10 August 2020

[…] [T]he United Nations Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on Myanmar (the ‘Fact Finding Mission’) […] report […] stated that two powerful military conglomerates, Myanmar Economic Holdings Limited (MEHL) and Myanmar Economic Corporation (MEC)—which own businesses across diverse sectors of the economy from construction and gem extraction to manufacturing, insurance, tourism and banking—were directly involved in gross violations of international human rights law and serious violations of international humanitarian law.

[…]

What emerges from all this, in terms of the future of the Guiding Principles in Myanmar, is a complex, fragmented and shifting picture. The military and Chinese investors, the two most powerful economic actors in the country, have not engaged with the business and human rights agenda. On the other hand in 2018, Myanmar’s National Human Rights Commission, in cooperation with the UNDP, committed itself to exploring with relevant ministries what the ‘duty to protect’ in the Guiding Principles means in the context of their mandates. The major democratic political party, the National League for Democracy (NLD), together with local entrepreneurs and Western investors, are keen to position themselves as part of the changing culture of business practice in Myanmar.

[…]

[…] Myanmar […] tests the logic that underpins the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. The ‘protect, respect and remedy’ framework assumes productive interaction between:

• a state that legislates and enforces rules that respect human rights;
• empowered stakeholders able to employ social and legal compliance mechanisms, advocacy and strategic litigation;
• a corporate governance system which internalises pressure and expectations of the other two systems.

[…]

Myanmar stands as an example of the difficulties of employing the UNGPs in contexts where democratic transition is not consolidated and the states capacity to control corporate actors is weak.