Business and Development: A Two Way Street?

Article1.pdf

 Trócaire Development Review 2009 | 21
Corporations, Human Rights and the
Accountability Challenge
Shane Darcy
The increasing emphasis on the role of business in development often
pays inadequate attention to the lack of effective means of
accountability for corporate entities whose activities may contribute
to violations of human rights. Within an international law and
human rights framework, this article considers the right to
development and the place of corporate actors in the development
process, as highlighted in the Millennium Development Goals. It
analyses various attempts at regulating business activities,
including voluntary mechanisms and proposed United Nations
norms applicable to transnational corporations. The article also
explores established and emerging means of accountability which
might be applied to corporate conduct which is contrary to
established norms of human rights and international
humanitarian law. It proposes that business participation in the
development process must be a two-way street, with businesses being
subject to duties and binding obligations when being granted access
to markets, labour and resources.
Trócaire Development Review, Dublin, 2009, pp. 21-35, ISSN 0790-9403
22 | Trócaire Development Review 2009
Introduction
When the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission
issued its final report in March 2003, it pointed a finger at the role
of the business sector and of multinational corporations (MNCs) in
maintaining the apartheid system and in various associated human
rights violations.1 The Commission’s limited attempt to make the
business sector contribute to the reparations process and the South
African government’s poor record regarding payment of
compensation have seen the victims of those human rights abuses
take the initiative and attempt to pursue their claims by way of
litigation in the United States of America. Dr Alex Boraine, who
was Vice-chairman of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission,
felt that this lawsuit by the Khulumani victims group was not the
right way to proceed: “This could damage investment and new
jobs just when we need business to come here. I have enormous
sympathy for victims but we don’t want to scare away the
international business community.”2 The South African
government is similarly opposed to the damages claim and its
stance serves to highlight the paradoxical role of business in
development, particularly in the context of a transition from
conflict to peace: corporate entities are on the one hand
condemned and criticised for contributing to human rights abuses
and perpetuating conflict, yet on the other hand are fêted as vital
actors in the development process.
This somewhat privileged position of business and MNCs has
meant that regulation of their activities has all too often proved
elusive. The international law of human rights is struggling to
put in place meaningful legal regulation of corporate entities,
partly because this actor does not fit easily within the traditional
international law paradigm, which has been concerned with the
conduct of states. The past century has witnessed a spectacular
rise in both the prominence and power of the corporate entity
and a large number of multinational corporations now exert
more influence and control greater wealth than many of the
world’s sovereign nations.3 This near-unrivalled power is
deployed primarily for the purpose of maximising profits and
increasing markets and is often accompanied by a negative
impact on human rights, governance and the environment.4
During times of conflict, corporate actors have at times been
involved in supplying funds and arms to warring parties, the
forced relocation of populations, and even the use of slave
labour. Any countenancing of a role for business in development
must address the regulation of multinational companies to ensure
that their practices do not lead to violations of fundamental
human rights. Through the prism of international law and human
rights, this article considers the place of corporate actors in the
development process and the various attempts at regulation and
accountability for conduct which violates human rights and the
rules of international humanitarian law.
The right to development and the role
of business
The linkages between development and human rights were
recognised and endorsed by the United Nations in the 1986
Declaration on the Right to Development.5 The instrument
describes development as “a comprehensive economic, social,
cultural and political process, which aims at the constant
improvement of the well-being of the entire population and of all
individuals on the basis of their active, free and meaningful
participation in development and in the fair distribution of
benefits resulting therefrom”.6 The Declaration was an attempt
by the United Nations to move away from a strictly economic
understanding of development and to view it as a human right,
the realisation of which would require national and international
cooperation. The Declaration defines the right to development as
“an inalienable human right by virtue of which every human
person and all peoples are entitled to participate in, contribute
to, and enjoy economic, social, cultural and political
development, in which all human rights and fundamental
freedoms can be fully realized”.7
The imprecise language of the Declaration and differing
ideological positions have meant the scope and content of the right
to development have often been the subject of divisive debate.8
That being said, the 1993 Vienna Declaration on Human Rights
reaffirmed the right to development as “a universal and inalienable
right and an integral part of fundamental human rights”.9 Since the
adoption of the 1986 Declaration various United Nations working
groups and experts have worked to clarify the meaning of the right
to development and to explore means for its realisation. In the
latest report of the Human Rights Council’s working group on the
right to development, Arjun Sengupta, the working group’s
chairperson, asserted that the right to development is “now
accepted as a composite human right involving corresponding
obligations for duty-bearers for its phased realization”.10
Trócaire Development Review 2009 | 23
24 | Trócaire Development Review 2009
The Millennium Development Goals, in many ways the
centrepiece of the United Nations’ development effort, recognise
but ultimately sideline the human rights aspect of development.
