COUNCIL CONCLUDES INTERACTIVE DIALOGUE ON TRANSNATIONAL CORPORATIONS AND HUMAN RIGHTS, AND ON FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION
The Human Rights Council this morning concluded its 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.
In his concluding remarks, Mr. Pesce said that the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights were designed for all enterprises and that their Principle 4 referred to State-owned enterprises in particular. National action plans on the implementation of the Guiding Principles would help draw up a cohesive public policy framework, which must respect domestic and international human rights norms. In its work on greater levels of accountability of enterprises, the Working Group aimed to strengthen access to justice and legal remedies, and Mr. Pesce underscored the need for greater leadership from governments in this regard.
Mr. Kaye delivered his concluding remarks on 16 June, which are available here, along with the presentations of the reports and the start of the interactive dialogue.
In the interactive dialogue, delegations stressed that there were many human rights challenges related to the operation of transnational corporations and welcomed the Working Group’s efforts in this regard. They hailed the Guiding Principles as the global key point for the promotion of human rights within the business context, adding that national action plans had to strengthen access to remedy. They asked the Working Group on transnational corporations and human rights how the Guiding Principles could, in concrete terms, ensure respect of the right to freedom of expression, and inquired about the norms of international law concerning war crimes, crimes against humanity and crimes of genocide that could be directly applicable to private companies.
Speakers in the discussion on freedom of expression said that private companies could have a considerable impact on freedom of expression and asked about ways to ensure that their platforms were not used for the expression of fanaticism. The digital world was moving forward at a great speed and this carried a need to urgently develop policies to protect privacy, advance freedom of expression and ensure cybersecurity, and also to enact appropriate legislation to put an end to hate speech and incitement to hate online by terrorist and extremist groups. They stressed that freedom of expression online must enjoy the same protection as freedom of expression offline.
Belgium, South Africa, Estonia, China, Australia, Libya, Nigeria, Latvia, Bolivia, India, Egypt, Niger, Burkina Faso, Paraguay, Mozambique, Ghana, Pakistan, and Brazil spoke in the discussion.
The following non-governmental organizations also took the floor: Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights, International Service for Human Rights, Al Khoei Foundation, International Educational Development, Article 19, Presse Embleme Campaign, Centro Regional de Derechos Humanos y Justicia de Genero, People’s Solidarity for Participatory Democracy, International Commission of Jurists, International Bar Association, Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development, Alsalam Foundation, Indian Council of South America, and Aliran Kesedaran Negara National Consciousness Movement.
The Human Rights Council is holding a full day of meetings today and will next hold a clustered interactive dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on the right to education and the Special Rapporteur on the freedom of peaceful assembly and of association.
Continuation of Clustered Interactive Dialogue on Transnational Corporations and Human Rights, and on Freedom of Expression
Belgium said that private companies could have a considerable impact on freedom of expression and asked how these companies could avoid their platforms being used for the expression of fanaticism. Belgium believed that State-owned enterprises should take a leading role in advancing and promoting respect for human rights in the context of business and this issue would be included in the national action plan. South Africa highlighted that the exercise of freedom of expression carried with it duties and responsibilities for right holders and asked how in concrete terms could the Guiding Principles ensure respect of this right and which norms of international law could apply directly on private companies for war crimes, crimes against humanity and crimes of genocide. Estonia said that the digital world was moving forward at a great speed and this carried a need to urgently develop policies to protect privacy, advance freedom of expression and ensure cybersecurity. The Internet should be a single, open, non-fractured network to which the same offline rules applied. China was a great supporter of corporate social responsibility and had established a system of judicial assistance to victims of human rights violations committed by business enterprises. The Internet had become the key platform for people to participate in politics and when using it people must abide by the law, protect national interests and construct good order. During its Universal Periodic Review in November 2015, Australia had made a voluntary commitment to undertake national consultations on the implementation of the United Nations Guiding Principles and this process was now underway. Freedom of expression in the digital context must be protected in the same manner as offline. Libya said that some essential issues related to freedom of expression online must be well debated, particularly related to incitement to hatred online, and stressed an urgent need to put an end to hate speech by terrorist and extremists groups by enacting appropriate legislation and exchanging expertise among nations.
Nigeria hailed the Guiding Principles as the global key point for the promotion of human rights within the business context, adding that national action plans had to strengthen access to remedy. As for freedom of expression, it asked the Special Rapporteur to shed more light on the issue of safety and propagation of extremism online. Latvia shared the concern over worrying trends that had emerged regarding the regulation of digital content. How could States ensure optimal transparency and refrain from pressuring when regulating the private sector? Bolivia underlined that only a binding international instrument would allow States to hold companies accountable. Accountability and compensation across national borders needed to be addressed further, and extraterritorial judicial powers should be invoked. India noted that State regulation of online content was one area that witnessed a lively debate. The relative anonymity that the Internet provided could often be abused with serious individual and social consequences. Egypt supported the idea that all businesses had the obligation to protect human rights. As for freedom of expression online, it did not share the view that private actors could weigh on what kind of content could be published online, due to the risk of inflammatory or extremist messages. Niger noted that States should take vigorous measures against companies that did not respect human rights. Under the national Constitution every person could exercise their right to freedom of expression. Burkina Faso attached special importance to freedom of opinion and had thus taken measures to promote it. Subsidies were provided to the media and journalists, and media content was not subject to State interference.
