The human rights responsibilities of multinational tobacco companies

Tobacco Control

Volumn 14, Issue SUPPL. 2, 2005, Pages

  Crow, M E ^a  

^a BROOKLYN LAW SCHOOL   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

HUMAN; HUMAN RIGHTS; INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION; LEGAL ASPECT; REVIEW; SMOKING; SOCIAL BEHAVIOR; TOBACCO INDUSTRY;

HUMAN RIGHTS; HUMANS; INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION; SMOKING; SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY; TOBACCO INDUSTRY;

EID: 23744431600     PISSN: 09644563     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/tc.2004.009027     Document Type: Review

References (49)

1. World Health Organization. Final version, WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, http://www.who.int/tobacco/fctc/text/en/fctc_en.pdf. The FCTC entered into force on 27 February 2005. As of this writing, 58 governments have ratified it, and 168 governments have signedit.
2. The language of rights is conspicuously absent from the rest of the FCTC. This omission may be attributable to a variety of factors, including the lack of rights-based expertise among the entities and individuals involved in the negotiations, the public health community's relative unfamiliarity with international human rights law, the controversial status of the right to health under international law, and many governments' competing concerns about retaining certain sovereign rights. Telephone Interview with Allyn Taylor, Adjunct Professor, University of Maryland Law School, Former Senior Legal Adviser to WHO Tobacco Free Initiative (Aug. 19, 2003). The U.S. negotiating team in particular was adamant about excluding rights-based language from the FCTC. Email from Thomas E Novotny, MD MPH, to author (26 Feb 2005) (on file with author).
3. Evatt E. The right to individual petition: assessing its operation before the Human Rights Committee and its future application to the Women's Convention on Discrimination. American Society of International Law Proceedings 1995;29:229.
4. UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. General Comment 14 - The Right to the Highest Attainable Standard of Health, 22d Sess. paras. 15, 51, UN Doc. E/C. 12/2000/4 (2000).
5. UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Summary Records, 22d Sess., 8th mtg., UN Doc. E/C.12/2000/SR.8 (discussing Italy's anti-smoking campaigns and justification for advertising Marlboro tobacco brand on Ferrari cars in Formula One racing competition, which was broadcast widely on Italian television, in light of tobacco advertising ban);
6. UN Committee on Economic Social and Cultural Rights. Summary Records, 20th Sess., 16th mtg., UN Doc. E/C.12/1999/SR.16 (1999) (discussing Ireland's willingness to comply with WHO guidelines calling for increased taxes on tobacco products and implementation of a total advertising ban).
7. UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Concluding Observations of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights: Ukraine, 26th Sess., UN Doc. E/C.12/1/Add. 65 (2001) (recommending that the Ukrainian government provide children with accurate and objective information about tobacco use and discourage public mass media from promoting consumption of tobacco products);
8. UN Committee on Economic Social and Cultural Rights, Concluding Observations of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights: Poland, 18th Sess., 26th mtg., UN Doc. E/C. 12/1/Add. 26 (1998) (recommending that the Polish government engage in a large-scale public information campaign to combat smoking).
9. UN General Assembly Official Records. Report of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women: Kazakhstan, 24th Sess., para. 105, UN Doc. A/56/38 (2001) (expressing concern about the status of women's health, including their increasing use of tobacco);
10. UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, Concluding Observations of the Committee on the Rights of the Child: South Africa, 23d Sess., 615th mtg., UN Doc. CRC/C/15/Add. 122 (2000) (expressing concern about the limited availability of programs, services, and the lack of adequate data in the area of adolescent h, including tobacco use);
11. UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, Concluding Observations of the Committee on the Rights of the Child: Armenia, 23d Sess., para. 53, U. N. Doc. CRC/C/15/Add. 110 (2000) (encouraging the State Party to continue its efforts to provide children with accurate and objective information about tobacco use and to protect them from harmful misinformation by imposing comprehensive restrictions on tobacco advertising).
12. Liberman J, Clougn J. Corporations that kill: the criminal liability of tobacco manufacturers. Criminal Law Journal 2002;26:1-12.
13. WHO Expert Committee on Smoking Control. Controlling the smoking epidemic, 1979, WHO Technical Report Series No. 636 (reporting that the tobacco industry's marketing tactics cause a significant number of unnecessary deaths);
14. UK Department of Health. Effect of tobacco advertising on tobacco consumption: a discussion document reviewing the evidence, 1992, para. 69 (asserting that the balance of evidence supports the conclusion that advertising has a positive effect on the consumption of tobacco products).
15. Appleberry R. Breaking the camel's back: bringing women's human rights to bear on tobacco control. Yale Journal of Law and Feminism 2001;13:84-88;
16. Wike J, The Marlboro Man in Asia: U. S. tobacco and human rights. Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law 1996;29: 351-52;
17. Crow M. Smokescreens and state responsibility: using human rights strategies to promote global tobacco control. Yale Journal of International Law 2004;29:225-45.
18. st mtg., WHO Doc. A/FCTC/WG1/2 (1999), http://www.who.int/gb/fctc/PDF/wg1/elt2pdf, at 4 (noting that sixty-one percent of smokers surveyed in China in 1996 believed that tobacco caused "little or no harm").
19. Dhooge L. Smoke across the waters: tobacco production and exportation as international human rights violations. Fordham International Law Journal 1998;22:431-5;
