#ihrl

The need for human rights to speak to businesses is more pertinent than ever. Traditional human rights law has always imposed obligations on governments and states parties. It has only ever been through them that businesses have been held liable, that is, states parties have obligations in some instances to ensure that business within its jurisdiction do not breach human rights. But this is only an ancillary obligation. The problem has compounded as political parties in many states lean towards economic neoliberalism. One tenet of which is the privatisation of government services and assets, which were seemingly enduring institutions of the now fallen welfare state system.

As government’s seek to outsource what are seen as their primary obligations under human rights instruments, how can advocates and international human rights lawyers ensure that people are not being denied their capacity to exercise their rights? 

In the lecture, much discussion was made about the government’s outsourcing of operations of our offshore processing of asylum seekers. Similarly, we see more and more governments privatising their prison systems to private security firms. These are worrying trends. Not because governments are the best at respecting human rights. But because governments are electorally accountable. As consumers we have limited capacity to hold business to account, and only recently has the Australian Consumer and Competition Commission become more active. Business are not subject to regular elections (at least not to their customers). Elections significantly check the power of the state and empowers the ordinary citizen to an extreme degree.

While market regulation has a role to play, the market does not (as it stands) regard international human rights law as a contingency. Consumers are much more likely to advocate for a brand to bring back an old, discontinued chip flavour than they would boycott a human rights breaching brand. Knowing that our Auskick footies are made in sweatshops, or any of our cheap, fast fashion these days, does not seem to translate to effective consumer action. Even further, most of the people who would be affected by the business’s practices I’ve outlined above (prison and security services) are also not in a position to either boycott the services or exert any other means of economic pressures. How can an asylum seeker detained by Serco refuse Serco’s services? The people at risk of harm by these business rely on everyone else to exert pressure.

If your clothes’ budget has been cut down and you buy bargain dresses, it is only fair you should know who pays part of your bill—the women who made the dress. . .  The red silk bargain dress in the shop window is a danger signal. It is a warning of the return of the sweatshop, a challenge to us all to reinforce the gains we have made in our long and difficult progress toward a civilized industrial order. — Frances Perkins, ‘The Cost of a Five-Dollar Dress‘ (Survey Graphic, 1933).

The argument that people in abusive jobs may lose those jobs and by extension their liveliehoods if we boycott a brand is spurious. No one advocates for that. We advocate for respect of human rights, one of which would be fair remuneration and safety in work. If a business can’t sustain these standards then it shouldn’t be in business. Either accountability is gained through the government (who then ensure business practices are in line with Australia’s human rights obligations) or a treaty that speaks directly to businesses. The former is more likely, but still not probable. Businesses could adopt codes that encourage them to respect human rights, but government would need to ensure that those codes are met, including through their overseas supply chains.

ESIL IHRL Interest Group Meeting 

3 September  2014, Vienna University, Room Number TBA

13.30-13.45: Welcome by Chairpersons

13.45-15.15: Session I: International Human Rights Law AND….

Lucas Lixinski, UNSW, Australia 

'International Human Rights Law AND International Cultural Heritage Law: Co-operation, Conflict or Co-option?'

Tara Van Ho, University of Essex, UK  

'Human Rights AND Investment Law: A Human Rights Based Test for Investment Arbitrators'

Steven Wheatley, University of Lancaster, UK

‘Global Human Rights AND Constitutional Rights Regimes’

Amrei Müller, University of Oslo, Norway

'Economic, Social and Cultural Rights AND International Humanitarian Law'

15.30-17.00: Session II: International Human Rights Law AND….

Matthew Saul, University of Oslo, Norway

‘International Human Rights Law AND Domestic Parliaments’

Etfhimos Papastravridis, Academy of Athens, Greece

'The Interplay between Maritime Interdiction AND Human Rights Law'

Francesca Russo, Sant'Anna School of Advanced Studies, Italy

‘International Human Rights Law AND International Criminal Law: Feeding a Trojan Horse for Procedural Fairness in the Dialogue between Strasbourg and The Hague’

Mizushima Tomonori, Nagoya University, Japan

‘International Human Rights Law AND the Law of International Organisations: An Examination of Jurisdiction to Secure Human Rights'

The ESIL IHRL Interest Group Symposium Series will kick off with an introductory post in February from the three founding chairpersons.  

                 Photo: Mitchell Sipus 

On Friday 4 May 2012, Human Rights Watch released a report entitled, Criminal Reprisals: Kenyan Police and Military Abuse Against Ethnic Somalis, profiling extensive human rights abuses in Kenya's North Eastern province. North Eastern, of course, is famous for the hosting the world's largest refugee camp, Dadaab . . .