Fight against business abuses gets harder
Doors are closing on judicial remedies for corporate human rights abuses worldwide, according to a new report by the Business & Human Rights Resource Centre.
Sif Thorgeirsson, the centre’s director, said in his report that it was getting harder to seek legal redress for corporate human rights abuses in the countries where they were headquartered, and those pursuing such efforts face increased harassment.
If a company arbitrarily seizes land, pollutes water, or uses private security forces that abuse human rights, those affected should have the right to seek legal redress, as the right of access to remedy is one of the three pillars of the United Nations’ Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, Mr Thorgeirsson said.
But a review of the many lawsuits against companies related to human rights impacts around the world over the past decade suggests little improvement for victims seeking justice.
A few attempts by affected communities were, however, still being seen in Southeast Asia, he said, citing the case of Myanmar and Thailand.
In May 2014, villagers from Myaung Pyo in Dawei district in Myanmar filed a lawsuit against Myanmar Pongpipat and the state-owned Mining Enterprise 2. They are asking for compensation for damage allegedly caused by the nearby Heinda tin mine, saying wastewater from the mine damaged their houses, plantations and farmlands, and affected their health due to contamination of water sources.
The plaintiffs filed their claim in the Dawei District Court on May 9 last year and the first hearing took place on May 29; the case is still ongoing.
In June 2014, a Thai court agreed to hear a lawsuit against the state-owned Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand (Egat) and four other state bodies for agreeing to buy electricity from a $3.5-billion Xayaburi hydropower dam being built in neighbouring Laos.
Earlier, the Chiang Mai Administrative Court in 2012 said it no jurisdiction to hear the petition to suspend a power-purchasing agreement. That decision was reversed two years later when the Supreme Administrative Court sided with villagers, who are demanding full environmental and health impact assessments.
The study by the BHRRC, based in Europe and the United States, analysed lawsuits alleging human rights abuses against companies headquartered in OECD countries, and filed in national courts of their home countries.
“What emerges is that there are far fewer lawsuits than the overall number of cases where human rights abuses are alleged against companies based in the same countries”, said Mr Thorgeirsson.
“Countries where companies with global operations are headquartered must do a great deal more to ensure that victims of abuses involving those companies have access to legal remedies.”
When Andy Hall, a British migrant workers’ rights advocate based in Southeast Asia, documented violence against workers, child labour and other abuses at a Thai pineapple processing factory, he did not expect the company to file criminal and civil charges against him.
But that is exactly what happened, said Mr Thorgeirsson. The charges potentially carry an eight-year prison sentence and fines of $10 million or more. Legal cases against human rights advocates such as Mr Hall deter victims of corporate abuse from advocating for their rights or obtaining redress, he said.
Human rights defenders have been targeted via legal harassment such as defamation and libel claims, tax investigations and efforts to deregister their organisations, he said. “This harassment has a chilling effect on the activities of human rights defenders.”
Michel Forst, the UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights Defenders, recently highlighted the particular risks faced by those working to hold businesses accountable for human rights abuses. The ability to hold a company legally accountable for human rights abuses, anywhere in the world, is the lynchpin of a system to encourage business to respect human rights, according to Mr Frost.
Without legal remedy to enforce human rights obligations, companies are able to operate with impunity, while victims of abuse and the advocates working on their behalf are left vulnerable to legal harassment and, ultimately, without justice, concluded Mr Thorgeirsson.
“Countries where companies with global operations are headquartered must do a great deal more to ensure that victims of abuses involving those companies have access to legal remedies”
SIF THORGEIRSSON Business & Human Rights Resource Centre