abusesaffiliationarrow-downarrow-leftarrow-rightarrow-upattack-typeburgerchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-upClock iconclosedeletedevelopment-povertydiscriminationdollardownloademailenvironmentexternal-linkfacebookfiltergenderglobegroupshealthC4067174-3DD9-4B9E-AD64-284FDAAE6338@1xinformation-outlineinformationinstagraminvestment-trade-globalisationissueslabourlanguagesShapeCombined Shapeline, chart, up, arrow, graphlocationmap-pinminusnewsorganisationotheroverviewpluspreviewArtboard 185profilerefreshIconnewssearchsecurityPathStock downStock steadyStock uptagticktooltiptwitteruniversalityweb
Article

26 Oct 2016

Author:
Dr. Ariel Meyerstein, United States Council for International Business / ICC-USA on behalf of the International Chamber of Commerce

Oral Statement by Intl. Chamber of Commerce on Jurisprudential and practical approaches to elements of extraterritoriality and national sovereignty

...Business and Human Rights Resource Centre has profiled 141 human rights cases involving corporate actors. These were cases for civil remedies brought in both U.S. courts and in courts across the world. Of 141 cases collected: 77 of the 141, so just over 50%, allege violations of human rights in which a corporate actor was the primary actor in the allegations. However, 56 of the 141, or approximately 40% of the cases, actually involve situations in which the State or its agents was the primary actor and the company was alleged to have been complicit in some way in the conduct of the State...[T]he vast majority of allegations in which companies are the primary actors involve a whole array of other rights violations, but not grave violations of human rights, even if they are still certainly impactful for the victims...To the extent that a binding instrument on business and human rights considers the extension of extraterritoriality, it would do well to consider having such safeguards in place...