Paraguay noted its domestic objective of bridging the digital divide, especially in rural areas, and underlined the responsibility of governments and the private sector in focusing on freedom of opinion and expression. Mozambique said that the report of the Working Group on business and human rights was a fair reflection of the work it had undertaken to implement its mandate, and was encouraged by the constructive yet insufficient cooperation of some businesses seeking to protect their interests, noting also that the international community should keep in mind that the Sustainable Development Goals were centred on human rights. Ghana said that the country recognized the importance of the right to freedom of expression. Since their adoption, the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights had become central to their field, and States had to take steps to ensure victims of human rights abuses had access to remedy without restriction. Pakistan said that the right of freedom of expression played an important role in the promotion and protection of democratic values, yet freedom came with responsibility, and it was unfortunate that the Internet was being used by terrorists and extremists, asking the Special Rapporteur for his views on States’ responsibility in providing a normative framework. Brazil said it was incumbent on States to take active steps to ensure that enterprises under their effective control respected and promoted international human rights standards. On the report of the Special Rapporteur, it was noted that mass surveillance had the potential to severely undermine freedom of expression, and technical standards had to be questioned in view of the profound bearing they had on human expression in the digital format.
Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights said tightening repression in Tibet had created a more dangerous political environment for Tibetans in expressing their views, listing several incidents involving individuals in separate geographic locations, calling on the Human Rights Council to urge China to allow the access of independent observers to verify the extent of the violations of freedom of expression. International Service for Human Rights asked what the Council would do to engage with Brazilian authorities, and noted that human rights defenders played an important role in providing accountability for human rights violations, urging the Council to ensure that the relevant resolution reflected the reality on the ground and underlined human rights defenders’ access to remedy.
Al Khoei Foundation drew attention to systematic and State-led persecution and social marginalization of Malaysian Shi’as. There was concern that the Malaysian society was slowly giving way to radical Islam infused with intolerance of oppositional views. International Educational Development warned that Iran continued to severely restrict freedom of expression, association and assembly. The authorities blocked social media and imprisoned journalists and online critics, especially in the Kurdish region. Article 19 noted that legal and extra-legal pressures on new technology companies had profound implications for the civic space on the Internet and human rights. Ensuring greater transparency in decisions of such companies was essential. Presse Embleme Campaign underlined the issue of flow of information in conflict zones, namely propaganda, Internet restrictions, censorship, targeted attacks against communications and media. It suggested that the Special Rapporteur devote one of his next studies to that issue. Centro Regional de Derechos Humanos y Justicia de Genero drew attention to local communities in Brazil which were affected by State-led projects in cooperation with corporations and lacked recourse to justice. It shared the concern over the steps taken by the Brazilian Government to remove environmental licences for construction projects. People’s Solidarity for Participatory Democracy, in a joint statement with MINBYUN-Lawyers for a Democratic Society, stated that in the Republic of Korea there was a lack of oversight by external bodies, such as courts, and no reviewing process for the protection of personal information. State law and enforcement agencies used the Telecommunications Business Act arbitrarily.
International Commission of Jurists said that there were many human rights challenges related to the operation of transnational corporations and reiterated serious concern regarding some elements in the guidance on improving accountability and access to remedy for victims of business related human rights abuses as they might have an unintended effect of providing companies with a shield against legal liability. International Bar Association encouraged the Working Group to take into consideration its guidance on the role of bar associations in developing an institutional strategy and technical assistance for the profession, and the Practical Guide on Businesses and Human Rights for Business Lawyers. Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development was gravely concerned by the actions of several Asian governments which were encouraging private companies to take measures which would further restrict freedom of expression online, including in Cambodia, Thailand and Malaysia. Alsalam Foundation called attention to targeting of individuals for expressing their opinions on social media in Bahrain, such as on the state of prisons in the country or the humanitarian situation in Yemen, including harassment, arrests, and prolonged detention. Indian Council of South America asked the Council and Special Procedures to ensure the protection of defenders of human rights in Latin America, particularly those engaged on indigenous and environmental issues in relation to activities on corporations and business enterprises. Aliran Kesedaran Negara National Consciousness Movement feared that the proposed legal amendments in Malaysia would further restrict freedom of expression online by controlling context and proposing harsher punishments.
Concluding Remarks
DANTE PESCE, Chair of the Working Group on human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises, in concluding remarks, said that the principle of leading by example was a model that looked reasonable and had been supported by 30 statements. The Guiding Principles were designed for all enterprises, and Principle 4 referred to State-owned enterprises in particular; such enterprises were one of major themes at the Working Group’s annual forum in November. He thanked delegations for their many references made to the need to incorporate the Working Group’s recommendations on State-owned enterprises in national action plans on human rights and businesses. Looking at the nine plans published so far, some of them referred to State-owned enterprises, but others did not. Many references had been made to legal remedies and greater levels of accountability, and the Working Group’s aim was to strengthen access to justice and legal remedies. The Working Group had underscored the need for greater leadership from governments. References had been made to negotiations on a treaty in the area of human rights and business, and the Working Group had been pleased to hear Cuba and Ecuador’s views.
Mr. Pesce said South Africa had also referred to national action plans. That would help draw up a cohesive public policy framework. What was needed was that the public policy framework respected human rights, whether domestically or transnationally. The Working Group had no objections to developing a treaty, and thus was ready to cooperate with the governments of South Africa and Ecuador that were leading the negotiations on a binding legal instrument. The Working Group had had an intense dialogue with the Brazilian Government which was very constructive, and hoped for a follow-up visit to see how the recommendations had been implemented. Regarding comments made by Venezuela on how the international community should respond to negative impacts on human rights by business activities, it was noted that the Forum could be attended by all who wanted to follow up on the impact of business on human rights. The Annual Forum would focus on State-owned enterprises this year. Some delegations had asked about next steps, and the first task of governments was to identify expectations from State-owned enterprises.
For use of the information media; not an official record
HRC16/076E