The Millennium Declaration itself states that the Member States
of the United Nations “are committed to making the right to
development a reality for everyone and to freeing the entire
human race from want”.11 Despite this pronouncement,
alongside previous and parallel efforts to emphasise the
interrelationship between development and human rights, the
Goals themselves avoid using the language of human rights. The
Goals set a number of clear and specific time-bound targets with
regard to poverty and hunger, education, gender equality, child
mortality, health and environmental sustainability. In terms of
achieving them, Goal 8 provides a role for business, calling for
the development of “a global partnership for development”. A
specific role is identified for the private sector, particularly
pharmaceutical companies, on the basis of a trading and financial
system that must be “open, rule-based, predictable [and] nondiscriminatory”.
12 There has been criticism from a human rights
perspective of the central role given to free trade and private
sector cooperation as the means of achieving development.13
Nevertheless, the belief that business has an indispensable part to
play in development has become something of a common refrain
at the United Nations level.
The then United Nations Secretary-General, Kofi-Annan,
convened the Commission on the Private Sector and Development
in 2003. The Commission’s report heaped praise on the ability of
the private sector to contribute to development.14 The sector, the
Commission felt, “has tremendous potential to contribute to
development through its knowledge, expertise, resources and
relationships”.15 The report urged developing countries to facilitate
the operation of the private sector through reform, strengthening
the rule of law and formalising the economy, in order to “unleash”
its development potential. Similar sentiments were expressed in a
2004 Security Council debate on the role of business in conflict
prevention and peacemaking.16 The President of the Council, Mr
Pleuger from Germany convened the debate and spoke of “the
huge potential that the private sector can provide in any
development or reconstruction strategy”.17 Another participant in
the debate, Ms Rasi, President of the Economic and Social
Council, claimed that it was “widely accepted that the private
sector has a primary responsibility in building economic and social
well-being” and that it is “essential as a development partner”.18
The United Kingdom representative talked of the private sector’s
“crucial role in promoting global economic prosperity and
sustainable development”.19 The comments of the USA’s
representative, Mr Siv, reveal the endurance of a largely economic
view of development: “Businesses are valuable development
partners, providing crucial investment and employment
opportunities.…[T]he private sector is the engine of economic
growth, which in turn reduces poverty and creates jobs.”20
Various participants in the debate emphasised the partnership
language of Millennium Development Goal 8. Mr Gaspar
Martines, the representative of Angola, contended:
There is general agreement on the need for a new
partnership to strengthen efforts to mobilize
increased resources to achieve agreed international
development goals, including those contained in the
Millennium Declaration.… We welcome the efforts
undertaken by the United Nations to promote global
partnerships and we encourage good corporate
citizenship in the belief that the resources required
for African development, especially for those
countries emerging from conflict situations, cannot
be met by domestic sources alone, nor from official
development assistance.21
He argued that internationally agreed development goals
simply could not be achieved without international community
support, “with the international private sector playing a decisive
role”.22 Also taking part in the debate was Heinrich von Pierer,
President and CEO of Siemens. He highlighted the potential
role of a public/private partnership in areas such as education,
whereby development aid and programmes so provided could
focus on “ensuring long-term benefits and stability”.23
The comments of the Secretary-General sounded a note of
caution on the role of business and private companies in a postconflict
environment. Viewing their contribution as a potentially
double-edged sword, Kofi Annan said that businesses “can either
help a country turn its back on conflict or exacerbate the
tensions that fuelled conflict in the first place”.24 Of particular
relevance to this article were his comments regarding the
regulation of corporate activities. War-afflicted states or “failed
states”, he said, do not have the capacity to regulate activities
that are driven by profit but which fuel conflict. Moreover,
“enforcement and monitoring measures aimed at cracking down
on such activities often lack teeth, if they exist at all”.25
Trócaire Development Review 2009 | 25
26 | Trócaire Development Review 2009
The Secretary-General asserted that we need to find “the proper
balance between inducement and enforcement”.26 The following
section considers the nascent attempts at regulation of business
activities in light of existing human rights standards under
international law.
