Report analyses barriers to access judicial remedy for victims of human rights abuses by companies & makes recommendations

Get RSS feed of these results

All components of this story

Article
+ 繁體中文 - Hide

Author: Gwynne Skinner, Robert McCorquodale, Olivier De Schutter & Andie Lambe

"第三大支柱: 讓跨國公司侵犯人權行為的受害者獲得司法救濟", 2013年2月

“獲得司法救濟項目”(A2JR)設立的目的是確認並分析美國、加拿大和歐洲在該領域存在的阻礙…在開發該報告過程中我們進行了詳盡的現狀分析,結論顯示國家普遍沒有承擔為企業境外侵權行為的受害者提供有效司法救濟的義務。受害者在尋求救濟時仍然面臨著眾多的阻礙,有時還出現尋求救濟的途徑被完全堵死的情況。雖然相關國家在立法、法庭程序、人權保護和法律傳統方面存在著差異,但在所有司法制度下都存在著阻礙受害者尋求救助的情況。在一些案例中,這些阻礙被成功地克服,其原因往往是:律師採用了全新的訴訟方案;受害者有足夠的耐心;有著敏銳洞察力的法官願意受理此類維權訴訟。國家必須制定強硬、一致的政策,重申受害者的人權重於企業的經濟利益。企業侵權人權行為的受害者,無論侵權行為在何地發生,都有權獲得全面、有效的司法救濟。為實現上述目標,每一個國家都應該審視司法制度中的存在障礙,並考慮採取行動加以消除,特別是考慮本報告提出的相關建議...

Read the full post here

Report
+ 简体中文 - Hide

Author: Gwynne Skinner, Robert McCorquodale, Olivier De Schutter & Andie Lambe

"第三大支柱: 让跨国公司侵犯人权行为的受害者获得司法救济", 2013年2月

“获得司法救济项目”(A2JR)设立的目的是确认并分析美国、加拿大和欧洲在该领域存在的阻碍…在开发该报告过程中我们进行了详尽的现状分析,结论显示国家普遍没有承担为企业境外侵权行为的受害者提供有效司法救济的义务。受害者在寻求救济时仍然面临着众多的阻碍,有时还出现寻求救济的途径被完全堵死的情况。虽然相关国家在立法、法庭程序、人权保护和法律传统方面存在着差异,但在所有司法制度下都存在着阻碍受害者寻求救助的情况。在一些案例中,这些阻碍被成功地克服,其原因往往是:律师采用了全新的诉讼方案;受害者有足够的耐心;有着敏锐洞察力的法官愿意受理此类维权诉讼。国家必须制定强硬、一致的政策,重申受害者的人权重于企业的经济利益。企业侵权人权行为的受害者,无论侵权行为在何地发生,都有权获得全面、有效的司法救济。为实现上述目标,每一个国家都应该审视司法制度中的存在障碍,并考虑采取行动加以消除,特别是考虑本报告提出的相关建议...

Read the full post here

Download the full document here

Article
+ Français - Hide

Author: Xavier de la Porte, in Le Monde Blogs (France)

En 2007…Amesys, filiale de Bull…signe un contrat avec le gouvernement du colonel Kadhafi [et]…vend à la Libye…un programme du nom de Eagle…Quand en 2011, est révélée cette opération,…Amesys oppose plusieurs arguments…ce que nous vendons avec Eagle c’est une technologie de lutte contre le terrorisme, si l’acheteur décide d’en faire autre chose, ça n’est pas notre problème…[L]a police secrète libyenne s’est manifestement servie de Eagle pour surveiller les opposants…[C]ertaines personnes surveillées avaient été convoquées et torturées…En mai 2010…la Fédération internationale des Droits de l’homme…dépose plainte contre Amesys pour complicité de torture. Un autre biais donc. Une information judiciaire a été ouverte…[La] Coalition contre l’exportation illégale de technologie de surveillance…[a pour] but est de pousser à une réglementation internationale sur la vente de ces technologies, réglementation reposant sur l’assurance que ce matériel ne servirait à rien qui puisse contrevenir aux droits de l’homme…

Read the full post here

Article
+ Français - Hide

Author: Xavier Berne, Next INpact (France)

[D]eux associations soutenaient que [Qosmos] avait « été, à plusieurs reprises…mise en cause pour avoir contribué à fournir au régime syrien le matériel de surveillance électronique nécessaire à la répression de la contestation qui a lieu en Syrie depuis mars 2011 »…[L]a FIDH et la LDH viennent d’annoncer que le Parquet avait finalement décidé d’ouvrir une information judiciaire pour « complicité d’actes de torture » en Syrie…Ces magistrats auront donc la charge de mener une enquête approfondie...ce qui permettra de mieux évaluer quelles ont été les responsabilités de Qosmos, ou décharger l'entreprise de toute mise en cause…Au travers d’un communiqué publié samedi dernier, la société a réagi à l’ouverture de cette information judiciaire en affirmant qu’elle « continuera à collaborer pleinement avec les autorités judiciaires françaises…»…« Nous tenons à démentir fermement…les accusations fausses et calomnieuses…[N]ous réaffirmons qu’aucun de nos équipements ou logiciels n’a été opérationnel en Syrie. »…[Fait aussi référence à Amesys (filiale de Bull)]

