20 YEARS AFTER BHOPAL: MULTINATIONALS AND HUMAN RIGHTS-FREE ZONES

By Irene Khan and - - Reprint | | Print |

This column is available for visitors to the IPS website only for reading. Reproduction in print or electronic media is prohibited. Media interested in republishing may contact romacol@ips.org.

LONDON, Jan 24 2005 (IPS) - To mark the twentieth anniversary of the Bhopal disaster, Amnesty International published a report that documented the continuing plight of people who continue to suffer chronic and debilitating illnesses for which treatment is largely ineffective, writes Irene Khan, Secretary General of Amnesty International. In this article, Khan writes that the Bhopal disaster is a prime case of the failure of international and national law to hold corporations accountable for human rights abuses. Notwithstanding the far-reaching impact of companies on human rights, most companies oppose any move towards binding regulations. Instead, following several high-profile cases and public pressure, some business sectors have drawn up voluntary codes of conduct, but these have failed to reduce the negative consequences of corporate behaviour on human rights. Under the current state of law, national systems are effectively unwilling or unable to hold companies operating in their countries accountable. Governments are afraid that, in a globalised economy, if they exercise strict control over businesses, foreign investors will go elsewhere. Companies must be brought within the framework of international human rights law. Yet global rules governing trade and investment are being drawn up without regard to their human rights impact. Amnesty International believes that the United Nations Norms on the Responsibilities of Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises with Regard to Human Rights (UN Norms) are the logical next step in a strategy to develop corporate legal accountability This column is part of the series on Globalisation and Human Rights, a joint project of Dignity International and IPS Columnist Service (http://www.dignityinternational.org).

Efforts by survivors organizations to seek justice in US and Indian courts and gain adequate redress have so far been unsuccessful. The transnational corporations involved Union Carbide Corporation (UCC) and Dow Chemicals (which took over UCC in 2001) have publicly stated that they have no responsibility for the leak and its consequences or for the pollution from the plant. UCC continues to refuse to appear before the court in Bhopal to face trial. The final settlement negotiated by the government of India was clearly inadequate and has left most survivors without compensation or redress.

The Bhopal disaster is a prime case of the failure of international and national law to hold corporations accountable for human rights abuses. When financial interests are at stake, many companies prefer to live with the risk of accidents and pay fines or damages if things go wrong, rather than invest in protecting the human rights of their staff and the community in which they operate. For victims, litigation is expensive and time-consuming. Large corporations have far greater resources than individual litigants who are often from poor and vulnerable groups, like the Bhopal victims.

For better or worse, companies are in a position to dramatically influence the lives and human rights of millions of people. As the process of economic globalization has significantly expanded, so has the reach of corporate power. Many businesses operate across boundaries in ways that exceed the regulatory capacities of any one national system. On the positive side business activities provide employment for countless millions; on the negative side companies may abuse human rights through their employment practices or their production processes, harming workers, communities, and the environment, or through their association with repressive authorities and security forces.

Notwithstanding the far-reaching impact of companies on human rights, most companies oppose any move towards binding regulations. Instead, following several high-profile cases and public pressure, some business sectors have drawn up voluntary codes of conduct, to guide their performance in their own operations and within their sphere of influence. Voluntary codes of conduct carry no legal authority or accountability mechanism.

While existing initiatives, such as the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises, the Global Compact, and the ILO Tripartite Declaration of Principles Concerning Multinational Enterprises and Social Policy, are useful in raising awareness of corporate social responsibility and promoting good practice, they have failed to reduce the negative consequences of corporate behaviour on human rights.

Under the current state of law, national systems are effectively unwilling or unable to hold companies operating in their countries accountable. Governments are afraid that, in a globalised economy, if they exercise strict control over businesses, foreign investors will go elsewhere. The complex structure of multinationals headquarters in one country, subsidiaries and operations in others creates real obstacles for local courts in exercising jurisdiction over the entire corporation. Many individuals fear reprisal and if they are employed by the company they fear losing their jobs.

In the Niger Delta; and Sudan, recent reports by Amnesty show that holding companies (in particular transnational corporations) accountable at national level is difficult and very often ineffective. The debate on business and human rights has not given enough attention to the rule of law and international human rights law.

Companies must be brought within the framework of international human rights law. Yet global rules governing trade and investment are being drawn up without regard to their human rights impact. Consider agreements reached between consortia developing large projects and states receiving foreign investment, like the one signed between the consortium developing the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline, and the Turkish government. A report from Amnesty International showed that the legal agreements effectively create a ‘rights-free corridor’ for the pipeline. The agreement risked lowering existing standards: it blatantly disregarded human rights obligations requiring the Turkish state to intervene at an early stage when there is a danger that could threaten life, and substituted the softer stipulation that Turkey may only intervene when there is “an imminent material threat” to safety or security. Business and governments reach such agreements because of the increased negotiating power of corporate actors, and because they cannot be held legally accountable for human rights.

Amnesty International believes that the United Nations Norms on the Responsibilities of Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises with Regard to Human Rights (UN Norms) are the logical next step in a strategy to develop corporate legal accountability.

The Norms are not legally-binding but they are important because they are the first authoritative and comprehensive document that sets out the human rights responsibilities of companies, based on existing international law and standards. They offer a statement of principles, not a detailed regulatory framework, allowing national governments and other bodies to build on them.

While some companies have set out to test the feasibility of the Norms, unfortunately some others, including corporate actors and governments, have reacted negatively, attacking and undermining the Norms as yet another constraint on business. If the Norms are to survive this onslaught, human rights defenders, trade unions and other advocates must stand up in their defence.

Let us not kid ourselves. Building agreement on the Norms will not be easy in this difficult period of economic and political uncertainty. But companies cannot escape responsibility or be silent witnesses to widespread human rights violations. Human rights are not a luxury for good times they must be respected and upheld at all times under all circumstances, by all actors, state or corporate. (END/COPYRIGHT IPS)