20. Mann J, Gostin L, Gruskin S, et al. Health and human rights. In: Mann J, Gruskin S, Gradin M, et al, eds. Health and human rights, New York: Routledge, 1999: 15;
21. Kozlowski L. Harm reduction, public health, and human rights: smokers have a right to be informed of significant harm reduction options. Nicotine Tob Res 2002;4:55-60.
22. Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Reilly, 84 F.Supp.2d 180 (D. Mass. 2000), (rejecting claims by Lorillard Tobacco Company, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, Philip Morris Incorporated, Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation, and United States Tobacco Company that Massachusetts' proposed tobacco product advertising and promotion regulations violated the First Amendment, with the exception of point-of-sale regulations), Bitton A, Neuman M, Glantz S, Tobacco industry attempts to subvert European Union tobacco advertising legislation. Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education, University of California, EU Paper 2002, http://repositories.cdlib.org/ctcre/tcpmi/EU2002 (summarizing the tobacco industry's efforts to defeat a proposed European advertising ban based in part on right to freedom of expression).
23. Pan-American Health Organization. Profits over people: tobacco industry activities to market cigarettes and undermine public health in Latin America and the Caribbean, 2002, http://www.paho.org/English/HPP/HPM/TOH/profits_over_ people,pdf.26,41-4.
24. Grossman C, Bradlow D. Are we being propelled towards a people-centered transnational legal order? American University Journal of International Law and Policy 1993;9:8.
25. Sugarman S. International aspects of tobacco control and the proposed WHO treaty. In. Rabin R, Sugarman S, eds. Regulating tobacco. New York: Oxford University Press, 2001:249-59.
26. Henkin L. The universal declaration at 50 and the challenge of global markets. Brooklyn Journal of International Law 1999;25:25.
27. International Council on Human Rights Policy. Beyond voluntarism: human rights and the developing international legal obligations of companies, 2002, http://www.ichrp.org/excerpts/30.pdf. 58-62.
28. Paust J. Human rights responsibilities of private corporations. Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law 2002;35:811-19.
29. Ratner S. Corporations and human rights: a theory of legal responsibility. Yale Journal of International Law 2001;111:464-65;
30. Clapham A. Human rights in the private sphere. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993:98-9.
31. UN Global Compact. http://www.unglobalcompact.org/Portal/default.asp? NavigationTarget=/roles/portal_user/aboutTheGC/nt/nf/theNinePrinciples;
32. OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises, http://www.oecd.org/ document/28/0,2340,en_2649_34889_2397532 _1_1_1_1,00html;
33. ILO Tripartite Declaration of Principles Concerning Multinational Enterprises, http://www.ilo.org/public/english/standards/norm/sources/mnehtm.
34. Clapham A. The question of jurisdiction under international criminal law over legal persons. In: Kamminga M, Zia-Zarifi S, eds. Liability of multinational corporations under international law. Boston, Massachusetts: Kluwer Law International, 2000:193.
35. Kamminga M, Zia-Zarifis S. Liability of multinational corporations under international law: an introduction. In: Kamminga M, Zia-Zarifi S, eds. Liability of multinational corporations under international law. Boston, Massachusetts: Kluwer Law International, 2000:8-9.
36. Presbyterian Church of Sudan v. Talisman Energy, Inc. 244 F. Supp. 2d 289, 308-15 (SDNY 2003) (reviewing ATS precedent from various U.S. circuit and district courts).
37. Stephens B. The amorality of profit: transnational corporations and human rights, Berkeley Journal of International Law 2002;20:76-7.
38. Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 124 S.Ct. 2739, 2766 n. 20 (2004).
39. UN Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, Responsibilities of Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises with Regard to Human Rights, Resolution 2003/16, UN Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/2003/L. 11, at 52 (2003), http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/links/res2003-16.html.
40. UN Economic and Social Council Official Records, 60th Sess., Agenda Item 21(b), UN Doc. E/CN.4/2004/L11/Add.7 (2004);
41. UN Commission on Human Rights, Responsibilities of Transnational Corporations and Related Business Enterprises with Regard to Human Rights, Decision 2004/116, UN Doc. E/CNY/2004/L.11/Add.7, paras, (a) and (b).
42. Weissbrodt D. E-mail from David Weissbrodt, Professor, University of Minnesota Law School, to author (13 May 2005) (on file with author).
43. UN Sub-Commission on Human Rights. The Relationship Between the Enjoyment of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the Right to Development, and the Working Methods and Activities of Transnational Corporations, UN Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/RES/2002/8;
44. UN Sub-Commission on Human Rights, Report of the Sessional Working Group on the Working Methods and Activities of Transnational Corporations, UN Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/2003/13.
45. British Helsinki Human Rights Group. B.A.T. in Uzbekistan, 2002, http://www.bhhrg.org/CountryReport.asp?CountryID=23.
46. Christian Aid. Hooked on tobacco. UK: Christian Aid, 2002, http://www.christian-aid.org.uk/indepth/0201bat/index.htm;
47. Christian Aid, Behind the mask: the real face of corporate social responsibility. UK: Christian Aid, 2004, http://www.christian-aid.org.uk/ indepth/0401csr/crs_behindthemask.pdf.
48. Zelman N. The Nestle infant formula controversy: restricting the marketing practices of multinational corporations in the third world. Transnational Law 1990;3:722-3.
49. Weissbrodt W, Kruger M. Norms on the responsibilities of transnational corporations and otner business enterprises with regard to human rights. American Journal of International Law 2003;97:917, 921-2.