—————————————-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Ja-suYC1as
—————————————
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrAacgyts40&feature=c4-overview&list=UU5_HpKvZl7Oxr_UimTfC2Jg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f59myTReFnE&feature=c4-overview&list=UU5_HpKvZl7Oxr_UimTfC2Jg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SAUt89FxAFM&index=274&list=UU5_HpKvZl7Oxr_UimTfC2Jg
—
http://www.denhaagvrederecht.nl/vrede-en-recht.htm
—
http://www.justpeacethehague.com/nl/#/home
———————————————–
OPINION: On Reproductive Rights, Progress with Concerns
Click here for the online version of this IPS newsletter
Click here for the online version of this IPS newsletter
——————————————————–
CFS calls to uphold human rights in Manipur
Dear Colleagues,
Our colleagues in Manipur are currently experiencing harassment, illegal arrests and killings from the military and police troops deployed as they protest against the militarization of their villages.
Please see below the PCFS statement calling to uphold human rights in Manipur. APVVU, TVVVU, National Center for Labour, NAPM, and AP Matya Karual Union (Fisher Federation) have already endorsed the statement.
The statement will also be sent to different actors in the Indian Government and Human Rights Commission.
Please read and circulate widely. Also looking forward to your endorsements.
Thank you very much.
Best regards,
April
PCFS calls to uphold human rights in Manipur
Dear Colleagues,
Our colleagues in Manipur are currently experiencing harassment, illegal arrests and killings from the military and police troops deployed as they protest against the militarization of their villages. Please see below the PCFS statement calling to uphold human rights in Manipur. APVVU, TVVVU, National Center for Labour, NAPM, and AP Matya Karual Union (Fisher Federation) have already endorsed the statement. The statement will also be sent to different actors in the Indian Government and Human Rights Commission.
Please read and circulate widely. Also looking forward to your endorsements.
Thank you very much.
Best regards,
April
15 September 2014
The People’s Coalition on Food Sovereignty (PCFS) strongly condemns the brutal dispersal which led to the firing by the Manipur Police to the protesters against the imposition of Section 144 of the CrPC (Code of Criminal Procedure) and to end militarization at Ukhrul District headquarters last August 30. The police have opened fire and tear gas to the protesting crowd killing at least two and about ten were injured.
The two casualties were named Ramkashing Vashi (26) and Mayopam Ramror (31), both protesting against the heavy militarization in the area.
The Centre for Research and Advocacy in Manipur (CRAM), a member of PCFS, has condemned the incident and the brutality of the military and the police to their people. “The unfortunate incident at Ukhrul Town on August 30 is just an extensive of the barbarism and despotic rule unleashed by the law enforcing agencies of the Government of Manipur,” said by Sanaton Laishram, CRAM President.
The Section 144 of CrPC was imposed by the state government after the killing of Ukhrul Autonomous District Council (ADC) vice chairman Ngalangzar Malue (60), by the militant outfit last July 12. The state government has imposed CrPC to further add military presence in the area.
The imposition of the Section 144 of CrPC has led to heavy militarization in the area. The heavy militarization has not only created fear among the public but also hindered them from their daily work in the area. The conflict will not just tolerate brutality to the people, but will also hinder them from their basic rights and more importantly, their access to basic services and a threat to their food security.
Just recently, Mr. Phulindro Konsam, Convenor of the Committee on Human Rights and about thirty (30) leaders from students and women’s organizations were arrested on 8th, 11th and 12th September 2014 by the Manipur police. They are human rights defenders fighting for the rights to self-determination and liberation of the indigenous peoples of Manipur.
In this regard, PCFS would like to call to the Government and Human Rights Commission of India to investigate the situation and uphold human rights of the people of Manipur. This will include pulling out of military and police troops in the area and the immediate release of the following human rights defenders:
Mr. Phulindro Konsam (54), Convenor, Committee on Human Rights (COHR) in Manipur
Ms. Ph Sakhi, President, AMKIL
Ms. Th Ramani, General Secretary, Nupi Samaj
Ms. Longjam Memchoubi, President, Poirei Leimarol Meira Paibi Apunba Manipur
Ms. L Gyaneshori, General Secretary, AMKIL
Ms. Ch Janaki, Vice-president, Nupi Samaj
Ms. RK Guni, Executive Member, Poirei Leimarol Meira Paibi Apunba Manipur
Ms. Khumukcham (n) Naosekpam (o) Rashesori Devi (55)
Moirangthem Angamba (34)
Johnson Nongmaithem (29)
Sumanta Monoharmayum (23)
Elangbam Bijendra Meitei (22)
Longjam Abothe Meitei (24)
Md Sajad Buya (19)
Sarangthem William Milton (25)
Okram (n) Khomdram (o) Gunabati
Hijam Ibema Devi (42)
Nameirakpam Ibemcha (55)
Sarangthem Manjit (27)
Pukhrambam Arjun (45), Oinam Premjit (37)
Yengkokpam Langamba (36)
Soubam Rajendra (50)
Wahengbam Sunil (28)
The people of Manipur have the right to protest and assert their rights.
