HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL HOLDS AN INTERACTIVE DIALOGUE ON TRANSNATIONAL CORPORATIONS AND HUMAN RIGHTS, AND ON MIGRANTS
The Human Rights Council this afternoon held a clustered interactive dialogue with Michael K. Addo, Chair of the Working Group on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises, and with François Crépeau, Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants.
In the presentation of the Working Group’s reports, Mr. Addo explained that one of the findings of the Working Group was that there was a low level of awareness by small and medium-sized enterprises of the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, as well as a need for more accessible and user-friendly information. Practical tools also needed to be tailored to the realities faced by small and medium-sized enterprises. A second report highlighted areas involving transnational harm and economic actors where States had deployed best practices to successfully investigate and prosecute cross border cases in five key areas: trafficking in persons, environmental crimes, wildlife and forestry crimes, transnational bribery and corruption. He also spoke about the Working Group’s visits to the Republic of Korea and Mexico.
Mr. Crépeau, presenting his reports, said the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration should be the stepping stone for a 15-year agenda complementary to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Fully implementing a Global Compact relying on a human rights based framework for regular migration involved a number of policy orientations, including reducing underground labour markets and facilitating unionisation and effective access to justice, among other measures. Other key issues that should be included within a human rights based migration governance framework included ensuring that no one should be returned without effective oversight. He spoke about his missions to Angola, Greece and Australia.
Mexico, Republic of Korea, Angola, Australia and Greece spoke as concerned countries.
The National Human Rights Commission of Mexico and the Greek National Commission for Human Rights also spoke.
In the ensuing discussion about human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises, speakers welcomed the attention to small and medium-sized enterprises and their human rights obligations. They highlighted the growth of transnational companies and their profound negative environmental effect. In many developing countries, small and medium-sized enterprises were in the informal sector and they were often owned by illiterate or barely illiterate persons. Thus, additional steps to raise their awareness about the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights were needed.
On the human rights of migrants, speakers underlined the important contribution of migrant workers to the economic and social development of both origin and destination countries. They rejected the criminalization of migration and urged for the elimination of discriminatory policies towards migrants. It was necessary that migrant workers and their families were treated with respect and dignity. Nevertheless, some speakers warned against pre-empting the results of the State-led process leading to the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and A Regular Migration, adding that each country should manage its own borders and that participation in the Global Compact should be voluntary and non-binding.
Speaking were El Salvador on behalf of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean Countries, Tunisia on behalf of the African Group, European Union, Ghana on behalf of a group of countries, Viet Nam, Malaysia, Benin, Sierra Leone, Russian Federation, Libya, Greece, Canada, Italy, Cuba, Philippines, Chile, United States and Kyrgyzstan.
The United Nations Children’s Fund also took the floor.
Serbia, China and Albania spoke in a right of reply in response to statements made during the interactive dialogue on internally displaced persons and on extreme poverty.
The Council will next meet on Friday, 9 June, at 9 a.m., to continue the interactive clustered interactive on human rights and transnational corporations, and on the human rights of migrants. It will then hold separate interactive dialogues with the Working Group on discrimination against women in law and practice, and with the Special Rapporteur on trafficking in persons. At 3 p.m., it will hold a panel discussion on unaccompanied migrant children and adolescents and human rights.
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/35/32).
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 the Republic of Korea (A/HRC/35/32/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 - mission to Mexico (A/HRC/35/32/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 – comments by Korea (A/HRC/35/32/Add.3).
The Council has before it the Study of the Working Group on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises on best practices and how to improve on the effectiveness of cross-border cooperation between States with respect to law enforcement on the issue of business and human rights (A/HRC/35/33).
The Council has before it the Report of the Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants (A/HRC/35/25).
The Council has before it an addendum to the Report of the Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants - mission to Angola (A/HRC/35/25/Add.1).
The Council has before it an addendum to the Report of the Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants - mission to Greece (A/HRC/35/25/Add.2).
The Council has before it an addendum to the Report of the Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants - mission to Australia and the regional processing centres in Nauru (A/HRC/35/25/Add.3)
The Council has before it an addendum to the Report of the Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants - comments by Australia (A/HRC/35/25/Add.4).
The Council has before it an addendum to the Report of the Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants - comments by Angola (A/HRC/35/25/Add.5).
