Human Rights Advocates
P.O. Box 5675
Berkeley, CA 94705 USA
Contacts: Connie de la Vega (delavega@usfca.edu)
Cecilia Han (hancec1978@yahoo.com)
11 August 2003
Distinguished members of the Sub-Commission, the final draft of the “Norms on the Responsibilities of Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises with Regard to Human Rights” is presented for your approval at this year’s session. The pressing need for these Norms can unfortunately be illustrated by many appalling situations involving transnational corporations that have caught global attention.
Almost Two months ago, a United States appellate court heard the appeal of Unocal, a California corporation found liable under the Alien Tort Claims Act for human rights violations committed by the Myanmar Military which provided security for Unocal’s oil pipeline. The Myanmar Military forced villages to work as porters for the pipeline and committed acts of rape at gun-point, murder and torture. One villager testified that her husband was shot by soldiers when he was attempting to escape the forced labor program and as a consequence of her husband’s attempted escape, the soldiers threw her and her baby into a fire, resulting in the death of the infant. Unocal’s liability for these human rights violations is now left in the hands of United States appellate judges. If these judges refuse to find Unocal liable under the ATCA, then another corporate violator will have been allowed to evade responsibility for human rights violations committed on its behalf.
This week, the appeal of Coca-Cola from a decision to revoke its license to operate its bottling plant in Palakkad, India will be heard. For about a year and a half, the villagers in Palakkad have been actively protesting the presence of Coca-Cola’s bottling plant which has extracted 1.5 million liters of water per day from the local wells to produce its daily output of 13,200 bottles of the soft drink. Coca-Cola has extracted so heavily from the local wells that the villagers are left with water that is too highly concentrated in salt for consumption or even cleaning use. Some villagers who have tried to use the water have reportedly become ill. Coca-Cola’s extensive extraction practices have also forced villagers to give up their livelihood of crop growing. Conditions inside the plant are reportedly cause for concern as well. One worker who left the plant said she would not return even if she was paid more because the conditions were so bad.
The situations in Myanmar and India represent standard realities for many people who are forced to come into contact with transnational corporations. In the quest for larger profit margins, these corporations flagrantly ignore international human rights principles as articulated by the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, the International covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Workers who have been harmed by the activities of these corporations often have no recourse to their local governments which are more concerned with the economic prosperity that these corporations bring than the safety and well-being of their citizens. Clearly, what are needed here are binding regulations that require corporations to confront the global human rights community with explanations for their behavior.
Members of the Sub-Commission, the Norms which are before you today answer the call for binding, effective international regulations. The Norms draw upon existing international human rights and humanitarian law and make explicit this fundamental principle, namely, that transnational corporations are legally, as well as socially, accountable for human rights violations committed by them or on their behalf.
Application of Norm 4 to the situation in Myanmar would find Unocal in clear violation of its mandates. Norm 4 states in relevant part that “transnational corporations and other business enterprises shall not engage in nor benefit from war crimes, crimes against humanity, …torture, … forced or compulsory labor, …extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions…” Furthermore, Norm 15 would require Unocal to “to incorporate these Norms in their contracts … with contractors, subcontractors, licensees, (and) distributors …” Unocal thus could not sever itself from the shared liability for human rights violations.
As for the situation in Palakkad, India, Coca-Cola’s extensive extraction practices would place the corporation squarely in violation of Norm 13 which states in relevant part that “transnational corporations and other business enterprises shall carry out their activities in accordance with national laws, regulations, administrative practices, and policies relating to preservation of the environment of the countries...” Poor working conditions in the bottling plant would also place Coca-Cola in violation of Norms 5-9 which deal with the right of workers.
HRA encourages the Sub-Commission to adopt these Norms as they “are an excellent compilation of existing international standards as they apply to” transnational corporations. They spell out clearly the legal obligations of transnational corporations to those whom these corporations might e included to abuse and exploit.
Additionally, HRA also asks that the Sub-Commission adopt the Commentary to the Norms. HRA notes the existence of many voluntary codes of corporate conduct which do not address implementation and enforcement mechanisms. Without this discussion, transnational corporations like Unocal and Coca-Cola can continue to violate human rights with impunity. The Commentary to the Norms, however, provides mechanism for the implementation and enforcement of the Norms. The Commentary gives greater substance to the Norms as they apply to business enterprises and thus turns the Norms into the working solutions they were intended to be.
In conclusion, HRA again calls upon the Sub-Commission to adopt the Norms and the Commentary as both documents are key in making transnational corporations and governments address the consequences of business decisions on human rights.