Uphold human rights in Manipur!
Fight for liberation, self-determination and food sovereignty of the people of Manipur!
Long live international solidarity!
The People’s Coalition on Food Sovereignty (PCFS) is a global network of various grassroots groups of small food producers particularly of peasant-farmer organizations and their support NGOs that work towards a People’s Convention on Food Sovereignty.
Related articles: PCFS calls for protection of human rights defenders in Manipur
——————————————————————————————
Conference Highlights
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=osV2bktvrbk
http://www.un-ngls.org/spip.php?page=article_s&id_article=2818
62nd Annual DPI/NGO Conference: For Peace and Development: Disarm Now! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sDqecr1yZ_o
United Nations University for Peace (UPEACE) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2vXR2gzOtc
—————————————————————————————
Side event: Human rights for all in sustainable development: Is the post-2015 process really delivering?
Human rights for all in sustainable development: Is the post-2015 process really delivering?
Side Event hosted by the Post-2015 Human Rights Caucus at the President of the General Assembly’s High-level Stocktaking Event on the Post-2015 Development Agenda
(download pdf here)
Thursday 11 September 2014
United Nations Headquarters, Conference Room 1 (CR1) Conference Building.
Last year, the UN Secretary General—in his report, “A life of dignity for all”—endorsed a sustainable development “vision of the future firmly anchored in human rights,” echoing widespread support from governments, civil society, and the UN Task Team that a holistic human rights framework must lie at the heart of the SDGs themselves, how they are financed, and in their monitoring and accountability infrastructure.
At this liminal point in the debate over what will succeed the Millennium Development Goals, various members of the Post-2015 Human Rights Caucus—a cross-constituency coalition of development, environment, trade union, feminist and human rights organizations worldwide—will come together to evaluate whether the post-2015 process and the new proposal for sustainable development goals deliver on this vision. How do the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGS) and targets proposed by the Open Working Group stand up to the human rights litmus test? Are the SDGs “consistent with international law,” as member states agreed they would be in Rio+20? How well do they ensure the rights of indigenous peoples and other groups marginalized from economic and social development? Will the Goals—and the envisioned monitoring and accountability infrastructure—hold public and private actors to account for their human rights and right to development responsibilities? And how will these Goals be paid for in human rights-sensitive ways? Participants will debate these keystone questions, and in so doing lay out a blueprint for embedding human rights into the core of the post-2015 sustainable development agenda.
Panelists include:
Myrna Cunnigham, UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues
Savio Carvalho, Amnesty International
Nerea Craviotto, Association for Women’s Rights in Development (AWID)
Paul Quintos, IBON International
Amanda McRae, Center for Reproductive Rights
Reflections from Mac Darrow, UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights
Moderated by Niko Lusiani, Center for Economic and Social Rights (CESR) and co-convener of the Post-2015 Human Rights Caucus
For enquiries about this side event, please contact Luke Holland at lholland@cesr.org
The Center for Economic and Social Rights (CESR) works to promote social justice through human rights. In a world where poverty and inequality deprive entire communities of dignity, justice and sometimes life, we seek to uphold the universal human rights of every human being to education, health, food, water, housing, work, and other economic, social and cultural rights essential to human dignity.
Center for Economic and Social Rights | 162 Montague Street, 3rd Floor, Brooklyn, NY 11201 | +1 718 237-9145 | info@cesr.org
————————————————————————————————–
Equity, Justice:LGB Parents and Their Children Functioning Well Despite Confronting Discrimination
—————————————————————————————————
ACTION ALERT: SDGs and the human rights to water and sanitation
ACTION ALERT:
LETTER TO THE UN SECRETARY-GENERAL!
Dear All,
As you are aware, the Mining Working Group at the UN and the Blue Planet Project have spearheaded the recent sign-on letter
regarding the need for the Open Working Group on Sustainable Development Goals to include an explicit mention of the human right to water and sanitation. The letter has garnered more than 300 sign-ons – we thank you for your support and for your advocacy efforts to join this important fight.
Despite our call, the latest “zero draft” of the SDGs text (30 June, 2014) has failed to include explicit mention of the human right to water and sanitation. Time is running out to influence the Open Working Group, as its 13th and last official session will be held July 14-18, with informals preceding it starting July 9. It is therefore essential that we unite in one last push to include the human rights language in the OWG report, particularly around the human right to water and sanitation.
As a final step, we encourage you and your organizations to write to the office of UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, through the online petition available
here:
[English] [Spanish]. In this pivotal moment, we must show the UN that we have not given up on human rights in the SDGs, and that they must ensure the inclusion of this language to ensure that the SDGS, and the post-2015 agenda, truly deliver for people’s human rights and the sanctity of our planet.
Thank you for your support.
Sincerely,
The Mining Working Group and the Blue Planet Project
ALERTA DE ACCIÓN – CARTA AL SECRETARIO GENERAL DE LA ONU!