Presentation of Reports by the Chair of the Working Group on the Issue of Human Rights and Transnational Corporations
MICHAEL K. ADDO, Chair of the Working Group on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises, outlined that small and medium-sized enterprises made up the large majority of business enterprises globally and were of paramount importance to inclusive economic development. The report aimed to serve as a starting point for discussions on how these enterprises could scale up the implementation of the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. The report observed that although small enterprises had less capacity to exercise human rights in due diligence as compared to larger companies, simple steps could be taken by small and medium-sized enterprises to respect human rights. The Guiding Principles set out the path to follow. The report explored some of the opportunities for small and medium-sized enterprises to implement the Guiding Principles and provided an overview of existing tools and guidance, as well as the roles of specific stakeholders, including business associations, trade unions, international organizations and governments, and examples of good practices.
The report also elaborated on the role of small and medium-sized enterprises within global supply chains and on how larger businesses could be in a position to assist smaller business in their supply chains with their business and human rights responsibilities. One of the findings of the Working Group was that there was a low level of awareness by small and medium-sized enterprises of the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights and that there was a need for more accessible and user-friendly information. Practical tools also needed to be tailored to the realities faced by small and medium-sized enterprises.
Another report highlighted areas involving transnational harm and economic actors where States had deployed best practices to successfully investigate and prosecute cross border cases. These cases centred around five key areas: trafficking in persons, environmental crimes, wildlife and forestry crimes, and transnational bribery and corruption. The report highlighted the need for willingness by law enforcement to explore all potential legal avenues for investigating and prosecuting misconduct by economic actors. Despite numerous allegations implicating businesses in classic human rights violations and international crimes, investigations and prosecutions against companies were almost non-existent.
Turning to his countries visits, the Special Rapporteur commended the Republic of Korea for its commitment to implementing the Guiding Principles and addressing existing protection gaps. He also encouraged the ongoing process of developing a national action plan on business and human rights in Mexico.
Presentation of Reports by the Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights of Migrants
FRANÇOIS CRÉPEAU, Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants, said the Global Compact for safe, orderly and regular migration should be the stepping stone for a 15-year agenda complementary to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. In that long-term strategy, he recommended the adoption of eight practical and achievable goals, which included the end of the use of detention as a border management and deterrence tool, among other suggestions. Fully implementing a Global Compact relying on a human rights based framework for regular migration involved a number of policy orientations, including reducing underground labour markets and facilitating unionisation and effective access to justice, among other measures. Other key issues that needed to be included within a human rights based migration governance framework, included ensuring that no one should be returned without effective oversight.
Turning to his country visits, he noted that he had visited Angola in early May, where he had noted a dearth of national data relating to migration, which hindered thorough analysis. He recommended that Angolan authorities established a comprehensive migration strategy, and provided the space necessary for civil society to continue to advocate for migrants’ rights. Regarding his visit to Greece in mid-May 2016, he noted that Greece had had to cope with an unprecedented number of undocumented migrants. The European Union agreement with Turkey had caused the capacity of the Greek Asylum Service to be stretched. Greece tried to put in place a principled response, but the country needed a strategic long-term plan to guide all response efforts. Mr. Crépeau called for a human rights centred European-wide approach to the issue. European Union authorities’ detention of migrants and pursuit of the externalisation of border control would only further drive migration underground and entrench smuggling rings.
Mr. Crépeau then discussed his mission to Australia, during which he had also visited Nauru. He remained deeply concerned that some of Australia’s policies had eroded the human rights of some migrants, in contravention of its international human rights and humanitarian obligations. If human rights violations occurred in Regional Processing Centres in Nauru and Papua New Guinea, the Australian Government should also be held accountable. Australia was responsible for the damage inflicted upon those migrants, a damage which Mr. Crépeau had witnessed first-hand and which was especially concerning when children suffered. Their confinement constituted cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment, and Australia ought to quickly close down such regional processing centres and terminate the offshore processing policy. Australia must develop and implement a human rights-based approach to migration and border management, ensuring that the rights of migrants, including undocumented migrants, were always the first consideration.
Statements by Concerned Countries
Mexico, speaking as a concerned country, said that the Working Group’s visit had coincided with the policy drafting on businesses and human rights, which had a potential to set up a culture of dialogue between the State, businesses and civil society organizations. Mexico had established obligatory regulatory norms that required businesses to undertake a human rights based assessment of the environmental and social impact of their operations. Mexico was cognizant of the need to improve due diligence norms and standards to oblige enterprises to identify, prevent, mitigate and provide reparations for the negative impact of their operations on human rights. Mexico had undertaken substantive efforts to promote the full enjoyment of the right to consultation, with the full respect of collective rights and autonomy of the indigenous peoples.
Comisión Nacional de los Derechos Humanos of Mexico said that, as the national human rights institution of Mexico, it insisted that business activities undertook human rights training and that gender and inclusion were the yardsticks they used. It was crucial for the businesses to comply with human rights norms and standards. Responsible management of companies and effective regulation would promote and protect human rights. The Commission was committed to the implementation of the recommendations made by the Working Group and would contribute to defending human rights in the context of business activities.
