Download the file - United Nations Rule of Law

Enhancing tenure security and ending forced evictions273however, is that they ‘generally lack the financial and administrativeresources to ensure effective implementation oftheir policies throughout the country. At the same time,intermediate-level management agencies with genuinedecision-making power are generally weak or absent.’ 39 TheCity Statute in Brazil is one example of how local governmentscan more effectively play a supportive role inexpanding tenure security (see Box 11.8).STRENGTHENING ANDCLARIFYING THE HUMANRIGHTS OBLIGATIONS OFNON-STATE ACTORSThe legal obligations emerging under human rights law haveadvanced considerably during recent years. Whereas humanrights law has traditionally been seen largely as a set of rulesgoverning the acts and omissions of states (see Boxes 6.17and 6.18), in fact, this legal domain creates a very considerabledegree of obligations requiring non-state actors to act inaccordance with internationally recognized human rightsprinciples. In terms of security of tenure, this would beparticularly relevant both to companies and individualscapable of infringing upon the security of tenure rights andrelated rights of individuals and groups. Principle 1 of theUnited Nations Global Compact, a standard initiated by theformer United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan andagreed to by various world business leaders, commits companiesto ‘support and respect the protection of internationalhuman rights within their sphere of influence’. The scope ofthe obligations accepted by companies under the GlobalCompact includes commitments ensuring rights to basichealth, education and housing (if operations are located inareas where these are not provided). The website explainingthe nature of the compact explicitly declares that the intentof those who support the compact is to ‘prevent the forcibledisplacement of individuals, groups or communities’ and to‘protect the economic livelihood of local communities’. 40Some companies have begun making tentative stepsin the direction of preventing evictions. For instance, forseveral years BP has been refining its approach to involuntaryresettlement and developing project managementtechniques that actively seek to prevent the economic and,especially, the physical displacement of communities in areasof operation. The aspiration of the company is not to physicallydisplace communities against their will. It seeks tocreate active dialogue with communities who may bedisplaced, and to work in partnership with them to developmutually acceptable solutions. It commits to ensure thattheir human rights are not threatened by project activities. 41The principle of corporate complicity in human rightsabuses has also gained added credence in recent years, andmay assist in clarifying the responsibilities of companies withrespect to evictions and security of tenure. Complicity cantake three forms:Box 11.9 Private-sector companies and human rightsviolationsIn describing the direct responsibility for evictions in Sudan, Human Rights Watch points thefinger at the failure of one oil company to voice human rights concerns linked to the government’spolicy of forced displacement of civilians in areas allocated for oil extraction:From the beginning of its involvement in Sudan … [the company] resolutely refusedto speak out against or to seriously investigate the Sudanese government’s policy offorcibly displacing civilians from areas designated for oil extraction and the humanrights abuses that have been an essential element of this policy.Yet, under modernconcepts of corporate responsibility that … [the company] claims to endorse, it hada responsibility to ensure that its business operations did not depend upon, or benefitfrom, gross human rights abuses such as those that have been committed by thegovernment and its proxy forces in Sudan … [the company’s] complicity in thegovernment’s abuses was not limited to its inaction in the face of the continueddisplacement campaign rolling through the oil areas. Its activities in some casesassisted forcible displacement and attacks on civilians. For example, it allowed governmentforces to use … [its] airfield and road infrastructure in circumstances in which itknew or should have known that the facilities would be used to conduct furtherdisplacement and wage indiscriminate or disproportionate military attacks and/ortargeted civilians and civilian objects.Source: Amnesty International, 1998, pp81–82, 88• Direct complicity. This occurs when a companyknowingly assists a state in violating human rights. Anexample of this occurs when a company assists in theforced relocation of peoples in circumstances related tobusiness activity.• Beneficial complicity. This suggests that a companybenefits directly from human rights abuses committedby someone else. For example, violations committed bysecurity forces, such as the suppression of a peacefulprotest against business activities or the use of repressivemeasures while guarding company facilities, areoften cited in this context.• Silent complicity. This describes the way in whichhuman rights advocates see the failure by a company toraise the question of systematic or continuous humanrights violations in its interactions with the appropriateauthorities. For example, inaction or acceptance bycompanies of systematic discrimination in employmentlaw against particular groups on the grounds of ethnicityor gender could bring accusations of silent complicity. 42Amnesty International urges all companies to establishprocedures to ensure that all operations are examined fortheir potential impact on human rights and for theirsafeguards to ensure that company staff are never complicitin human rights abuses. 43 Some companies which have beenviewed as directly complicit in forced evictions have beensingled out by respected human rights NGOs (see Box 11.9).The United NationsGlobal Compact …commits companiesto support andrespect the protectionof internationalhuman rightsThe principle ofcorporate complicityin human rightsabuses has … gainedadded credence inrecent years