Estimadas y estimados,
Como ustedes saben, el Grupo de Trabajo sobre Minería en la ONU y el Proyecto Planeta Azul han encabezado la reciente carta, y pidieron firmas, sobre la necesidad de que el Grupo de Trabajo Abierto (GTA) sobre los Objetivos de Desarrollo Sostenible (ODS) para que se incluya una mención explícita de la necesidad de garantizar el derecho humano al agua y al saneamiento. La carta ha recibido más de 300 firmas complementarias – le damos gracias por su apoyo y por sus actividades de promoción al unirse a esta importante lucha.
A pesar de nuestro esfuerzo, el último “borrador cero” del texto ODS (30 de junio de 2014) no ha logrado incluir una mención explícita del derecho humano al agua y saneamiento. El tiempo se agota para influir en el Grupo de Trabajo Abierto (GTA), como la 13ª y última sesión oficial se llevará a cabo del 14 al 18 de julio con los informales precedentes a partir del 9 de julio.Por tanto, es esencial que nos unamos en un último esfuerzo para la inclusión de lenguaje específico sobre los derechos humanos en el informe GTA, especialmente en torno al derecho humano al agua y al saneamiento.
Como paso final, le animamos a usted y a sus organizaciones a escribir a la oficina del Secretario General de la ONU Ban Ki-moon, a través de la petición en línea disponible [aquí]. En este momento crucial, debemos mostrar a la ONU que no hemos renunciado a los derechos humanos en los ODS, y que deben garantizar la inclusión de este lenguaje para asegurar que los ODS, y el programa posterior al 2015, realmente entregan los derechos humanos y la santidad de nuestro planeta a la gente.
Muchas gracias por su apoyo.
Sinceramente,
El Grupo de Trabajo sobre Minería y el Proyecto Planeta Azul
Kathryn (Katie) Tobin
territoryunchartered.blogspot.com
@uncharteredKT
—————————————————————————————————–
Human Rights Standards for Conservation-Call for Comments
Despite increased recognition that conservation initiatives can violate the human rights of Indigenous peoples and local communities, addressing ‘unjust’ conservation remains a contemporary problem. The International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED) and Natural Justice ((http://
- Which actors bear human rights obligations and responsibilities in the context of conservation initiatives?
- What are their obligations and responsibilities?
- What are the grievance mechanisms available to peoples and communities in cases of violations of their human rights?
To contribute to these important reports, please email Natural Justice’s Harry Jonas (harry@naturaljustice.org) or IIED’s Dilys Roe (dilys.roe@iied.org). Please feel free to forward this email to others who may be interested.
——————————————————————————————————-
TWN Info: Human Rights Council Historic resolution adopted for a legally binding instrument on TNCs
Subject: TWN Info: Human Rights Council Historic resolution adopted for a legally binding instrument on TNCs
Title : TWN Info: Human Rights Council – Historic resolution adopted for a legally binding instrument on TNCs Date : 30 June 2014
Contents:
Human Rights Council: Historic resolution adopted for a legally binding instrument on TNCs
Geneva, 30 June (Kinda Mohamadieh*) – The United Nations Human Rights Council (HRC) adopted, through a vote, a historic and significant resolution to start a process for an international legally instrument on transnational corporations.
Officially entitled “Elaboration of an international legally binding instrument on Transnational Corporations and other Business Enterprises with respect to Human Rights” (A/HRC/26/L.22) the resolution was adopted on 26 June at the 26th session of the HRC.
The resolution was co-sponsored by Ecuador and South Africa, and also supported by Bolivia, Cuba and Nevezuela. In the vote on the resolution, 20 Members of the HRC supported the resolution, while 13 Members abstained, and 14 Members voted against it.
Countries that supported the resolution include: Algeria, Benin, Burkina Faso, China, Congo, Cote D’Ivoire, Cuba, Ethiopia, India, Indonesia, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Morocco, Namibia, Pakistan, Philippines, Russian Federation, South Africa, Venezuela, Vietnam. Countries that abstained include: Argentina, Botswana, Brazil, Chile, Costa Rica, Gabon, Kuwait, Maldives, Mexico, Peru, Saudi Arabia, Sierra Leone, and United Arab Emirates. Countries that voted against the resolution include: Austria, Czech Republic, Estonia, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Montenegro, Republic of Korea, Romania, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, United Kingdom, and United States of America.
The resolution provides for the establishment of an open-ended intergovernmental working group (IWG) that is mandated with elaborating an international legally binding instrument to regulate, in international human rights law, the activities of transnational corporations and other business enterprises.
The resolution provides that the IWG shall hold its first session for five working days in 2015, before the 30th session of the HRC. The resolution also provides that the first two sessions of the working group shall be dedicated to conducting constructive deliberations on the content, scope, nature and form of the future international instrument.
The resolution mandates the Chairperson-Rapporteur of the IWG to prepare elements for the draft legally binding instrument for substantive negotiations at the commencement of the third session of the working group, taking into consideration the discussions held at its first two sessions.
