span></span></a><span lang="EN-GB"> Principle 12 formulates “Business enterprises should respect human rights …” The comment sees this merely as a standard of “expected conduct”. This approach undermines the legal obligation to respect and has absurd consequences: Whereas a person whose human rights are not respected by a state may take legal action in international human rights law, the same person suffering the same abuse would not have such legal remedies, if the abuse was committed by a business enterprise. In the commentary to principle 12 the draft makes the point that human rights instruments “do not impose direct legal obligations on business enterprises” and that “legal liability … remains defined largely by national law provisions in relevant jurisdictions”. This overlooks that these instruments include the states’ legal duty to protect as a duty under international law which presupposes legal obligations of other actors to respect. Persecuting other actors’ breaches is not an option for states - but a duty. Therefore the illegality of such breaches is a necessity. This is also obvious from principle 23 which formulates that victims have to find effective remedy through “appropriate means” including judicial means. Judicial means, however, are not available if the legal nature of business enterprises’ obligation to respect is not acknowledged. </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p><a title="" href="https://mail.google.com/mail/?ui=2&view=js&name=main,tlist&ver=4NGb8kRDZ_0.en.&am=!U8qYy82zslH7BT6irnU2Wog4WXuu9sV28pbjdTb0Dag8S88CwZ-BeCE&fri#12d940747bece98a__ftnref8" name="12d940747bece98a__ftn8"><span><span><span style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman','serif'">[8]</span></span></span></a><span lang="EN-GB"> In principle 5 business’ respect for human rights is a mere „expectation“ of states and becomes a requirement only “where appropriate”. States with such attitudes fail to implement their legal obligation to protect.</span></p>
</div></div></div></div><br>