Regulating corporate activity: human
rights and humanitarian law
The attempts by the United Nations and other organisations to
regulate corporate activities which impact on human rights have
involved a mix of voluntary guidelines, codes of conduct and
draft legal instruments. Something of a schism has developed
between those who favour the corporate social responsibility
model of self-regulation and voluntary codes, and those who
favour binding legal documents with rigorous enforcement
mechanisms. The former approach is encapsulated in the United
Nations Global Compact27 and in the Organisation for Economic
Cooperation and Development’s Guidelines for Multinational
Enterprises.28 The USA has expressed its support for the
voluntary approach of the Global Compact, which lays down ten
principles in the areas of human rights, labour standards, the
environment and anti-corruption.29 The representative of
Pakistan expressed a more critical view at the 2004 Security
Council debate:
The majority view is that such voluntary codes,
though noble, do not contribute strong incentives for
compliance to offset the financial incentives for
noncompliance and the lack of rigorous enforcement
of such codes. Pakistan shares the view that voluntary
codes adopted by business, though valuable, are often
not sufficient. We therefore support the view that the
activities of business could be governed by a more
effective framework that not only creates
responsibilities and rights, but that also ensures
corporate responsibility and accountability, including
respect for the legal rights not only of business, but
also of the citizens and communities that are involved.
Such a framework could be based on the principles
and purposes of the Charter and respect for
international humanitarian law.30
Seeking to place human rights obligations directly on business
entities, described as “non-state actors” in international law
parlance, has come up against the traditional state-centred focus of
international law and the central tenet of human rights that such
rights are held by individuals and groups against the state. The
primary responsibility for ensuring human rights has lain with the
state, although that obligation also extends to ensuring human
rights are not violated in the private sphere.31 An interesting
development in the area of corporate regulation has been the
Kimberly Process Certification Scheme for rough diamonds, a
“soft law” mechanism which seeks to ensure that governments and
diamond traders do not deal in conflict diamonds.32 A far more
ambitious and expansive attempt at legal regulation of corporate
activities are the Draft Norms on the Responsibilities of
Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises with
regard to Human Rights.33 Although not yet possessing the
binding authority of an international treaty, the Draft Norms are
undoubtedly a major development in terms of seeking to regulate
corporate activity at the United Nations level.
The Draft Norms do not seek to undermine the primary
responsibility of the state for promoting, ensuring and protecting
human rights, including ensuring that transnational corporations
and other business enterprises respect human rights.34 This
approach is exemplified in the case against Nigeria before the
African Commission for Human Rights, where the Commission
placed the ultimate blame with the state for the destructive
activities of the Shell Corporation in Ogoniland.35 With regard
to such business entities themselves, the Draft Norms state that:
Within their respective spheres of activity and
influence, transnational corporations and other
business enterprises have the obligation to promote,
secure the fulfilment of, respect, ensure respect of and
protect human rights recognized in international as
well as national law, including the rights and interests
of indigenous peoples and other vulnerable groups.36
The instrument sets out particular obligations of business entities
with regard to workers’ rights, health and safety, exploitation of
children and environmental protection. It proposes several avenues
for implementation: incorporation of the norms in internal rules,
periodic reporting, monitoring and verification by the United
Nations.37 In many ways, the proposed means of enforcement
simply replicate those used to monitor human rights compliance by
Trócaire Development Review 2009 | 27
28 | Trócaire Development Review 2009
states and seem to underestimate the sheer numbers and
complexity of business entities whose activities compromise human
rights. John Ruggie, the United Nations Special Representative on
business and human rights, has highlighted the pitfalls of
replicating the same range of states’ human rights duties as for
corporations.38 That being said, widespread adoption and effective
implementation of the Draft Norms would help ensure that
business participation in development is not a one-way street, with
corporate entities accruing entitlements and benefits without
proper regulation and responsibilities.