It recommends that the first meeting of the IWG serve to collect inputs, including written inputs, from States and relevant stakeholders on possible principles and elements of such an international legally binding instrument.
The resolution requests the IWG to submit a report on progress made to the HRC for consideration at its thirty-first session.
The resolution explains in a footnote that the reference to ‘other business enterprises’ denotes all business enterprises that have a transnational character in their operational activities, while it does not apply to local businesses registered in terms of relevant domestic law.
The resolution also makes reference as well to the important role of civil society actors in promoting corporate social responsibility and in preventing, mitigating, and seeking remedy for adverse human rights impacts of transnational corporations (TNCs) and other business enterprises.
In presenting the resolution to the HRC, Ambassador Luis Gallegos Chiriboga of Ecuador stressed that the Council owes its existence to those who tirelessly fight to protect human rights and the victims of human rights violation, including those that are most needful for protection and support. He called upon the Council to correct injustices, including the lack of protection for victims of violations of human rights abuses carried out by TNCs. He noted that these corporations benefit from binding international protections. However, victims of harmful corporate activities lack access to legal protection, while only having available voluntary norms.
Ambassador Chiriboga focused on the importance of protecting victims, noting that victims of disasters, such as that by Union Carbide in Bhopal (India), Shell in the Niger Delta (Nigeria), and Chevron in Ecuador, among others, are still waiting for remedy and fair compensation. He underlined the support of more than 500 civil society organizations from around the world, European Parliamentarians, and the Vatican to the initiative towards elaborating a legally binding instrument on TNCs and other business enterprises with respect to human rights.
Ambassador Chiriboga also stressed Ecuador’s support for implementation of the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights.
[On 16 June 2011, the UN HRC endorsed by consensus the “Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights: Implementing the United Nations ‘Protect, Respect and Remedy’ Framework” proposed by UN Special Representative John Ruggie (Resolution 17/4). More information available at: http://www.business-
In a statement at the 17th session of the HRC in June 2011, the delegation of Ecuador noted its conviction that the United Nations should continue to work on the issue of establishing binding international standards on the activities of TNCs. Ecuador’s statement underlined that the Guiding Principles are “not binding standards”, “are just a guide”, and thus “are not mandatory”. At the September 2013 session of the HRC, the delegation of Ecuador delivered a statement on behalf of more than 85 countries stressing the need for a legally binding framework to regulate the work of TNCs. More on this statement is provided below.]
Speaking on behalf of South Africa, Ambassador Abdul Samad Minty noted that the government of South Africa accords special priority in regard to issues of TNCs, business, and human rights. He highlighted that the South African government holds a strong view that these entities, which are the primary drivers of globalization, cannot operate in a void. He added that TNCs and other business enterprises often operate in an environment where appropriate national legislation to effectively regulate their operations, or mitigate the propensity for their violation of human rights, is either absent or very weak.
Experience shows that in countries of the North, where there are strong binding laws and regulations promulgated by national parliaments, the violations of human rights by corporations are significantly minimized, according to Ambassador Minty.
He stressed that a universal regulatory framework in the form of a binding instrument to provide legal protections, effective remedies, as well as a range of other measures in quest for protections of victims, is desirable and imperative. He also recalled that global mass mobilizations by over 500 civil society organizations calling for such an instrument.
Countries take the floor to explain their vote
China expressed its support for joined efforts by the international community to promote better protection and respect of human rights. It added that it is in favor of pursuing dialogue and cooperation to implement the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights and to ensure their actual effects. China noted that the formulation of an international legal instrument is a complex issue, highlighting the disparities among countries in terms of economic development, judicial systems, systems of enterprise, as well as historical and cultural backgrounds. China underlined the importance of being gradual towards gathering consensus.
India noted that the issues of TNCs and other business enterprises is an area where the international community must work together, not only to encourage businesses to respect human rights, but also to hold them accountable for violations arising out of their business operations. India added that the work of the existing expert working group on the issue of human rights and TNCs and other business enterprises during the last three years provided guidance to States and businesses and shed light on glaring gaps in available protections. However, India underlined, the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights have their own limitations and carry little impact in the case of victims whose human rights have been violated by operations of TNCs.
India added that the resolution seeks to open an opportunity for States to discuss, in a focused manner, the issues of TNCs, and provides an acceptable road map to move forward in this direction. As States promote the integration of the world economy and capital flows across borders, it is important to plug possible protection gaps that may arise due to business operations, it added. When States are unable to enforce national law with respect to gross violations committed by businesses, or to hold them accountable due to the sheer size and clout of TNCs, the international community must come together to seek justice for the victims of violations committed by TNCs, India stressed.
The United States, the European Union, Japan, the United Kingdom and Ireland spoke against the resolution.
The United States focused in their remarks on the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, noting that they consider them a success, despite the limited three years since they have been endorsed. While agreeing that more needs to be done to improve access to remedy for victims of business-related human rights abuses, the United States raised concern that the resolution on a legally binding instrument is not complementary to the work on promoting the implementation of the United Nations Guiding Principles.
