COUNCIL DISCUSSES TRANSNATIONAL CORPORATIONS AND HUMAN RIGHTS, AND THE RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION
The Human Rights Council this evening held a clustered interactive dialogue with Dante Pesce, Chair of the Working Group on human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises, and David Kaye, Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression.
Presenting the reports of the Working Group on human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises, Mr. Pesce said that the thematic report examined the duties of States under the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights with respect to State-owned enterprises, and suggested the measures States should take to ensure that the enterprises they owned or controlled, and which increasingly operated transnationally, respected human rights. Mr. Pesce also presented a report on the country visit to Brazil.
Mr. Kaye, presenting his thematic report on the private sector in the digital age, noted that recently it was the private sector that was the driving force behind the greatest expansion of access to information in history. Yet, the digital age had brought with it new questions and problems that international human rights mechanisms had not yet fully addressed. The report launched a multi-year effort to identify appropriate human rights norms for the private sector in the digital space and was the first step in an effort to identify the ways in which freedom of expression might be protected and promoted in the digital space. Mr. Kaye spoke about his country visits to Tajikistan and Japan.
Brazil spoke as a concerned country.
In the clustered interactive dialogue, speakers stressed the need to protect human rights from abuses by transnational corporations and requested the Working Group to tackle this issue. There was a gap in the effective implementation of the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, they noted and asked which steps States should prioritize in the short term, and how the Working Group could best disseminate the Guiding Principles and foster their effective use globally.
With regard to freedom of expression in the context of the private sector and digital space, speakers emphasized the importance of new information technologies and the Internet as a tool to promote peace, knowledge and economic growth. They said that the right to privacy should not be undermined in the digital space and that freedom of expression online and offline must be practiced responsibly. The expansion of new technologies presented unprecedented new opportunities for freedom of expression, but also specific challenges needed to be overcome, such as repressive legislation, censorship and threats against journalists.
Speaking were European Union, Dominican Republic on behalf of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean Countries, Pakistan on behalf of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, Sweden on behalf of Finland and Sweden, Portugal, Poland, United States, Council of Europe, Norway, Russian Federation, Armenia, Chile, Maldives, Qatar, Cuba, Iran, Netherlands, Albania, State of Palestine, Botswana, Slovenia, Ecuador, Austria, Venezuela, Czech Republic, Mexico, Japan, Costa Rica, Turkey, Kyrgyzstan, Indonesia, Germany, France, Switzerland, Spain, United Kingdom, and Tunisia.
Honduras, Venezuela, Thailand, China, Egypt and Russia spoke in right of reply.
The Human Rights Council will hold a full day of meetings on Friday, 17 June. It will reconvene at 9 a.m., to conclude the clustered interactive dialogue with the Working Group on transnational corporations and human rights and the Special Rapporteur on the right to freedom of expression, which will be followed by a clustered interactive dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on the right to education and the Special Rapporteur on peaceful assembly and association.
Documentation
The Council has before it the Report of the Working Group on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises (A/HRC/32/45).
The Council has before it an addendum to the Report of the Working Group on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises – mission to Brazil (A/HRC/32/45/Add.1).
The Council has before it an addendum to the Report of the Working Group on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises on the Asia Forum on Business and Human Rights (A/HRC/32/45/Add.2).
The Council has before it an addendum to the Report of the Working Group on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises on multi-stakeholder action to protect and respect human rights (A/HRC/32/45/Add.3).
The Council has before it an addendum to the Report of the Working Group on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises on LAC regional consultation on public policy and business and human rights (A/HRC/32/45/Add.4).
The Council has before it the Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression (A/HRC/32/38).
Presentation of Reports
DANTE PESCE, Chair of the Working Group on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises, presented the Working Group on Business and Human Rights’ main thematic report as well as four addendum reports. On the main thematic report, he said it examined the duties of States under the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights with respect to State-owned enterprises. Such enterprises increasingly operated transnationally, and despite their global presence, they did not feature prominently on the business and human rights agenda. There were compelling reasons for States to take additional steps to ensure that State-owned enterprises respected human rights, namely that it was a matter of legal obligation, national policy coherence, legitimacy and credibility, and finally that it was a matter of international policy coherence.
The Working Group suggested measures that States should take to ensure that the enterprises they owned or controlled respected human rights. Those measures fell into two categories, namely what States’ expectations and requirements should be, and how States could ensure that their human rights requirements were implemented. It was time for States to follow through the good examples set by a few governments and implement existing standards and guidance. Turning to country visits, he said that the Working Group had visited Brazil and the Republic of Korea, and was planning a visit to Mexico. Of those, he presented just the Working Group’s report following its visit to Brazil. In that country, there were great risks facing indigenous communities and human rights defenders who raised their voices against business-related human rights abuses.