Republic of Korea, speaking as a concerned country, said that the report of the Working Group would serve as a catalyst for a better implementation of the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. The Government was striving to protect its people against human rights violations by business enterprises, including in the context of the humidifier disinfectant case, and would continue to identify every potential victim and expand compensation to victims by taking appropriate actions to redress the human rights violations they had suffered. The Republic of Korea was committed to strengthening the inclusion of corporate responsibility to protect human rights in public procurement policies and had introduced the preferential points policy to promote the participation in public procurement of small-sized companies, companies owned by women or persons with disabilities, and companies which reflected social and environmental values.
Angola, speaking as a concerned country, stated that the visit by the Special Rapporteur had been of paramount importance for Angola as it had enabled the reinforcement of the capacity of the relevant State institutions, and the creation of technical, human and legislative conditions aiming at a balanced management of migratory flows. Historically, Angola had always welcomed foreigners. In the past seven years, it had developed and strengthened its legislative capacity in the areas of money laundering, trafficking of persons, immigration, asylum and borders. All refugees were holders of specific identity cards and contrary to some other countries, irregular migration was not criminalized in Angola. There were no records of asylum seekers detained, unless they had committed criminal offences.
Australia, speaking as a concerned country, noted that it took its international obligations very seriously and had always been open to constructive and balanced feedback offered by all United Nations mechanisms. It disagreed with the views expressed by the Special Rapporteur and his characterisation of the human rights situation for all migrants in Australia. Australia was a world leader in investing in refugees by offering settlement services that were responsive to the needs of its culturally diverse communities. Australia regretted the inclusion of the Special Rapporteur’s visit to Nauru in the country report as inappropriate because it did not reflect the reality of the visits to two independent nations – Nauru and Australia.
Greece, speaking as a concerned country, said that in addition to deep economic constraints, Greece had faced the major challenge of managing migration every day for the last year and a half. In this endeavour, hundreds of thousands of lives had been saved in the Aegean Sea by the Hellenic Coast Guard and the local population. Greece had devoted tremendous efforts and financial resources to the protection of the fundamental rights and human dignity of those persons, particularly the most vulnerable among them, such as unaccompanied children, pregnant women and disabled persons. A form of protective restriction of movement of unaccompanied minors was applied in the dedicated “safe zone”, where they were accommodated, to ensure their own safety and well-being. Concerted efforts were being taken to improve the conditions in the hotspots and to speed up the transfer of some categories of migrants to the mainland and so decongest the Reception and Identification Centres. Greece reiterated that an international crisis of such magnitude could only be tackled through international cooperation and burden sharing.
Greek National Commission for Human Rights shared the Special Rapporteur’s concern that there was de facto violation of the rights of migrants and refugees, regarding their massive and indiscriminate detention on the islands of the eastern Aegean. Special attention must be given to the effective protection of children, and particularly unaccompanied children, older persons, persons with disabilities, victims of trafficking and sexual violence and other vulnerable groups. The Commission joined Mr. Crépeau’s call for the immediate modification of the European Union migration policy and particularly of the Dublin system, which could not respond to the reality and was inconsistent with the principles of human rights, solidarity and fair burden-sharing. The European Union should not pass the legal and moral responsibility for the refugee and migrant crisis on to Greece alone.
Interactive Dialogue
El Salvador, speaking on behalf of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean Countries, restated the importance of the contribution of migrants to the economic, social and cultural development of their countries of destination and origin. The Community rejected the criminalization of migration, and it urged for the elimination of discriminatory policies towards migrants. Tunisia, speaking on behalf of the African Group, highlighted the growth of transnational companies and their profound negative environmental effect on the African continent. It expected the Global Compact to make an important contribution to global governance on migration. European Union welcomed the attention given to small and medium-sized enterprises and their human rights obligations. As for migration, it noted that pre-empting the results of the State-led process leading to the Global Compact should be avoided. Ghana, speaking on behalf of a group of countries, underlined the human rights responsibilities of small and medium-sized enterprises, given that they provided a large part of employment globally. Was there a good understanding of due diligence in the context of the Guiding Principles? Viet Nam said that it was undeniable that migrant workers had contributed significantly to the economic and social development of receiving countries. It was necessary that migrant workers and their families were treated with respect and dignity. Malaysia acknowledged the need to cultivate the respect for human rights by corporations. As for migration, there should be shared responsibility for and a balanced approach to improving migration governance at every stage of the migration process.