The United States added that they perceive that the proposed intergovernmental group would create a competing initiative that would undermine efforts to implement the Guiding Principles. It expected that focus would turn to the new instrument, while companies, States, and other actors would unlikely invest significant time and money in implementing the Guiding Principles. The United States cautioned that a one-size-fit-all instrument would be unlikely able to address concerns related to the complex issues of regulating business, noting that such an instrument would be binding only on States that become party to it. It also raised few practical questions concerning the application of the proposed international instrument to corporations, which are not subject to international law. The United States expressed its unwillingness to participate in the proposed intergovernmental working group.
Italy, speaking on behalf of the European Union (EU) Member States, focused on the efforts undertaken since 2011 to disseminate and implement the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. Italy referred to national action plans elaborated by several EU Member States to reflect the Guiding Principles. It added that the Guiding Principles do not exclude further legal developments, while reaffirming their understanding that what has been done so far is not enough to prevent abuses and enable access to remedy when abuses occur. The EU stressed that no international mechanism could replace robust domestic legislation and processes involving all stakeholders, calling for additional focus on implementation of the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. The EU also noted that the resolution focuses on TNCs, while many abuses are committed by enterprises at the domestic level.
The United Kingdom (UK) was of the opinion that issues of business and human rights should be addressed through national rule of law at individual state level, and through the application of fair, just, and independent legal systems that can protect victims and ensure that business activity can thrive. The UK added that focusing on the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights would be the best way forward in dealing with these important issues.
Japan underlined their commitment to the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, noting that the resolution could undermine efforts undertaken in regard to their implementation. The Guiding Principles provide guidance on how States could fulfill their obligations in the area of human rights, while respecting business-related international legal obligations, according to Japan. The international community could deepen its understanding in regard to an international legally binding instrument through examining best practices in this regard in the course of implementing the Guiding Principles, Japan added.
Ireland aligned itself with the views expressed by the EU, underlining its commitment to the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, while noting that the resolution could undermine the process of their implementation. While noting the importance of addressing barriers to access to judicial and non-judicial remedies, Ireland was of the opinion that an intergovernmental working group would not be the appropriate fora for such a discussion.
The 26th session of the HRC also adopted, by consensus, another resolution entitled “Human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises” (A/HRC/26/L.1) co-sponsored by Norway, Russia, and Argentina. The resolution extends for a period of three years the mandate of the existing expert Working Group on the issue of human rights and TNCs and other business enterprises, as set out in HRC resolution 17/4.
Background on the process towards resolution A/HRC/26/L.22/Rev.1
In September 2013, the delegation of Ecuador, speaking on behalf of more than 85 countries, including the African Group, the Arab Group, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Kyrgyzstan, Cuba, Nicaragua, Bolivia, Venezuela, Peru, and, Ecuador, underlined the need for a legally binding instrument in a statement delivered at the 24th session of the HRC.
States subscribing to the statement stressed that “the increasing cases of human rights violations and abuses by some TNCs reminds us of the necessity of moving forward towards a legally binding framework to regulate the work of transnational corporations and to provide appropriate protection, justice and remedy to the victims of human rights abuses directly resulting from or related to the activities of some transnational corporations and other businesses enterprises”. The statement noted that an “international legally binding instrument, concluded within the UN system, would clarify the obligations of transnational corporations in the field of human rights, as well as of corporations in relation to States, and provide for the establishment of effective remedies for victims in cases where domestic jurisdiction is clearly unable to prosecute effectively those companies”.
In pursuit of the discussion on TNCs, human rights, and a legally binding instrument in this area, the Permanent Missions of Ecuador and South Africa to the United Nations in Geneva co-organized a workshop during the week of the 25th ordinary session of the HRC to explore this issue.
The workshop aimed at contributing to clarifying the ways in which a legally binding instrument on business and human rights would provide a framework for enhanced State action to protect rights and prevent the occurrence of human rights abuses. It also aimed at discussing the difficulties faced by developing countries when trying to hold transnational corporations accountable, as well as the gaps under the current soft law framework.
In this regard, the discussion tackled the extraterritorial duties of States, obstacles that victims of human rights violations face when trying to access justice and adequate remedies, including national, regional and international courts and non-judicial mechanisms.
According to the report resulting from the meeting, some of the main elements highlighted during the discussion focused on the importance of recognizing that there are gaps in the international legal framework related to the duty to protect human rights in respect to business activities, and the concentration of related instruments in soft law. The report noted as well the recognition of the asymmetry between rights and obligations of TNCs; while TNCs are offered rights through hard law instruments, such as bilateral investment treaties and investment rules in free trade agreements, and have access to a system of investor-state dispute settlement, there are no hard law instruments that address the obligations of corporations to respect human rights.
Furthermore, the report noted that the obligation of States to regulate business activities within their territorial jurisdiction is clear, but on the other hand their obligation regarding corporate conduct acting abroad is not clear. The report noted as well the importance that participants accorded to building on lessons learned from the history of addressing the issues of business and human rights, including the experience of discussing the “Norms on the Responsibilities of Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises with Regard to Human Rights”.
