Contents:
By proceeding, you are agreeing to our Terms and Conditions.
Please note that we moderate comments to ensure the conversation remains topically relevant. We appreciate well-informed comments and welcome your criticism and insight. Please be civil and avoid name-calling and ad hominem remarks. Please provide more details about your request. We use cookies to improve your experience on our website. To find out more, read our updated cookie policy and privacy policy.
Please log in or register to continue. Registration is free and requires only your email address.
Password required Remember me? Please enter your email address and click on the reset-password button. If your email exists in our system, we'll send you an email with a link to reset your password. Please note that the link will expire twenty-four hours after the email is sent. If you can't find this email, please check your spam folder. Jul 25, Elizabeth Sidiropoulos. Show More Contact Us. The existing soft instruments at the global level — such as the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human rights — lack the necessary legal weight to offer a clear solution, given they do not have binding force nor do they require compliance.
That is why the leading human rights NGOs around the world in a massive conglomeration called the Treaty Alliance , together with many luminary academics are calling for a treaty between states on business and human rights that would seek to prevent human rights violations by businesses from occurring and ensure they do not go unpunished or at least uncompensated.
Such a treaty is necessary given the need to address a number of problems in international law that have prevented victims of human rights violations from being able to gain remedies against errant corporations. The first of these is that international law has traditionally been built on the idea that each state is sovereign within its own domain and required to hold responsible those who commit wrongs within its jurisdiction.
Volk, entscheide!: Visionen eines christlichen Polit-Rebells (German Edition) - Kindle edition by Sebastian Frankenberger. Download it once and read it on your . Volk, entscheide!: Visionen eines christlichen Polit-Rebells (German Edition) eBook: Sebastian Frankenberger: www.farmersmarketmusic.com: Kindle Store.
However, such an understanding is less well equipped to address wrong-doers who cross borders: Suing a corporation in the country where a wrong is committed may thus fail to affect the real centre of power or wealth. This problem is compounded by a second difficulty in that, in law, each corporation is regarded as a separate legal person. As such, a multi-national corporation is in fact a network of different entities all formed in terms of the laws of different countries. The likelihood of successful prosecutions or claims for compensation is very limited in these jurisdictions.
A treaty would seek to address these problems.
Was motiviert diesen jungen Politiker, der sich nach einem erfolgreichen Volksbegehren mit Morddrohungen konfrontiert sieht? The German civilian foreman of the Krupp Company kept rushing us and we were all so terrified that if we stopped or slowed down we would be put in [a] crematorium that we worked to the last ounce of our strength. Bilchitz not only putting moral obligations but legal duties on the government: Consider, for instance, the description of what took place in Myanmar during the s in the construction of a major oil pipeline that was a joint venture between the multinationals Total and Unocal. Markus Jensen I did not think that this would work, my best friend showed me this website, and it does!
First, it could require all states to adopt laws permitting them to hold corporations that have an office there to account for violations of fundamental rights they commit beyond their borders. Such an approach would help address the difficulty that no-one state alone wishes to be seen as the sole enforcer of human rights norms, and so become unattractive to businesses. It also stops corporations from exploiting weaknesses in legal systems of states in which violations take place to create a situation of impunity.
Secondly, the treaty could place binding legal obligations on corporations to address their impact on human rights across their operations, including when they are structured through subsidiaries and long supply chains. Thirdly, the treaty could also address technical questions surrounding in which jurisdictions such cases can be brought, how evidence can be gathered, and how remedies enforced.
Finally, it can also develop international structures to set reasonable minimum standards that businesses must adopt in relation to human rights that can be applied across the world. Sadly, in Germany, a lot of opposition comes from businesses who are concerned perhaps about the increased costs to ensure they are not in breach thereof.
If the treaty is adopted widely, however, any such costs will have to be borne by competitors too.
Indeed, business should not automatically been seen as against rights and it has many opportunities and responsibilities actively to contribute towards the realisation of rights in our society. Another equally unacceptable source of opposition comes from rigid lawyers schooled in the idea that international human rights only apply to the activities of states.
Lawyers need to learn from the mistakes of Nazi Germany too: In light of its history, Germany has a deep moral responsibility to stand up and lead the world in ensuring respect for the dignity and fundamental rights of individuals particularly where business is concerned. In a few months, the first draft of a treaty on business and human rights will be debated in Geneva. This offers a major opportunity for the government and business to change course and exercise leadership in meeting its historic and contemporary obligations to ensure a more humane world.
Prof Bilchitz will argue the case for a business and human rights treaty followed by a panel discussion on 19 July at 17h00 at Humboldt University, Berlin. This will be followed by a one-day conference on the topic on 20 July by leading German academics. To put it bluntly — this is attempted blackmail using Germanys undoubtedly horrible crimes between and Bilchitz, for this highly informative and actually convincing article!
In fact, any legal interpretation should be based on historical facts as this represents the classical method of historical interpretation. Auslegung der Gesetze; p. Further, the conclusions drawn by Prof. Bilchitz are perfectly in line with the view of the Bun-desverfassungsgericht.
It ruled that our constitution, the Grundgesetz, is the counter-concept to the Nazi Dictatorship. This very counter-concept is regarded as identity building to all of us cf. Laid down in our constitution, the German government has to comply with the principle of anti-national socialism. That leads not only the duty to refrain from certain acts but is reflected by various positive obligations, not only affecting inner affairs but the foreign politics alike e.
Therefore, one could even go further than Prof. Bilchitz not only putting moral obligations but legal duties on the government: It is highly recognised that merely refraining from a violation does not suffice but there are duties to protect.
Promoting an International Treaty on Bussines and Human Rights would be one legal instrument to protect the Fundamental Human Rights set out in the Grundgesetz, binding not only the gov-ernment but through the famous third party effect private actors likewise. In this context, it is also worth pointing out, that the most important German Fundamental Rights not only protect German nationals but every human being affected by the German authorities or liable private actors.
Therefore, the introduction to the article by Prof. Bilchitz opens up various legal aspects but should not be understood as an accusation. Putting some historical moral obligation on the German people only is what one would certainly call in any other context "racism" or "discrimination".