🚫Read the full post here

Article
4 April 2014

Corporate Accountability for Human Rights Violations in Countries in Transition

Author: Nadia Bernaz (Middlesex University), Rights as Usual

[A]t the 9 Bedford Row International Conference on “Human Rights in Post-Revolution States”... [m]y talk was on “Corporate Accountability for Human Rights Violations in Countries in Transition”. The area of corporate accountability and transitional justice is relatively under explored...I...present[ed] a selection of cases...to highlight the type of issues that are likely to arise when trying to hold corporations, or business people, accountable for human rights violations in countries that have transitioned from conflict to peace, or from authoritarian rule to democracy...Post World War II trials against industrialists and bankers in US zone of occupation in Germany; The South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s findings on business...; The Apartheid cases before US federal courts...; The Van Anraat case in the Netherlands; The ongoing Amesys and Qosmos cases in France...[W]here to draw the line between making profit by doing business with a criminal regime, and being criminally or civilly liable?..[U]nfortunately these cases provide no definite answers.

Read the full post here

Article
4 April 2014

Launch of the CAUSE coalition & Expert meeting on ICT companies – exploring ways to enhance regulation and strengthen accountability – University Foundation, 11 rue d'Egmont, Brussels– April 4, 2014 | 14:30-17:30

Author: FIDH

...On April 4th 2014, FIDH is convening a open-dialogue session in Brussels (Room A, University Foundation, 11 rue d'Egmont). This meeting will bring together known experts, NGOs and stakeholders working on ICT companies regulation and accountability issues as well as representatives of the EU, with a view to trigger a debate on the necessity to regulate the activities of communication surveillance companies. This meeting will also mark the official launch of the CAUSE coalition (Coalition Against the Unlawful Surveillance Exports). CAUSE is an international initiative led by key international and national civil society groups which main goal is to ensure that transfers of commercial surveillance technology do not contribute to human rights abuses or internal repression...[refers to Amesys]

Read the full post here

Article
17 March 2014

FIDH Briefing Paper on business & human rights "Enhancing Standards and Ensuring Redress" (Mar 2014) - with company responses & non-responses

Author: Compiled by Business & Human Rights Resource Centre

[Business & Human Rights Resource Centre invited Ahava, Groupe Forrest Intl, Vale to respond. Groupe Forrest & Vale responses provided. Ahava did not respond] In March 2014, the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) issued a briefing paper titled "Business and Human Rights: Enhancing Standards and Ensuring Redress". In the briefing paper FIDH calls on the international community to take urgent steps at national, regional and international levels to ensure effective redress mechanisms are available for corporate-related human rights abuses.

Read the full post here

Article
2 December 2013

[DOC] The UK Government must ensure that victims of abuse perpetrated overseas are able to access justice in the UK

Author: Lord Dholakia, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, Sir Nigel Rodley, Kirsty Brimelow QC - Chair of Bar Human Rights Committee, Nick Fluck - President of Law Society, Martyn Day - Leigh Day, Carla Ferstman - Director of REDRESS, Maura McGowan QC - Chairman of the Bar, Phil Lynch - Director, International Service for Human Rights & 12 other lawyers

[W]e urge the UK Government to live up to its commitment to ensure that victims of corporate human rights abuses perpetrated overseas are able to access justice in the UK courts…[I]t remains extremely difficult for court cases against multinationals to proceed in many of the countries where the alleged abuses occurred. It is therefore essential that such cases can be brought in the home states of the companies concerned…[G]overnments unanimously agreed to address this problem when they endorsed the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights…As home to some of the world’s largest multinationals, the UK ought to have led the way in delivering on this obligation. Instead, the Government went ahead with changes to the court costs regime, which means it is now far more difficult to bring such cases in this country…

Read the full post here

Article
1 December 2013

[PDF] The Third Pillar: Access to Judicial Remedies for Human Rights Violations by Transnational Business

Author: Gwynne Skinner, Robert McCorquodale, Olivier De Schutter & Andie Lambe

The Access to Judicial Remedy (A2JR) Project set out to identify and analyze the barriers in the United States, Canada, and Europe…The detailed mapping exercise undertaken in the development of this Report shows that States are generally not fulfilling their obligation to ensure access to effective judicial remedies to victims of human rights violations by businesses operating outside their territory. Victims continue to face barriers that at times can completely block their access to an effective remedy…These barriers have been overcome in only some instances…Victims of human rights violations by business, wherever the violations occur, are entitled to full and effective access to judicial remedies. In order to provide this, each State should examine the barriers in their jurisdiction and consider the range of actions they can take to alleviate them, and in particular, the recommendations contained in this Report…[Refers to Alstom, Amesys (part of Bull), Anvil Mining (part of China Minmetals), Barrick Gold, Bull, Cambior, Cape PLC, Chevron, Chiquita, Daimler, DLH (Dalhoff Larsen & Horneman), Drummond, ExxonMobil, HudBay Minerals, Monterrico Metals (part of Zijin), Shell, Talisman, Texaco (part of Chevron), Thor Chemicals, Unocal (part of Chevron), Veolia Environnement (formerly Vivendi), Veolia Transport (part of Veolia Environnement), Walmart, Zijin]

Read the full post here

Article
1 September 2001

full report: Timber Trafficking: Illegal Logging in Indonesia, South East Asia and International Consumption of Illegally Sourced Timber

Author: Environmental Investigation Agency and Telapak Indonesia

Read the full post here