المسؤولية الدولية عن انتهاكات الشركات متعددة الجنسية لحقوق الإنسان

الموضوعات

قانون

روابط وملفات

التعريف والنوع

رقم الوثيقة

fb29c07e-e0ab-446e-983e-2715ae20e256

رقم العقد

0

نوع الوسائط

Crawler

نوع المحتوى

الرسائل العلمية

صيغة المصدر

رسائل دكتوراة

نوع الملف

word

أسماء الملفات

fb29c07e-e0ab-446e-983e-2715ae20e256_1.doc, fb29c07e-e0ab-446e-983e-2715ae20e256_2.doc, fb29c07e-e0ab-446e-983e-2715ae20e256_3.doc, fb29c07e-e0ab-446e-983e-2715ae20e256_4.doc, fb29c07e-e0ab-446e-983e-2715ae20e256_5.doc, fb29c07e-e0ab-446e-983e-2715ae20e256_6.doc, fb29c07e-e0ab-446e-983e-2715ae20e256_7.doc, fb29c07e-e0ab-446e-983e-2715ae20e256_8.doc, fb29c07e-e0ab-446e-983e-2715ae20e256_9.doc

بيانات النشر

ترجمة العنوان

The International Responsibility For Multinational Corporations Violations of Human Rights

ألقاب المؤلفين

[{"name_ar":"جوتيار محمد رشيد صديق","title_ar":"اعداد","title_en":"Preparation"},{"name_ar":"عصام عبدالرزاق العطية","title_ar":"اشراف","title_en":"Supervision"}]