Regarding a report on the United Nations Forum on Business and Human Rights, areas explored included an examination of the way money and financial markets drove or undermined progress to implement the Guiding Principles. The Working Group wished to hold another regional forum on business and human rights, and also wanted to explore a number of options to promote peer learning in relation to business and human rights issues, among other initiatives.
DAVID KAYE, Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, said that his report to the General Assembly in October 2016 would present a thematic overview of freedom of expression communication, highlight several of the most significant threats to freedom of expression, and identify steps that the General Assembly, the Council and Member States might take to address them. The Special Rapporteur presented brief reports on country visits to Tajikistan and Japan. In Tajikistan, laws, decrees and policies were eroding the fundamental protections for freedom of expression, undermining the free press and intimidating journalists, limiting citizens’ access to government information, and blocking critical sources of information on the Internet. The recent Constitutional reform and the harsh sentences handed to members of a principal opposition party after closed trials and no public disclosure of evidence, underscored that freedom of expression was under serious assault. Japan deserved a well-deserved pride in a Constitution that expressly protected the freedom of the press while online freedom was particularly protected and vibrant. Yet media independence faced a serious threat; a weak system of legal protection, persistent exploitation of a media lacking in professional solidarity, and the Specially Designated Secrets Act.
Turning to his thematic report on the private sector in the digital age, Mr. Kaye noted that recently it was the private sector that was the driving force behind the greatest expansion of access to information in history. Yet, the digital age had brought with it new questions and problems that international human rights mechanisms had not yet fully addressed. The report launched a multi-year effort to identify appropriate human rights norms for the private sector in the digital space and was the first step in an effort to identify the ways in which freedom of expression might be protected and promoted in the digital space. It also made some interim points about core principles applicable now, such as the obligations of governments not to require or pressure the private sector to take steps that unnecessarily or disproportionately interfered with freedom of expression, or the obligation of States to adopt and implement laws and policies that protected private development and the provision of technical measures, products and services that advanced freedom of expression. Also, it identified that among the most important steps that private actors could take was the development and implementation of transparent human rights assessment procedures. Mr. Kaye explained that he would focus in the near-term on restrictions and responsibilities of telecommunications and the Internet service providers, and that over time he would address content restrictions under terms of service, liability for the hosting of third party content, censorship and the surveillance industry, efforts to undermine digital security, access to the Internet, particularly for the poor, and Internet governance.
Statement by a Concerned Country
Brazil, speaking as a concerned country, pointed out to several inaccuracies in the report. Contrary to what was mentioned in the report, consultations were held with Brazilian society about the model of the Cooperation and Investment Facilitation Agreement. It was also incorrect to affirm that projects with environmental impact lacked regulation and governmental oversight. The Government did not agree with the assertion of the report that local communities had not been consulted or informed about the Belo Monte project. The damn was not located on indigenous land. Regarding the concern of the Working Group over the increased use of the “safety suspension” legal mechanism, Brazil stressed that it had been duly regulated by federal legislation. It was also untrue that Brazil was unwilling and unable to deal with corruption scandals.
Clustered Interactive Dialogue
European Union asked the Working Group to share preliminary ideas on the way it could disseminate and implement the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights and foster their effective use globally. As for freedom of expression, it asked the Special Rapporteur about how governments could provide guidance to the private sector on the protection of human rights online. Dominican Republic, speaking on behalf of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean Countries, emphasized the importance of new information technologies and the Internet as a tool to promote peace, knowledge and economic growth. The right to privacy should not be undermined in that context. Pakistan, speaking on behalf of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, agreed that freedom of expression was important. But, biased and hateful content could lead to violent and chaotic reactions. It was important that freedom of expression online and offline was practiced responsibly. Sweden, speaking on behalf of Finland and Sweden, said that media context was changing rapidly, posing challenges to freedom of expression. Repressive legislation, censorship and threats against journalists were some of the greatest challenges to be overcome. Portugal noted that the expansion of new technologies presented unprecedented new opportunities for freedom of expression. However, they also presented challenges for data protection and national security. Poland shared the view that new technologies provided new opportunities, but also risks. All stakeholders, including States, the private sector, international organizations and civil society should be included in the debate on those issues.
