Transnational corporations is a sticky topic, there are lots of issues. When I get hit by a big topic, I like to break it down. It helps to know what the issues are, but more importantly I think, is to know why they are issues, how they become issues and what can be done to address their causes. Some interesting ideas come up and probably need some explanation.
Alien Tort Claims Act of 1793
To simplify this a little: Tort claims are a fancy name for compensation, the claims basis is showing that harm has been done to you, by the willing action or willful negligence of the defendant, and you should be compensated for that.
The ACTA is in the United States, and this act offers a very interesting avenue of stopping abuses by transnational corporations because it allows foreign nationals to make claims. If this system could be extended, there would be a strong framework for litigation.
There are limitations however, mainly being that, as always, national borders hinder the pursuit of justice. Only entities with significant assets in the US can be affected. If it could be extended to other nations however, the safety net of abusive corporations (where they can hide their money from litigation) would be hindered. There is also great difficulty in making the cases clear cut: the principle of reasonable doubt means that the cases are also rarely successful. This is another avenue that can be explored for helping to rein in abusive corporations: making a stronger framework for investigating and clarifying what actually constitutes abuses by transnationals. Those are some ideas to think about; how can you make that happen?
On the topic of what are the limitations of transnationals, another sticky, long article: Responsibilities of Transnational Corporations. The preamble gives you some great context for previous resolutions that you can look into. The operative clauses are mainly just a rehash of the preamble, but a good summary of all the documents already passed if you don't want to go through them individually. What is incredibly important though, is at the end. The definitions are very useful, and things you should all know for this topic!
In fact, they're so important, I'll put them here.
19. The term "transnational corporation" refers to an economic entity operating in more than one country or a cluster of economic entities operating in two or more countries - whatever their legal form, whether in their home country or country of activity, and whether taken individually or collectively.
20. The phrase "other business enterprise" includes any business entity, regardless of the international or domestic nature of its activities, including a transnational corporation; the corporate, partnership, or other legal form used to establish the business entity; and the nature of the ownership of the entity. These Responsibilities shall be presumed to apply, as a matter of practice, if the business enterprise has any relation with a transnational corporation, the impact of its activities is not entirely local, or the activities involve violations of the right to security as indicated in paragraphs three and four.
21. The term "stakeholder" includes stockholders, other owners, workers, and their representatives, as well as any other individual or group that is affected by the activities of the business. The term "stakeholder" should be interpreted functionally in light of the objectives of these Human Rights Responsibilities and include indirect stakeholders when their interests are or will be substantially affected by the activities of the transnational corporation or business enterprise. In addition to parties directly affected by the activities of business enterprises, stakeholders can include parties which are indirectly affected by the activities of businesses such as consumer groups, customers, governments, neighboring communities, indigenous peoples and communities, NGOs, public and private lending institutions, suppliers, trade associations, and others.
22. The terms "contractor," "subcontractor," "supplier," and "licensee" include any natural or legal person who enters into any agreement with the transnational corporation or business enterprise to accomplish the enterprise's activities.
23. The phrases "internationally recognized human rights" and "international human rights" include civil, cultural, economic, political, and social rights, as set forth in the International Bill of Human Rights and other human rights treaties, as well as the right to development and rights recognized by international humanitarian law, international refugee law, international labour law, and other relevant instruments adopted within the United Nations system.
For a touch of realism, it might also be interesting to check out this article on the United Nations and Transnationals, which does a good job of highlighting some of the issues that really make this contentious. Something that can be summarised a bit crudely in saying that it is bad for business when countries have laws against business doing whatever it wants to get the best profits. This is of course an absurd argument for blocking all human rights relating to corporations, because it is also bad for business to have human rights violations taking place for a lot of reasons. In fact one of the greatest strengths of the ATCA (see above) is the extra publicity you can garner for a cause. You may not get compensation, but if you can garner enough interest you hurt their ability to do it again, or continue doing so. Remember that balance is a key aspect of international relations: finding the happy medium between (in this case) profit and dignity; if the world were black and white there wouldn't be any need of the UN. Come ready to compromise, come ready to discuss.
Some cool initiatives from people you should pay attention to, the Human Rights Watch.
Corporate Responsibility is a very cool concept. Don't forget that while you are representing States, you can put pressure on your corporations and societies. One of the best ways to get corporations to follow human rights is by encouraging people contracting them to make it a necessary part of awarding and maintaining the contract.
Corruption exists everywhere despite a lot of States being capable of cracking down on it. A lot of ways that corporations get away with abuses is through weak requirements for accountability. This can be another avenue of exploration for protecting workers.
So to summarise, some key issues:
Accountability - How do you discipline someone?
Transparency - How do you keep people honest?
Incentives vs Regulation - How do you make someone want to be good? How do you make someone have to be good? Where do you draw the line between the two?
Definitions - Who are you talking about? What are they doing?
What I hope you've taken away from this, and that HSMUN continues to get into your head are a couple key lessons:
Firstly, that there is no black and white, find the balance and you'll find a resolution that works.
Secondly, that addressing the problem more often involves solving the root issues behind them, not cracking down on the symptoms. I recommend reading about the labours of Heracles: you need a means not only to cut off the heads, but also trap the body and stop them from coming back. Ingenuity is key.
Thirdly, and this is something key to the United Nations' existence: the best way to solve a problem is together. Cooperation is the best solution to global issues. Building cooperation and consensus is the most important part of this conference.
Finally, don't feel intimidated by complicated topics and complicated problems. When faced with something you don't understand, take a breather for a minute. Sit back, try not to think about the specifics but ask yourself why, what, who, how? Framing a topic with simple questions and strong definitions helps immensely in understanding them.
I apologise for the length of this article, but I hope it helps those of you who have the time to read it better understand a bit about transnationals, why this is an issue and maybe given you some ideas on where to go in this conference. I know it sounds boring, but it's actually quite interesting.
- UNHRC Dais
I understand what you mean, that the issue of transnational corporations is important. I finding it difficult to find information on my country interms of transnational corporations though. I mean, nowhere really seems to say wether or not my country benefits from transnational corporations or not. Do you know of any websites that may provide a general overview of this?
ReplyDeleteHi Avaene:
ReplyDeleteIt is rare to find a real statement on policy from countries. One resource is to look up UN Resolutions on the topic and see how you voted.
Addressing your question more specifically: unless you are Burma, North Korea or Somalia your government is either host to or a client of transnational corporations and benefits in some significant way. A more relevant question is what your country's approach towards these entities is. You can look at how they vote at the UN, or look up their system of government: authoritarian governments will either be socialist (similar to Venezuela) or capitalist (much of Africa). More socialist governments will generally seek greater handicaps on big business; whereas more liberal (or unscrupulous, depending on your viewpoint) governments will let them have much more free reign and want that to continue so they can make the most money and attract business. The CIA Factbook can be a great indicator of a lot of these things. Democratic (actual democracy, not one party ballots) regimes will tend to take a restrictive approach to how corporations operate, not by hindering them but by regulating them. Since democratic regimes have the systems in place to actually hold them accountable, they also tend to do a much better job of it. Though if you are a democratic state you are in the G20 and there should be some good resources available to you. Look up labour laws for instance, they'll give you a good reflection.
I don't expect you to be able to quote verbatim Kiribati's policy on transnational corporations' responsibilities to upholding human rights, in fact I wouldn't want you to (if you're the US this is different, but I imagine you're not). All I expect is a plausible and likely position.