اللغة

Arabic

المصدر والدورية

اسم المصدر

المسؤولية الدولية عن انتهاكات الشركات متعددة الجنسية لحقوق الإنسان

المحتوى والصفحات

عدد الصفحات

0

ترجمة الملخص

The United Nations was created to provide a state-based international order. In 1945, states were the sole international decision makers of any significance; they were the subjects of their joint decisions and were responsible for enforcing those decisions. Even when the human rights order was constructed, which seemingly clashed with these principles by creating obligations transcending statehood and nationality, states were designated as the only duty-bearers who could violate international human rights laws and they alone were held responsible for implementing human rights principles by enforcing treaty-based obligations or customary norms within their domestic jurisdictions. Today we also live in a global world wherein a variety of actors for which the territorial state is not the cardinal organizing principle have come to play significant public roles. Nowhere is this truer than in the economic realm. In the immediate post-Second World War era, the term “international economy” was still an accurate spatial description of the prevailing reality: an economic order consisting of external transactions taking place among separate and distinct national markets, conducted at arm’s length, which Governments could buffer effectively at the border by point-of-entry measures like tariffs, non-tariff barriers, exchange rates and capital controls - and which were constrained, as always, by the cost and capabilities of available communication and transportation technologies. This picture contrasts with the most visible manifestation of globalization today: some 77,000 multinational firms, together with roughly 770,000 subsidiaries and millions of suppliers spanning every corner of the globe. There are no longer external arm’s-length transactions. For example, intra-firm trade - that is, trade among affiliates of the same corporate entity - accounts for a significant share of overall global trade. In this respect, then, what once was external trade between national economies increasingly has become internalized within firms as global supply chain management, functioning in real time and directly shaping the daily lives of people around the world. In recent decades, especially the 1990s, global markets expanded significantly as a result of trade agreements, bilateral investment treaties, and domestic liberalization and privatization. The rights of multinational corporations became more securely anchored in national laws and increasingly defended through compulsory arbitration before international tribunals. While its benefits are unevenly shared, globalization has generated numerous positive effects in terms of higher living standards and in some parts of the developing world it has provided the opportunities for unprecedented rates of poverty reduction. It is hardly surprising that the multinational corporate sector has attracted increased attention from other social actors, including civil society and States themselves. At least two distinct drivers are behind the increased attention on multinational corporations. The first is simply the latest expression of one of the oldest axioms of political life: the successful accumulation of power by one type of social actor will induce efforts by others with different interests or aims to organize countries power. When multinational corporations in the industrialized countries first became major players on the national scene in the late nineteenth century, countervailing efforts came from labour and human rights communities, among others, labour unions, human rights organizations and some other groups. Moreover, when global firms are widely perceived as abusing their power, as was the case with major pharmaceutical companies concerning pricing and patents of AIDS treatment drugs in Africa for example social backlash is inevitable. The second driver is that some companies have made themselves targets for criticism by committing serious human rights violations, labor standards, environmental protection laws and other social even political concerns. The various United Nations organs receive annually reports in the human rights violations of some corporations. The reported violations include some basic rights such as people rights to self determination, constant sovereignty over natural resources, the right to development, the right to life and health, the right to safely and healthy work conditions. Furthermore, these rights include the right to adequate housing, obtaining information, participation, union formation, and social security as well as variety of other rights recognized by the international human rights treaties. The reported cases are usually from the low income states that have come out of conflicts or continue to be in conflicts. These often lack effective local institutions. This power vacuum forces the corporation as they are facing the fiercest social challenges to undertake the government’s role as the later is not able to fulfill its duties properly. For example, we could find the corporations that are specialized in the producing and trading toxics and its waste management that finds its market in the poorest and not industrialized countries, which suffer from economic depression and serious problems such as poverty, underemployment, and external debts. The countries living such chaotic situations are very weak in front external pressure which takes the form of promises that may create opportunities to gain some foreign funds, employment opportunities and establishing recycling industries as well as importing new technologies. It is important to mention that western corporations working in developing countries do not follow the same regulations that they would need to follow in industrial countries in so far as the right of the workers concerned, the minimum productions standards and safety requirements. Furthermore, those corporations are the main sources for transferring high pollution factories, pharmaceutical expired production as grants or aids to these countries. Multinational corporations human rights practices have in recent years been a topic of much concern. Major violations of human rights resulting from corporations activities have been brought to public attention through individual, non-governmental, and intergovernmental actions. To come to terms with such incidents a wide array of initiatives have been adopted. Their common aim is to improve corporate compliance with international human rights standards. As a consequence of this development the traditional notion that only states and state agents can be held accountable for human rights violations is being challenged. Nevertheless, it can safely be concluded that the mechanisms for attributing human rights responsibilities to non-state actors are still very much in the making. As a consequence the question of responsibility for corporate human rights violations remain uncertain. This dissertation undertakes to focus on that uncertainty and discuss who can be responsible for such human rights violations. The structure of the dissertation is double. Focus will be on state and corporate responsibility, each considered in turn in order exploring their relationship to corporate violations. This dissertation argues that the doctrine of state responsibility represents an under-utilised device for ensuring that multinational corporations respect human rights including economic, social and cultural rights. International, regional and domestic human rights jurisprudence is investigated in order to define the precise circumstances in which state responsibility might be incurred for violations of human rights committed by non-state actors. It is also argued, considering the potential obstacles to its efficacy, that recourse to the doctrine of state responsibility should be considered as a complementary mechanism to other methods of holding non-state actors responsible for human rights violations. The dissertation also argues that corporations can be obliged directly to respect human rights by imposing upon them some human rights obligations. The latest developments in executing human rights standards within the scope of the internal laws can be take into consideration so corporations can be hold liable for their conduct. Therefore, there will be always an entity responsible or accountable which will be either a state or a corporation. When we assume the direct liability of the corporations that mean we recognize them as persons of the international law. The confirmation of direct liability for the corporations requires clarification of the legal position of the multinational corporations under the international law. This dissertation consists of three chapters and a conclusion with a number of derivations and recommendations. The first chapter examines the conception of multinational corporations in the light of the refereed terminology as well as their legal position under international law. The second chapter focuses on the issue of the state responsibility for violations of human rights committed by multinational corporations through highlighting the applicability of the general rules of international law on state responsibility to human rights cases. Specifically applicability of the rules related to the state responsibility to violations of human rights by multinational corporations. The third chapter focuses on placing the liability for violations of human rights on multinational corporations; it starts by examining their obligations under the international law of human rights and whether they could be hold liable under that law. Then it consider the possibility of imposing direct obligations on multinational corporations and the liability for international crimes and the development that has occurred within some internal legal systems, especially the liability of multinational corporations under the US Alien Tort Claims Act.

إشراف وإعداد

الإشراف

عصام عبدالرزاق العطية

الإعداد

جوتيار محمد رشيد صديق

الاقتباسات الببليوغرافية