Mobilization by civil society groups
The months before the 26th session of the HRC witnessed mobilization by international networks, organizations, and social movements from various regions, organized under the umbrella of an alliance calling for binding international regulation to address corporate human rights abuse. A statement calling for an international legally binding instrument has been signed by 610 civil society organizations and social movements as well as 400 individuals from 95 countries.
The signatories call upon States to elaborate an international treaty that “affirms the applicability of human rights obligations to the operations of transnational corporations and other business enterprises”. They add that the treaty should “require States Parties to monitor and regulate the operations of business enterprises under their jurisdiction, including when acting outside their national territory, with a view to prevent the occurrence of abuses of human rights in the course of those operations”.
They underline that the treaty should “require States Parties to provide for legal liability for business enterprises for acts or omissions that infringe human rights and to provide for access to an effective remedy by any State concerned, including access to justice for foreign victims that suffered harm from acts or omissions of a business enterprise in situations where there are bases for the States involved to exercise their territorial or extraterritorial protect-obligations”. The statement stresses as well the importance of providing for “an international monitoring and accountability mechanism” and for “protection of victims, whistle-blowers and human rights defenders that seek to prevent, expose or ensure accountability in cases of corporate abuse and guarantees their right to access to information relevant in this context” (The call is available at the following website: http://treatymovement.com).
In a press release commenting on the adoption of the resolution initiating a process to develop a legally binding instrument on TNCs, other business enterprises, and human rights, the Treaty Alliance emphasized that “the establishment of a binding instrument is complementary to the implementation of the Guiding Principles and necessary to ensure glaring gaps in protection are addressed”. The Alliance explained in the press release that, “some States opposing the resolution made attempts to come to a compromise, but were not willing to provide a concrete path towards the drafting of a binding instrument to prevent human rights abuses by TNCs and other business enterprises and allow for the provision of remedy to victims”.
The Alliance added that, “while companies must respect all human rights, as reaffirmed in the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, they currently are not held accountable under international human rights law. Thus, the implementation of the Guiding Principles at the national level has been slow and the Guiding Principles remain insufficient to prevent human rights violations. In the meantime, many victims around the world continue to suffer without access to justice”.
The Alliance further noted that “an intergovernmental process will contribute to addressing current imbalances under international law, particularly in light of protections companies can obtain under Bilateral Investment Treaties and Free Trade Agreements, which have allowed corporations to sue States”.
(Kinda Mohamadieh is with the Arab NGO Network for Development).
—————————————————————————————————
A world without forced migration; Why migrants should support the call for development justice
Apologies for cross-posting
Asia Pacific Mission for Migrants (APMM)
Office Address: G/F, No.2 Jordan Road, Kowloon, Hong Kong SAR Tel. no.: (852) 2723-7536 Fax no.: (852) 2735-4559 General E-mail: apmm@hknet.com Other Email Addresses: Managing Director : rbultron@gmail.com Marriage Migrants Program : ammoresect08@gmail.com
Undocumented Migrants: reyasis@gmail.com
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/
————————————————————————————————
New Working Paper: Corporate Influence on the Business and Human Rights Agenda of the UN
New Working Paper: Corporate Influence on the Business and Human Rights Agenda of the UN
Download the Working Paper here.
Efforts to create an international legally binding instrument to hold transnational corporations accountable for human rights abuses have recently gained new momentum. In September 2013 the Government of Ecuador delivered a statement on behalf of 85 member states of the UN at the Human Rights Council asking for a legally binding framework to regulate the activities of transnational corporations. Many civil society organizations called on the Human Rights Council to take steps towards the elaboration of a binding Treaty on Business and Human Rights.
These efforts are only the latest link in a chain of initiatives at the UN to hold corporations accountable to the public. They started in the 1970s with the discussions about a Code of Conduct for Transnational Corporations (TNCs) and continued in the late 1990s with the attempt to adopt the UN Norms on the Responsibilities of Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises with Regard to Human Rights.
All these efforts met with vigorous opposition from TNCs and their business associations, and they ultimately failed. At the same time, corporate actors have been extremely successful in implementing public relations strategies that have helped to present business enterprises as good corporate citizens seeking dialogue with Governments, the UN and decent concerned ‘stakeholders’, and able to implement environment, social and human rights standards through voluntary Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) initiatives.
The UN Global Compact and the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights became prime examples of an allegedly pragmatic approach based on consensus, dialogue and partnership with the corporate sector – in contrast to regulatory approaches to hold corporations accountable.
The working paper gives an overview of the debate from the early efforts to formulate the UN Code of Conduct to the current initiative for a binding Treaty on Business and Human Rights. It particularly focuses on the responses by TNCs and their leading interest groups to the various UN initiatives, specifies the key actors and their objectives. In this context it also highlights features of the interplay between business demands and the evolution of the regulatory debates at the UN. This provides an indication of the degree of influence that corporate actors exert and their ability – in cooperation with some powerful UN member states – to prevent international binding rules for TNCs at the UN.
