to download the document in PDF format - Child Centre: Expert ...

consensus and/or, as they are not binding, they have little influence on corporate behaviour.In both NCP and CIIME dispute resolution, a company’s identity is ‘often not disclosed.’Without public disclosure, the complaints procedure has little immediate impact on thebehaviour of specific companies.While some critics focus on weak dispute resolution processes, others focus on ineffectivereporting mechanisms. The Guidelines, however, do not provide any guidance as to theways in which MNCs can measure or report their behaviour. Another criticism is thatmonitoring of compliance is not independent. It is true the guidelines make provision for‘disclosure of information’ but this can hardly be called an effective reporting mechanism.2.4.2.2 Regulating corporate behaviour via public international lawAs the above points illustrate, there have been a number of developments in the internationalarena considering the role played by private industry in the protection of children’s rights.Although the resulting documents are not binding, they do offer important guidelines ofthe possible role to be played by private sector in both protecting and promoting such rights.Clearly, CSEC falls within the ambit of all of these documents, and any involvement ofchildren in the making or viewing of harmful material is prohibited by international law orby international policy guidelines.Codes of conduct and global standard-setting cannot be solely relied on to ensure thatMNCs behave appropriately if faced with international human rights violations, onaccount of the difficulty in enforcing compliance due to their voluntary nature. Perhaps theobvious solution, as implicitly implied above, hinges on the existence of an internationallegal regime to ensure enforcement of the voluntary codes. Mary Robinson, the formerHigh Commissioner for Human Rights, has stated “that there is still a need for…a legalregime [to] help to underpin the values of ethical globalization.” She then called for the“next phase” to be less inspirational, less theoretical and abstract, and more about keepingsolemn promises made.” 220In contrast to the UN Global Compact and the OECD Guidelines, whose major weaknessis its voluntary nature, treaties are binding international agreements operating betweenstates that are party to them. What makes human rights treaties particularly unique isthat party states assume the obligation to protect the rights of individuals, not party to theagreement, within their respective territories or subject to the jurisdiction of the state. Tothe extent that international human rights law does embrace non-state actors, it does sovery largely by way of holding states indirectly liable for the direct infringement of others,including corporations.Private Sector Accountability in Combating the Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children|47