Within the sphere of armed conflict, which is governed
primarily by the humanitarian law of the 1949 Geneva
Conventions, the regulation of corporate actors is similarly
lacking. Having simply not been envisaged when these laws were
devised, we have only one direct reference to corporations,
prohibiting the misuse of the Red Cross symbol by “individuals,
societies, firms or companies either public or private”.39 Unlike
human rights law, it is worth noting that international
humanitarian law not only binds states, but also creates legal
obligations for non-state actors, such as rebel groups and
national liberation movements. In November 2006, in
recognition of the growing influence of corporate activity on
conflict-related abuses, the International Committee of the Red
Cross produced a report entitled Business and International
Humanitarian Law. The report states:
International humanitarian law does not just bind
States, organized armed groups and soldiers – it binds
all actors whose activities are closely linked to an
armed conflict. Consequently, although States and
organized armed groups bear the greatest
responsibility for implementing international
humanitarian law, a business enterprise carrying out
activities that are closely linked to an armed conflict
must also respect applicable rules of international
humanitarian law.40
Beyond this basic, yet welcome premise, the challenge remains
of using a branch of international law that was not developed
with corporate entities in mind to regulate the activities of these
uniquely complex and powerful bodies. A further question arises
when businesses have been found to act contrary to human
rights or humanitarian law to the extent that such actions may be
viewed as criminal. The Draft Norms propose that:
Transnational corporations and other business
enterprises shall not engage in nor benefit from war
crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide, torture,
forced disappearance, forced or compulsory labour,
hostage-taking, extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary
executions, other violations of humanitarian law and
other international crimes against the human person as
defined by international law, in particular human
rights and humanitarian law.41
Recent developments have shown that in response to such
crimes, there are several avenues of accountability which may be
pursued.
Accountability of corporate actors:
tribulations and trials
Although much remains to be done regarding the legal
regulation of the conduct of corporations, there have been
some positive developments in the post-conflict environment
which have seen corporations, or at least individual officers,
called to account for conduct breaching human rights and
humanitarian law. It is important to differentiate between the
responsibility of a corporation as a distinct legal entity and that
of individual persons who work for it or direct its activities. The
criminal responsibility of individuals for corporate activity has a
basis in existing international law, but the international criminal
responsibility of legal entities has not yet materialised, despite
the presence of such a concept in several domestic jurisdictions.
Trials in the aftermath of the Second World War established
that corporate officers could be criminally liable where the
activities of the company contribute to violations of
international law. The Zyklon B case saw two German
industrialists found guilty of complicity in the murder of
civilians by supplying the poison gas used for extermination.42
A judge in the I.G Farben case commented that the Farben
company, as a matter of corporate policy, “willingly cooperated
in the slave labor programme, including utilisation of forced
foreign workers, prisoners of war and concentration camp
inmates”.43 The International Committee of the Red Cross
(ICRC) has warned that:
Trócaire Development Review 2009 | 29
30 | Trócaire Development Review 2009
A significant risk of criminal liability … exists for those
who commit grave breaches of international
humanitarian law, including where business enterprises
or their representatives commit or knowingly assist
violations carried out by others, such as contractors,
subsidiaries or clients.44
The rules of criminal liability set out in the Rome Statute of
the International Criminal Court state that criminal
responsibility attaches to those who aid and abet crimes in the
court’s jurisdiction (genocide, crimes against humanity and war
crimes), as well as anyone who “contributes to the commission
or attempted commission of such a crime by a group of persons
acting with a common purpose”. Undoubtedly, corporate
officers and directors are within the scope of the jurisdiction of
the International Criminal Court. The Prosecutor of the Court,
Luis Moreno Ocampo, has expressed an intention to investigate
the financial aspects of alleged atrocities in the Democratic
Republic of Congo, seeing this as being “crucial to prevent
future crimes and for the prosecution of crimes already
committed”.45
Although individual corporate officers may be liable to
criminal prosecution, corporate entities themselves are outside
the sphere of accountability provided by international criminal
law. It had been proposed during the creation of the
International Criminal Court that it should have jurisdiction
over both natural and legal persons, but this proposal was
dropped because the Court would already have jurisdiction
over the individuals operating such corporations and because
the concept of corporate criminal responsibility was not
accepted in every domestic jurisdiction.46 During the drafting
of the Rome Statute, the representative of the USA had rightly
pointed out that the criminal liability of corporations would be
important from the perspective of reparations for victims.
Although post-conflict criminal processes have yet to bring
corporations to book for their contribution to wartime abuses,
a promising form of accountability has evolved in recent years
in the form of truth-telling processes, including the South
African Truth and Reconciliation Commission mentioned
above. These Commissions have at times highlighted the role
of multinational companies and the business sector and have
called for reparations where they were complicit in human
rights abuses. The South African Truth and Reconciliation
Commission held that the business sector had been “central to
the economy that had maintained the South African state
during the apartheid years”.47 It found that there had been
varying degrees of engagement by the corporate sector, ranging
from directly shaping government policies or engaging in
repressive activities to benefiting from operating in a society
structured on racial discrimination with low wages and a denial
of basic workers’ rights. The Commission named specific
corporations, such as the Swiss bank Credit Suisse and the USA
mining company, Anglo-American Corporation, who profited
from human rights violations.48
The Commission for Reception, Truth and Reconciliation in
East Timor recommended that “Indonesian business
companies, including State Owned Enterprises, and other
international and multinational corporations and businesses
who profited from war and benefited from the occupation”
should contribute to the proposed reparation scheme.49 The
broad scope of a truth-seeking process has allowed these bodies
to shine a light where other accountability mechanisms have
thus far neglected to do so.