United States expressed deep concern at the global decline in freedom of expression, in particular in Egypt, China, Thailand, and Turkey, and asked the Special Rapporteur on freedom of expression which themes he would prioritize for reporting. To the Working Group on Business and Human Rights, it asked which steps States should prioritize in the short term. Council of Europe said that the situation for the protection of freedom of expression in Europe was not at its best, as half of the Member States of the Council of Europe did not satisfactorily guarantee the safety of journalists, adding that some of the most serious concerns with regard to freedom of expression related to blocking, filtering and taking down Internet content. Norway said all Norwegian companies were expected to demonstrate corporate responsibility, and noted that there was growing awareness that it was conducive to corporate commercial growth. Regarding the report of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of expression, the question was asked how businesses could integrate commitments to freedom of expression into their policy-making, product-engineering and business development activities. Russian Federation said the Government was developing a concept of public non-financial reporting which would contain elements on human rights, and noted that the working group was playing a leading role. As regards the Special Rapporteur on freedom of expression, it had been noted with regret that the expert had prepared a document not in keeping with his mandate, and since the “fashionable” issue of the Internet was now taken up, Russia asked if the Special Rapporteur considered that all issues with freedom of expression in its traditional sense had now been resolved?
Armenia said that it attached great importance to the promotion of freedom of expression. It was constantly working with the private sector in that regard, and attached importance to not restricting freedom of expression online. Chile said that it was developing a national plan on human rights and business for the implementation of the Guiding Principles, and had commissioned a basic survey analysing the conduct of enterprises in the country. Maldives said that its Constitution and Right to Information Act enshrined the right to freedom of expression, and highlighted the responsibility on private companies for the enjoyment of this right. Maldives was also attached to the protection of the right to freedom of expression online, and would continue to engage on this issue. Qatar recalled that it had hosted regional events related to business and human rights, and reiterated its commitment to continue working on this issue. It underlined the important role of national human rights institutions in implementing the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. Cuba regretted the total lack of regulation on the Internet and mass surveillance, and called for the Internet to have independent international governors. Cuba supported the adoption of a legally binding instrument on business and human rights. Iran said advanced information and communication technologies were vulnerable to unnecessary surveillance, and was concerned that some States’ intelligence agencies were involved in invading people’s lives and interfering in other States’ affairs.
Netherlands shared the view that the information and communication sector was a driving force behind the immense expansion of access to information and freedom of expression. A free and open Internet could only be reached through cooperation with that sector, amongst other stakeholders. Albania expressed deep concern over human rights violations committed against persons exercising their freedom of expression online. It supported the recommendation of the Working Group regarding the role of the United Nations system to assist States in the promotion of the Guiding Principles. State of Palestine stated that all businesses had the responsibility to protect human rights. However, important gaps remained in the implementation of the Guiding Principles such as in occupied Palestine by Israeli companies. Botswana noted the focus on the role of the private sector on freedom of expression in the digital age. How was it possible to sustain the protection of rights online given the high level abuses, such as cyber bullying and computer crimes, especially when perpetrators were not in the same State jurisdiction as victims? Slovenia stated that the private sector should play a role in safeguarding freedom of expression online. The protection of privacy and personal data also had to be considered. What policy guidelines could be advised in that area?
Ecuador gave the positive example of its State owned company Petronas and said that the process of putting in place an international mechanism to regulate State owned enterprises was an important aspect. Austria said that an important issue at the intersection of the State and private sector in the digital area was the awareness of individuals on how their data could be collected and used. Austria asked about measures that could increase this awareness. Venezuela said that human rights must be protected against frequent abuse by transnational corporations and that the Working Group must tackle such human rights abuses. Freedom of expression was a constitutionally protected right and there were no limitations to its exercise in Venezuela.
As a country that currently worked on its national action plan for the implementation of the United Nations Guidelines on Business and Human Rights, Czech Republic welcomed the recommendations by the Working Group. What would motivate the private sector to develop transparent procedures which would take into account the impact on human rights? Mexico asked the Working Group about examples of the adoption of best practices by the private sector with regard to supply chains. Japan welcomed the visit by Mr. Kaye earlier this year and said that Japan would continue to cooperate with the mandate. Japan continued to strongly expect that human rights were respected in all business enterprises, including those owned by States.
Costa Rica said that the development of information and communication technologies had given rise to the need for more responsibilities for private companies, particularly with regard to respecting the right to privacy. Turkey agreed that individuals should enjoy the same rights online and offline, but insisted that abuse of freedom of speech, particularly hate speech, needed to be combatted. Turkey was committed to protecting freedom of expression and of information, and to ensuring an open democratic space for civil society. Kyrgyzstan said it was essential to protect freedom of the press, noting that the Internet was now one of the main vectors of information. It asked the Special Rapporteur to prepare a report addressing freedom of expression in modern media, looking forward to the recommendations that it would contain. Indonesia said that it had taken steps in promoting businesses’ respect for human rights, including legal and institutional frameworks and policies and awareness-raising efforts. Indonesia had enacted a law on electronic information and transactions, and had established an independent commission on broadcasting and information. Germany asked the Special Rapporteur for his views on the “right to forget”, and its links with freedom of information. Germany was currently finalizing a national action plan on business and human rights. How could they broaden awareness on the benefits of the Guiding Principles for workers and enterprises? France said that most violations of freedom of expression occurred online, and insisted that the Internet must continue to permit the free access to and sharing of information. France condemned the arbitrary arrests of journalists or activists as a result of their activities online.
