United Nations Binding Treaty on Business and Human Rights

ISSUE · Explainers · October 10, 2017

The European Union is participating in the development of a United Nations Binding Treaty on Business and Human Rights.

The treaty has the potential to radically improve respect for human rights in the supply chains of transnational corporations by introducing binding mechanisms to hold companies accountable under international law.

But it won’t just happen automatically. Much support is still needed from EU member states and other countries. Scroll down to find out how you can help to make it happen or watch the video that explains it in 2 minutes.

#BindingTreaty

What is the proposed UN treaty on transnational corporations and human rights?

In 2014, the United Nations Human Rights Council appointed an open-ended intergovernmental working group on transnational corporations (TNCs) and other business enterprises with respect to human rights (OEIGWG).

The working group has proposed a binding treaty to hold transnational corporations accountable for human rights abuses within their international supply chains. The group is comprised of representatives of several countries that hold seats on the Human Rights Council.

Led by Ecuador, the treaty is in the early stages of development. The working group has so far discussed the treaty’s scope, the obligations for transnational corporations and enforcement mechanisms.

This ground-breaking process could lead to major changes for people around the world who experience human rights violations by transnational companies.

By contrast to the UN’s existing voluntary guidelines on business and human rights, the treaty would be binding under international law and would make big companies accountable for human rights abuses in their supply chains.

Currently, court cases about human rights abuses in supply chains tend to go nowhere because the companies always find a way to move the case to another country in the supply chain/another jurisdiction, where the case must start all over again. The treaty could make it possible to sue companies that have bad practices in developing countries in the companies’ home countries (eg. suing a US company in a US court for human rights abuses in Latin America).

To date, EU member states on the United Nations Human Rights Council have shown minimal support for the binding treaty.

Left MEPs are calling on EU member states that are represented in the Human Rights Council to support a binding treaty that would have a real impact on the lives of millions of people. The MEPs are also calling for support from parliamentarians around the world via the Inter-parliamentary Initiative for a UN Binding Treaty.

The Inter-parliamentary Initiative for a UN Binding Treaty

If parliamentarians from around the world put their support behind this treaty it would send a strong signal to the members of the United Nations and the Human Rights Council that the whole world wants this treaty to become a reality.

That is why The Left MEPs created the Inter-parliamentary Initiative for a UN Binding Treaty which asks parliamentarians from around to world to show their support for a binding treaty.

Ask your national and regional parliamentarians to sign today!

How you can help to make it happen

Contact your country’s representative on the UN Human Rights Council and ask them to support a binding (not voluntary) treaty
Ask your national and regional parliamentarians to sign the Inter-parliamentary Initiative for a UN Binding Treaty
Join the Global Campaign to Reclaim Peoples Sovereignty, Dismantle Corporate Power and Stop Impunity – https://www.stopcorporateimpunity.org/

Case study

Chevron-Texaco vs. Ecuador

In the early 1990s, Texaco dumped 18 billion gallons of toxic waste in the Amazon rainforest in Ecuador which polluted waterways and severely contaminated the soil, resulting in an increase in cancer rates, cultural upheaval and devastation of biodiversity.

Since 1993, the affected communities have organised themselves and called on Texaco – and its parent company Chevron – to clean up the area and provide care for those affected.

In February 2011, the Ecuadorian Supreme Court ordered Chevron to pay USD$9 billion in compensation.

Chevron, however, did not pay the compensation and instead took the case to the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague.

In September 2018, the court in The Hague ruled in favour of Chevron, finding the Ecuadorian Court’s earlier ruling to be in violation of a bilateral investment treaty signed with the United States in 1997.

This case provides a clear example of how current trade policies enable the interests of transnational corporations to override the interests of people and sovereign democracy.