The working paper ends with remarks on what could be done to counteract and reverse corporate influence on the UN human rights agenda. This constitutes an indispensable prerequisite for progress towards effective legally binding instruments on business and human rights.
Corporate Influence on the Business and Human Rights Agenda of the United Nations
Author: Jens Martens Working Paper, June 2014 Published by Brot für die Welt/Global Policy Forum/MISEREOR Aachen/Berlin/Bonn/New York ISBN: 978-3-943126-16-7
Download the Working Paper here.
-- Wolfgang Obenland Global Policy Forum Königstr. 37a 53115 Bonn Germany Tel. +49 (0)228 96 50 707 wolfgangobenland@globalpolicy.org www.globalpolicy.org
———————————————————————————————–
Human Rights Council – Historic resolution adopted for a legally binding instrument on transnational corporations
Subject: Human Rights Council – Historic resolution adopted for a legally binding instrument on transnational corporations
Dear Colleagues
The United Nations Human Rights Council (HRC) adopted, through a vote, a historic and significant resolution to start a process for an international legally instrument on transnational corporations.
Officially entitled “Elaboration of an international legally binding instrument on Transnational Corporations and other Business Enterprises with respect to Human Rights” (A/HRC/26/L.22) the resolution was adopted on 26 June at the 26th session of the HRC.
The resolution was co-sponsored by Ecuador and South Africa, and also supported by Bolivia, Cuba and Nevezuela. In the vote on the resolution, 20 Members of the HRC supported the resolution, while 13 Members abstained, and 14 Members voted against it. Countries that supported the resolution include: Algeria, Benin, Burkina Faso, China, Congo, Cote D’Ivoire, Cuba, Ethiopia, India, Indonesia, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Morocco, Namibia, Pakistan, Philippines, Russian Federation, South Africa, Venezuela, Vietnam.
Countries that abstained include: Argentina, Botswana, Brazil, Chile, Costa Rica, Gabon, Kuwait, Maldives, Mexico, Peru, Saudi Arabia, Sierra Leone, and United Arab Emirates.
Countries that voted against the resolution include: Austria, Czech Republic, Estonia, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Montenegro, Republic of Korea, Romania, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, United Kingdom, and United States of America.
The resolution provides for the establishment of an open-ended intergovernmental working group (IWG) that is mandated with elaborating an international legally binding instrument to regulate, in international human rights law, the activities of transnational corporations and other business enterprises.
The resolution provides that the IWG shall hold its first session for five working days in 2015, before the 30th session of the HRC. The resolution also provides that the first two sessions of the working group shall be dedicated to conducting constructive deliberations on the content, scope, nature and form of the future international instrument.
The resolution mandates the Chairperson-Rapporteur of the IWG to prepare elements for the draft legally binding instrument for substantive negotiations at the commencement of the third session of the working group, taking into consideration the discussions held at its first two sessions. It recommends that the first meeting of the IWG serve to collect inputs, including written inputs, from States and relevant stakeholders on possible principles and elements of such an international legally binding instrument.
The resolution requests the IWG to submit a report on progress made to the HRC for consideration at its thirty-first session.The resolution explains in a footnote that the reference to ‘other business enterprises’ denotes all business enterprises that have a transnational character in their operational activities, while it does not apply to local businesses registered in terms of relevant domestic law.
The resolution also makes reference as well to the important role of civil society actors in promoting corporate social responsibility and in preventing, mitigating, and seeking remedy for adverse human rights impacts of transnational corporations (TNCs) and other business enterprises.
In presenting the resolution to the HRC, Ambassador Luis Gallegos Chiriboga of Ecuador stressed that the Council owes its existence to those who tirelessly fight to protect human rights and the victims of human rights violation, including those that are most needful for protection and support. He called upon the Council to correct injustices, including the lack of protection for victims of violations of human rights abuses carried out by TNCs. He noted that these corporations benefit from binding international protections. However, victims of harmful corporate activities lack access to legal protection, while only having available voluntary norms.
Ambassador Chiriboga focused on the importance of protecting victims, noting that victims of disasters, such as that by Union Carbide in Bhopal (India), Shell in the Niger Delta (Nigeria), and Chevron in Ecuador, among others, are still waiting for remedy and fair compensation. He underlined the support of more than 500 civil society organizations from around the world, European Parliamentarians, and the Vatican to the initiative towards elaborating a legally binding instrument on TNCs and other business enterprises with respect to human rights. Ambassador Chiriboga also stressed Ecuador’s support for implementation of the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. [On 16 June 2011, the UN HRC endorsed by consensus the “Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights: Implementing the United Nations ‘Protect, Respect and Remedy’ Framework” proposed by UN Special Representative John Ruggie (Resolution 17/4). More information available at: http://www.business-
At its 17th session, in resolution A/HRC/17/4, the HRC decided to establish a Working Group on the issue of human rights and TNCs and other business enterprises, consisting of five independent experts, with the mandate to promote the dissemination and implementation of the Guiding Principles. More information available at: http://www.ohchr.org/EN/
In a statement at the 17th session of the HRC in June 2011, the delegation of Ecuador noted its conviction that the United Nations should continue to work on the issue of establishing binding international standards on the activities of TNCs. Ecuador’s statement underlined that the Guiding Principles are “not binding standards”, “are just a guide”, and thus “are not mandatory”. At the September 2013 session of the HRC, the delegation of Ecuador delivered a statement on behalf of more than 85 countries stressing the need for a legally binding framework to regulate the work of TNCs. More on this statement is provided below.]