Benin said that it was extremely important for international companies to protect the rights of all workers and especially of migrant workers who were frequently victims of violations in supply chains. Benin urged the implementation of the recommendations made by the Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants. Sierra Leone noted that in many developing countries, small and medium-sized enterprises were in the informal sector and were often owned by illiterate or barely illiterate persons, so additional steps to raise their awareness about the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights were needed. Addressing the problem of mass migration required that the attention shifted to the causes of this migration and to the plight of those forced to flee their homes, often under very perilous conditions. Russia disagreed with the Special Rapporteur’s ideas on the Global Compact on refugees and on safe, orderly and regular migration. Russia was of the opinion that States should focus on a realistic and achievable agreement. Each State must find a balance and regulate small and medium enterprises without compromising their viability.
Libya believed that the most horrific violation of the human rights of migrants was that the international community let them fall into the hands of smugglers and traffickers in the first place. Once the Global Compact was adopted, there would be no place for irregular migration. Migrant workers were welcomed in Libya as long as they were part of organized and orderly movements. Greece stressed that migration was not only a European but a global issue, which required concerted and coordinated action in the spirit of solidarity and mutual understanding. More should be done to facilitate the return of persons who were not in need of international protection and in fighting smuggling and trafficking of migrants, while protecting the victims. Turkey stressed that the issue of migration required a long-term approach based on the human rights framework and believed that the Global Compact on Migration would be highly beneficial for the world’s most vulnerable persons. Turkey pursued an open-door policy and today hosted the largest refugee population in the world, with over three million refugees.
UNICEF commended the solution-oriented approach of the Special Rapporteur and recalled that today, 41 million children were still living outside their country of birth, including 11 million child refugees and asylum-seekers. They were exposed to serious human rights violations, including trafficking and abuse. These realities demanded urgent actions specifically oriented towards the protection of children. Canada supported the long-term vision of the Special Rapporteur regarding migration. The Global Compact represented a good entry point in order to strengthen the protection of the basic human rights for migrants, including the right to access education and justice. Measures needed to be taken in order to improve the representation of migrants in the elaboration of policies. Italy outlined that it had improved its capacities to address massive flows in order to grant protection to migrants and refugees. Italy would spare no efforts to reduce the victims of irregular migration across the Mediterranean Sea. Cuba welcomed the suggestions of the Working Group on small and medium-sized enterprises. How could such recommendations be set up as an international framework aimed at providing due sanctions for enterprises that had committed violations against human rights? Opening safe channels of migrations was of the utmost importance in order to facilitate human mobility. Philippines took note of the findings of the Working Group that small and medium-sized enterprises lagged in the implementation of the Guiding Principles and were inadequately represented in discourses at the international level. On the issue of migration, any long-term agenda to facilitate migrants’ mobility should be practical, doable and fully anchored in the 2030 Agenda on Sustainable Development.
Chile noted that the Global Compact was not an end but a starting point for global governance on migration. Chile had been pursuing a cross-cutting approach to migration, facilitating inclusion and social cohesion. United States stated that each country should manage its own borders and that participation in the Global Compact should be voluntary and non-binding. It asked about good practices of small and medium-sized enterprises in upholding human rights. Kyrgyzstan reminded that the Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and their Families had been ratified by only a quarter of the United Nations Member States. No country of destination was on that list.
Right of Reply
Serbia, speaking in a right of reply, said that Albania had abused the floor in the Human Rights Council and had politicized the debate on Kosovo and Metohija. The statement of Albania was hostile and represented an interference in the internal affairs of Serbia. The Council was not designed to be an instrument for the propaganda and promotion of separatism. Kosovo was an integral part of Serbia as affirmed by the binding United Nations Security Council resolution. The human rights protection was a prerogative of the international presence in Kosovo.
China, speaking in a right of reply, said that some non-governmental organizations had made groundless and politically motivated accusations against China. The promotion and protection of human rights was stipulated in the Constitution and China had made significant progress in this regard and had undertaken the largest poverty reduction in history. China was against all forms of discrimination. It had always confirmed the right to life and the right to development and had made significant investment in the socio-economic development of ethnic groups. Anyone who broke the law would be punished by the law and China would not allow non-governmental organizations to challenge the established system in the country in the name of human rights.
Albania, speaking in a right of reply, regretted that discussions in the Council were politicized and said that Albania had been making procedural points during the interactive discussion on internally displaced persons. The United Nations advisors had addressed the issue of terminology used by the Special Procedure mandate holders, and had defined that in the future, the terms Serbia and Kosovo should be used and reports on country visits to those countries should be presented separately. Albania urged the delegations to refrain from using the outdated term “Serbia including Kosovo.”
For use of the information media; not an official record
HRC17/080E