New Zealand considered that all people should enjoy the same human rights online as they do offline, including the right to protection of the law against arbitrary interference with privacy. There was a clear need to ensure an appropriate balance between protecting national security and recognizing a right to privacy. Switzerland said that the United Nations Forum on Business and Human Rights had to talk more about business measures that could be included in the plan of action. The questions raised by the Special Rapporteur were also important in Switzerland, but appropriate measures had to go beyond the minimum measures proposed in the report. Spain was grateful for the reports presented by the Working Group on human rights and transnational corporations and the Special Rapporteur on the right to freedom of opinion and expression. With regard to transnational corporations, what was needed was implementation through national plans and other means. The greater the coverage of public enterprises, the greater the coverage of these States. United Kingdom urged States to provide protection. The United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights were the best way to ensure this, and adequate remedy and access to justice were crucial. States had to take the lead in setting out expectations, such as the United Kingdom had done under the Modern Slavery Act. Freedom of expression supported economic growth. Tunisia agreed that it was vital for States to set the example and ensure that enterprises owned and controlled fully human rights. The emphasis placed on public enterprises should not overshadow private enterprises and the need to adopt measures in this regard. Freedom of expression was very important in Tunisia, where an open plan of action including e-government had been adopted.
Concluding Remarks by the Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression
DAVID KAYE, Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, in his concluding remarks, answering why online freedom was one of the most pertinent and critical issues related to the right to freedom of expression today, stressed that it was obvious to everyone that the Internet was the fundamental tool of expression, access to information, journalism, civil society organizing and social mobilization. Social media connected people to each other, search engines indexed knowledge, surveillance technology – all those were core freedom of expression issues today. The project launched in the report was designed to generate questions as much as answer them and the Special Rapporteur hoped that over the next few years most of those questions would be answered. With regard to hate speech and the threshold around incitement to hate, Mr. Kaye said that hate speech could serve as a vehicle for discrimination and dealing with it must be done through education and adoption of anti-discrimination laws and policies. Civil society was in many respects way ahead of both Special Procedures and States in reflecting on some of the issues raised; it was therefore critical to ensure their participation in thinking though how to ensure freedom of expression in the digital age. Internet governance should maintain the multi-stakeholder approach and there should be engagement with worldwide companies, not only those based in the West but also telecoms, social media giants based throughout the world.
Right of Reply
Honduras, speaking in a right of reply, said that it had taken steps, with the private sector, to ensure that the rights of indigenous peoples were protected. Honduras denounced the murder of human rights defender Berta Cáceres, which it was currently investigating.
Venezuela, speaking in a right of reply in response to what had been said yesterday by the United States, said that it would never submit to imperial countries’ attempts to attack Venezuela. Venezuela regretted that the President of the Council did not interrupt the United States and allowed it to make such politicized comments, which ran contrary to the principle of genuine and constructive dialogue. Venezuela demanded that the United States respected the sovereign and democratic will of the Venezuelan people.
Thailand, speaking in a right of reply, said that it highly valued freedom of expression, but that a balance needed to be reached for the protection of public order. Thailand’s legislation gave protection to the royal family the same way it protected other citizens. Thailand also attached great importance to the rights and safety of human rights defenders and lawyers. Contrary to some accusation, Thailand’s judiciary was impartial and independent.
China, speaking in a right of reply, said that the United States’ accusations of censorship of the media were groundless. China ensured freedom of expression and opinion, including on the Internet. Freedom of expression was not absolute, and should be exercised within the boundaries of law. The United States had conducted gross violations of the right to privacy of its citizens and of other countries’ citizens.
Egypt, speaking in a right of reply, regretted that the United States sought to single out Egypt based on false allegations and bad faith. Egypt referred to its statement made during the interactive dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers.
Russian Federation, speaking in a right of reply, regretted the statement made by Ukraine, and explained that Crimean Tatars enjoyed equal rights as any other person living in Russia. The Government had adopted legal measures to ensure that their rights were respected, despite the embargo imposed on the Crimean Peninsula. This was an attempt to divert the international community’s attention from brutal violations perpetrated in Ukraine, including torture and attacks against civilians.
For use of the information media; not an official record
HRC16/075E