Speaking on behalf of South Africa, Ambassador Abdul Samad Minty noted that the government of South Africa accords special priority in regard to issues of TNCs, business, and human rights. He highlighted that the South African government holds a strong view that these entities, which are the primary drivers of globalization, cannot operate in a void. He added that TNCs and other business enterprises often operate in an environment where appropriate national legislation to effectively regulate their operations, or mitigate the propensity for their violation of human rights, is either absent or very weak. Experience shows that in countries of the North, where there are strong binding laws and regulations promulgated by national parliaments, the violations of human rights by corporations are significantly minimized, according to Ambassador Minty. He stressed that a universal regulatory framework in the form of a binding instrument to provide legal protections, effective remedies, as well as a range of other measures in quest for protections of victims, is desirable and imperative. He also recalled that global mass mobilizations by over 500 civil society organizations calling for such an instrument.
Read more: http://www.twnside.org.sg/
Best regards,
Kinda Mohamadieh
Researcher, Trade for Development Programme
The South Centre
____
—
— The Women’s Major Group (WMG) was created as one of nine Major Groups after the 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development held in Rio de Janeiro. This list serve is for members of the Women Major Group following the Post Rio+20 process (Financing SD, SDGs-post2015) as well as for members of the Women Major Group following Environment processes (UNEP). The Organizing Partners (OPs) of the Post Rio+20 process that coordinate the group rotate periodically. The current WMG OPs are Women in Europe for a Common Future (WECF) and the Women’s Environment and Development Organization (WEDO) and Global Forest Coalition (GFC). The co-facilitators of the WMG at UNEP are currently Niger Delta Women’s Movement, Soroptomists Kenya, WECF International and GFC, and focal points APWLD and Earth Care Africa.
—————————————————————————————————
Restless Development News – ECOSOC Forum, End Sexual Violence in Conflict Summit and more
OPENING THE ECOSOC FORUM
Our Chief Executive Nik Hartley spoke at the United Nations as the opening address, alongside Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, the President of the UN Economic and Social Council, and the President of the UN General Assembly. This is a summary of his speech >> READ MORE
MAKING AN IMPACT AT END SEXUAL VIOLENCE IN CONFLICT SUMMIT
Our discussion at Fringe Event saw some of our international volunteers who went to Sierra Leone speaking about their work on sexual reproductive health. We also premiered a film from Sierra Leone that made a big impression on UNHCR Special Envoy Angelina Jolie. >> READ MORE
YOUTHMAP PROGRAMME IN UGANDA SEES 100 GRADUATES ON INTERNSHIPS
The YouthMap programme in Uganda has placed 100 graduates on internships so far, of which 42 already secured full time emplotment or stared a business. >> READ MORE
TANZANIA GOVERNMENT AWARDED FOR OUR “GIRLS LET’S BE LEADERS” PROGRAMME
Tanzanian Government awarded thanks to its role in promoting the “Mabinti Tushike Hatamu!” (Girls, Let’s be Leaders!) programme, delivered by Restless Development, TACAIDS and UNICEF. >> READ MORE
Restless Development / Join us on www.restlessdevelopment.org
7 Wootton Street
London
SE1 8TG
UK
————————————————————————————————–
Guide to International Organizations, The Hague.
http://www.denhaag.nl/en/residents/International-The-Hague/international-organisations.htm
Information The Hague internationale:
http://www.denhaag.nl/home/bewoners/gemeente/internationale-stad.htm
http://www.denhaag.nl/en/residents/International-The-Hague.htm
http://www.denhaagvrederecht.nl/vrede-en-recht.htm
http://www.thehaguepeacejustice.com/peace-and-justice.htm
http://www.internationalefuncties.nl/#ref-minbuza
Contact: Mrs. Winny van Willigen
Gemeente Den Haag
Bureau Internationale Zaken
Postbus 12.600 2500 DJ
Den Haag tel. 070 – 353 2298 / 06 11341036 fax 070 – 353 2013
winny.vanwilligen@denhaag.nl / maandag, dinsdag en donderdag
Municipality of The Hague Department of International Affairs
PO Box 12.600 2500 DJ The Hague
The Netherlands tel. +31 70 353 2298 / +31 6 11341036 fax +31 70 353 2013
Contact: winny.vanwilligen@denhaag.nl / Monday, Tuesday and Thursday
—————————————————————————————————–
*Worldview Mission is Standing Up ,* Taking Action* , **Making Noise for the United Nations MDGL’s !!!**