05.08.01
Statements
Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights: OMCT intervenes on the activities of transnational corporations (TNCs)
Sub-Commission for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights: 53rd Session – Working Group on the Working Methods of Transnational Corporations
Mr. Chairperson,
As it is the first time the World Organisation Against Torture (OMCT) intervenes before this working-group, we would like to welcome the efforts undertaken by this working group, and in particular by Mr. Weissbrodt, Mr. Eide and Mr. Guissé to address the relationship between the activities and working methods of transnational corporations and the enjoyment of all human rights.
While OMCT believes that States still retain primary responsibility for the protection of all human rights, the concept of due diligence, as it is currently envisaged, fails to bring an appropriate answer to the impact companies have on the enjoyment of all human rights. The States’ failure or inability to protect and fulfil their human rights obligations results in companies often operating in a climate of impunity. In this regard, the Draft Universal Guidelines for Companies, prepared by Mr. Weissbrodt, constitutes a remarkable basis. However, OMCT would like to draw the attention of this working group to the following points.
Mr. Chairperson,
For the wording of the Draft Guidelines, OMCT notes that they do not expressly mention the United Nations Convention against Torture when addressing the issue of security arrangements under the heading (C.5.a). OMCT would like to draw the attention of the working-group and of Mr. Weissbrodt to the fact that companies’ security guards have been accused of acts of torture and other forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. In this regard, OMCT invites you to look at the lawsuit brought against Exxon before a US civil court under the Alien Tort Claim Act, which involves accusations of ill-treatment by the company’s security guards.
OMCT also notes that the same section on the security arrangements of companies (C.5.) remains silent as far as the disclosure of these arrangements is concerned. OMCT believes that the lack of transparency with regard to the content and terms of reference of companies’ security arrangements represents a key factor when human rights violations by companies’ security guards are at stake. The strong reluctance of companies to disclose these arrangements underlines the crucial issue of disclosure and transparency, as well as the need for the Draft Guidelines to take a firm position on this issue.
Mr. Chairperson,
Regarding the measures of implementation, OMCT hopes that the working-group will further develop the current document in order to address the crucial issues of monitoring, enforcement and compensation/restitutions.
While the adoption, dissemination and implementation of a code of conduct by companies is mandatory under the Draft Guidelines, the procedures of monitoring and enforcement foreseen by the document are left to the companies themselves.
In this regard, OMCT considers that the self-proclamation and self-monitoring of codes of conduct by companies remain unsatisfactory as they are generally not implemented. Consequently, OMCT believes that this working-group should strongly consider the possibility of establishing procedures guaranteeing independent monitoring, the enforcement of the guidelines as well as proper compensation/restitution to the victims. Such independent procedure, which would apply to all companies, would also guarantee a level playing field which represents a necessary condition to enable the full and real implementation/enforcement of human rights and labour standards by companies. Such an approach brings States –home States and host States- back into the equation.
Mr Chairperson,
In conclusion, while OMCT believes that the current Draft Guidelines represent an interesting basis towards the elaboration of a binding instrument whose implementation and enforcement are not left to the companies themselves, we question the ability of this document to efficiently address the current situation where companies can act in a climate of quasi impunity with regard to their involvement in human rights violations.
In this regard, OMCT hopes that this working-group will conduct further studies and reflection on the point (f) of its mandate which deals with the scope of States’ responsibility. Indeed, the establishment of an independent monitoring and enforcement body of the Draft Guidelines bringing States –home States and host States- back into the equation, underlines the need to determine their responsibility and role in the processes of monitoring, enforcement and compensation/restitution.
I thank you very much Mr. Chairperson.
Geneva, August 2001
Nathalie Mivelaz
Mr. Chairperson,
As it is the first time the World Organisation Against Torture (OMCT) intervenes before this working-group, we would like to welcome the efforts undertaken by this working group, and in particular by Mr. Weissbrodt, Mr. Eide and Mr. Guissé to address the relationship between the activities and working methods of transnational corporations and the enjoyment of all human rights.
While OMCT believes that States still retain primary responsibility for the protection of all human rights, the concept of due diligence, as it is currently envisaged, fails to bring an appropriate answer to the impact companies have on the enjoyment of all human rights. The States’ failure or inability to protect and fulfil their human rights obligations results in companies often operating in a climate of impunity. In this regard, the Draft Universal Guidelines for Companies, prepared by Mr. Weissbrodt, constitutes a remarkable basis. However, OMCT would like to draw the attention of this working group to the following points.
Mr. Chairperson,
For the wording of the Draft Guidelines, OMCT notes that they do not expressly mention the United Nations Convention against Torture when addressing the issue of security arrangements under the heading (C.5.a). OMCT would like to draw the attention of the working-group and of Mr. Weissbrodt to the fact that companies’ security guards have been accused of acts of torture and other forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. In this regard, OMCT invites you to look at the lawsuit brought against Exxon before a US civil court under the Alien Tort Claim Act, which involves accusations of ill-treatment by the company’s security guards.
OMCT also notes that the same section on the security arrangements of companies (C.5.) remains silent as far as the disclosure of these arrangements is concerned. OMCT believes that the lack of transparency with regard to the content and terms of reference of companies’ security arrangements represents a key factor when human rights violations by companies’ security guards are at stake. The strong reluctance of companies to disclose these arrangements underlines the crucial issue of disclosure and transparency, as well as the need for the Draft Guidelines to take a firm position on this issue.
Mr. Chairperson,
Regarding the measures of implementation, OMCT hopes that the working-group will further develop the current document in order to address the crucial issues of monitoring, enforcement and compensation/restitutions.
While the adoption, dissemination and implementation of a code of conduct by companies is mandatory under the Draft Guidelines, the procedures of monitoring and enforcement foreseen by the document are left to the companies themselves.
In this regard, OMCT considers that the self-proclamation and self-monitoring of codes of conduct by companies remain unsatisfactory as they are generally not implemented. Consequently, OMCT believes that this working-group should strongly consider the possibility of establishing procedures guaranteeing independent monitoring, the enforcement of the guidelines as well as proper compensation/restitution to the victims. Such independent procedure, which would apply to all companies, would also guarantee a level playing field which represents a necessary condition to enable the full and real implementation/enforcement of human rights and labour standards by companies. Such an approach brings States –home States and host States- back into the equation.
Mr Chairperson,
In conclusion, while OMCT believes that the current Draft Guidelines represent an interesting basis towards the elaboration of a binding instrument whose implementation and enforcement are not left to the companies themselves, we question the ability of this document to efficiently address the current situation where companies can act in a climate of quasi impunity with regard to their involvement in human rights violations.
In this regard, OMCT hopes that this working-group will conduct further studies and reflection on the point (f) of its mandate which deals with the scope of States’ responsibility. Indeed, the establishment of an independent monitoring and enforcement body of the Draft Guidelines bringing States –home States and host States- back into the equation, underlines the need to determine their responsibility and role in the processes of monitoring, enforcement and compensation/restitution.
I thank you very much Mr. Chairperson.
Geneva, August 2001
Nathalie Mivelaz