Finally, one needs to consider the numerous civil claims
against multinational corporations being taken in domestic
courts, such as those against IBM and various Swiss Banks for
their role in the Holocaust. The Alien Torts Claim Act in the
USA has been a vehicle for such litigation against companies
like Exxon Mobil, Unocal and Barclays, but has yielded mixed
and largely limited results to date, often in the form of out-ofcourt
settlements.50 In June 2009, Royal Dutch Shell settled
out of court a lawsuit filed in the USA for $15.5 million by
relatives of Ken Saro-Wiwa and other Ogoni activists. The
impetus for such claims has often come from the declarations
by Truth and Reconciliation Commissions and the
dissatisfaction of victims with the lack of tangible reparations to
accompany the clear statements of corporate wrongdoing. The
difficulties in bringing corporate actors to book and making
them liable for compensation using civil, criminal or other
accountability processes are unquestionably tied to the
privileged position that has been endowed upon them as
engines of economic growth and “vital partners” in the
development process.

Trócaire Development Review 2009 | 31
32 | Trócaire Development Review 2009
Conclusion
The relationship between business and development as it stands
can be viewed as something of a one-way process, whereby
businesses engage in profit-making exercises in developing
countries, availing of cheap resources and labour, but without
having to make any long-term commitment to a country’s
development needs and without being subjected to any
significant mechanism which would ensure that corporate
activities are in accordance with established human rights
standards. Proponents of the role of business in development
often adopt a purely economic understanding of development,
but even then, the creation of employment and income is at
times accompanied by the denial of traditional means of
livelihood, conflict over resources and a weakening of human
rights protection. Frequently, developing countries engage in a
race to the bottom in order to attract foreign direct investment
and to accommodate the demands of multinational corporations.
International law and human rights can provide a meaningful
counterbalance to the one-way nature of the process to date.
There are several key points to the framing of development in
terms of human rights: it puts human beings and their
internationally protected rights at the centre of the process,
encourages empowerment and participation, pays particular heed
to vulnerable groups and, critically, insists on accountability of
the various participants in the process.51 In the context of the
Millennium Development Goals, the United Nations High
Commissioner for Human Rights has stated that:
The raison d’être of the rights-based approach is
accountability. While States are the primary dutybearers
under human rights law, other
dutybearers–including the donor community,
intergovernmental organizations, international NGOs,
transnational corporations and others whose actions
have a bearing on the enjoyment of human rights in
any country–must be answerable for the observance of
human rights.52
This article has demonstrated some of the various attempts to
regulate corporate activity and to hold businesses to account when
their conduct breaches international humanitarian law and human
rights. Civil society has been to the forefront in harnessing the
persuasive force of the various voluntary codes of conduct to
pressure business entities whose activities breach human rights.
Truth commissions, civil litigation and criminal processes are
playing an emerging role in corporate accountability and such
developments add to the movement towards establishing binding
legal standards for businesses. The continued occurrence of
human rights violations attributable to corporate conduct
reinforces the view that binding legal restraints and adequate
accountability mechanisms for corporate activity are essential if
business and development are to be a two-way street.
Endnotes
1 Report of the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission, Volume 6,
Section 2, Chapter 5, “Reparations and the Business Sector”
2 Ian Evans (2008), “Multinationals face damages claim from victims of
apartheid,” The Observer, 18 May
3 See Joel Bakan (2005), The Corporation, London: Constable
4 See generally Daniel Aguirre (2008), The Human Right to Development in a
Globalized World, Aldershot: Ashgate
5 Declaration on the Right to Development, adopted by UNGA Resolution
41/128, 4 December 1986
6 Ibid., Preamble
7 Ibid., Article 1
8 See for example Allan Rosas, “The right to development”, 119 in Asbjorn
Eide, Krause, Catarina and Rosas, Allan (Editors, 2001), Economic, Social and
Cultural Rights, Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff, 2001, 2nd edn; Sengupta,
Arjun (2002), “On the theory and practice of the right to development”,
Human Rights Quarterly, 24.4, 837
9 Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action, World Conference on Human
Rights, 25 June 1993, paragraph 10.
10 Human Rights Council, Report of the Working Group of the Right to
Development on its Ninth Session, 10 September 2008, UN Doc.
A/HRC/9/17, p.3
11 United Nations Millennium Declaration, adopted by UNGA Resolution
55/2, 18 September 2000, paragraph 11
12 See Target 2: Develop further an open, rule-based, predictable, nondiscriminatory
trading and financial system; Target 4: In cooperation with
pharmaceutical companies, provide access to affordable essential drugs in
developing countries; Target 5: In cooperation with the private sector, make
available benefits of new technologies, especially information and
communications.
13 Su-Ming Khoo (2005), “The Millennium Development Goals: a critical
discussion”, Trócaire Development Review, pp.48-9
14 United Nations Commission on the Private Sector and Development (2004),
Unleashing Entrepreneurship: Making Business work for the Poor, New York:
UNDP
15 ibid., p 41
16 Security Council, 4943rd Meeting, Agenda: “The role of business in conflict
prevention, peacekeeping and post-conflict peace-building”, 15 April 2004,
S/PV.4943
Trócaire Development Review 2009 | 33
34 | Trócaire Development Review 2009
17 ibid., p.2
18 ibid., pp.9-10
19 ibid., p.25
20 ibid., p.18
21 ibid., p.20
22 ibid.
23 ibid., pp.7-8
24 ibid., p.3
25 ibid.
26 ibid., p.4
27 See http://www.unglobalcompact.org/
28 See http://www.oecd.org/daf/investment/guidelines
29 Security Council, 4943rd Meeting, Agenda, op.cit., p.19
30 ibid., p.23, Mr Akram. See also the comments of Mr Isakov, representative of
the Russian Federation: “But it is clear that voluntary self-restraint measures
based on purely ethical standards and universally recognized principles are not
in themselves a panacea. It is therefore important to be guided at the same
time by existing international legal principles and norms”, ibid., p.25.
31 See for example Andrew Clapham (1993), Human Rights in the Private
Sphere, Oxford, Clarendon Press.
32 See http://www.kimberleyprocess.com/
33 E/CN.4/Sub.2/2003/12 (2003)
34 Draft Norms, paragraph 1
35 The Social and Economic Rights Action Center for Economic and Social Rights
v. Nigeria, African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, Comm. No.
155/96 (2001)
36 Draft Norms, paragraph 1
37 ibid., paragraphs 15-19
38 Ruggie, John Gerard (2007), “Business and Human Rights: The Evolving
International Agenda,” Corporate Social Responsibility Initiative, Working
Paper No. 31, Cambridge, MA: John F. Kennedy School of Government,
Harvard University, pp.11-13
39 First Geneva Convention of 1949, Article 53
40 International Committee of the Red Cross (2006), Business and International
Humanitarian Law, Geneva, p.14
41 Draft Norms, paragraph 3
42 Trial of Bruno Tesch and two others, British Military Court, Hamburg, 8
March 1945
43 Herbert, J. (1948), United States v. Carl Krauch et al, United States Military
Tribunal, Nuremberg, 14 August 1947-29 July 1948, p.62
44 International Committee of the Red Cross (2006), op.cit., p.15; see also
International Commission of Jurists (2008), Final Report of the Expert Legal
Panel on Corporate Complicity in International Crimes, September.
45 Press release, “The Prosecutor on the co-operation with Congo and other
states regarding the situation in Ituri”, DRC, ICC-OTP-20030926-37
(2003)
46 See generally Joanna Kyriakakis (2008), “Corporations and the International
Criminal Court: the complementarity objection stripped bare”, 19, Criminal
Law Forum 1, p.115.
47 Report of the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission (2003),
Volume 6, Section 2, Chapter 5, “Reparations and the business sector”, p.140
48 ibid., pp.144, 151-55
49 Final Report of the Commission for Reception, Truth and Reconciliation in East
Timor (2006), Part 11: “Reparations”, p.42
50 See for example International Center of Transitional Justice (2008), A Matter
of Complicity? Exxon Mobil on Trial for its Role in Human Rights Violations in
Aceh.
51 See Patrick Twomey (2007), “Human rights-based approaches to
development: towards accountability”, 45, in Baderin and McCorquodale
(Editors), Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in Action
52 Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (2008), Claiming the
Millennium Development Goals: A Human Rights Approach, New
York/Geneva: United Nations, p.15
Trócaire Development Review 2009 | 35