The UN Norms for Transnational Corporations

Leiden Journal of International Law

Volumn 16, Issue 4, 2003, Pages 795-802

  Vagts, Detlev F ^a  

^a HARVARD LAW SCHOOL   (United States)

Author keywords

codes of conduct; human rights; multinational enterprises; soft law; United Nations

Indexed keywords

EID: 33646780281     PISSN: 09221565     EISSN: 14789698     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0922156503001456     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. This comment takes as its text ‘Human Rights Principles and Responsibilities for Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises’, UN Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/2003/12 (2003). It can be found by visiting the University of Minnesota Human Rights Library (http//wwwl/umn.edu/humanrts/links/NormsApril 2003.html). A commentary for theNorms was published as E/CN.4/Sub.2/2003/38 (2003) and can be found at the same site, substituting ‘Comment’ for ‘Norms’. As thiscommentwent to press theUNSub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, acting on 13 Aug. 2003, approved a slightly revised version of the Norms. The new version is UN Doc. E/CN.4/Sub, 2/2003/12/Rev.2 (2003) and can be found at the same site, substituting Aug. 2003 for April 2003. The Working Group consists of El Hadj Guisse, a retired Senegalese judge (chair),VladimirKartashkin, Professor of Law atMoscow StateUniversity, Soo Park, former Korean ambassador to the United States, Miguel AlfonsoMartinez, former spokesperson for theMinistry of Foreign Affairs of Cuba, and DavidWeissbrodt, a professor of law at the University ofMinnesota.
2. The origins of the Norms are explained in D.Weissbrodt, ‘The Beginning of a SessionalWorking Group on Transnational CorporationsWithin theUNSub-commissiononPrevention of DiscriminationandProtection of Minorities’, in M.Kammingaand S. Zia-Zarifi (eds.), Liability of MultinationalCorporations under International Law (2000), 119.
3. USC, para. 1850. One of the members of theWorking Group, DavidWeissbrodt, is an experienced human rights lawyer fully familiarwith that statute. The discovery of the modern utility of the statute dates back to Filartiga v. Pena Arala, 630 F.2d 876 (2d Cir. 1980).
4. See, e.g, Wiwa v. RoyalDutch Petroleum Co., 226 F.3d 88 (2nd Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 532US 941 (2001) (human rights violations in Nigeria); Beanal v. Freeport-McMoran, Inc., 197 F.2d 161 (5th Cir. 1999) (ecological damage frommining in New Guinea).
5. Translated as The American Challenge (1968).
6. Prof. Vernon's summary of the findings is contained in his Sovereignty at Bay (1971). For his later views see R. Vernon, In the Hurricane's Eye: The Troubled Prospects of the Multinational Enterprise (1998).
7. D. F. Vagts, ‘TheMultinational Enterprise: A New Challenge for International Law’, (1970) 83 HLR 739.
8. TheHarvardMultinational Enterprise Series included S. Robbins and R. Stobaugh,Money in the Multinational Enterprise (1973); J. Stopford and L.Wells, Managing the Multinational Enterprise: Organization of the Firm and Ownership of the Subsidiaries (1972).
9. P.Muchlinski, Multinational Enterprises and the Law (1999).
10. C.Wallace, TheMultinational Enterprise and Legal Control:Host State Sovereignty in an Era of Economic Globalization (2002).
11. For a review of the history seeWallace, At the same time the CTC Reporter was transformed into the journal called Transnational Corporations note 10, at 1082-6.
12. See J.Davidow, ‘The Implementation of International Antitrust Principles’, inS.Rubin and G.Hufbauer (eds.), Emerging Standards of International Trade and Investment (1983), 119.
13. G.Wilner, ‘Transfer of Technology: The UNCTAD Code of Conduct’, in N. Horn (ed.), Legal Problems of Codes of Conduct for Multinational Enterprises (1980) 177.
14. ILM 422 (1978). For later ILO developments seeWallace, ‘Transfer of Technology: The UNCTAD Code of Conduct’ note 10, at 1080-81.
15. ILM 237 (2001).
16. For a brief summaryseeWallace, ILM note 10, at 1093-4.Amore extensive treatment appears inR. Blanpain, The OECD Guidelines forMultinational Enterprises and Labour Relations, 1976-79: Experience and Review (1979), 219-28.
17. J. Karl, ‘The OECD Guidelines forMultinational Enterprises’, inM. Addo (ed.) Human Rights Standards and the Responsibility of Transnational Corporations (1999), 89, at 93-6 (giving references to OECD sources).
18. A.McLean, ‘The European Union Code of Conduct on Arms Exports’ in Addo, ‘The OECD Guidelines forMultinational Enterprises’ note 19, at 115.
19. S. Ratner, ‘Corporations and Human Rights: A Theory of Legal Responsibility’, (2001) 111 Yale Law Journal 443, at 531; S.Webley, ‘The Nature and Value of Internal Codes of Ethics’, in Addo, ‘The European Union Code of Conduct on Arms Exports’ note 19, at 107.
20. Note, ‘The Good, the Bad, and Their Corporate Codes of Ethics: Enron, Sarbanes-Oxley and the Problems of Legislating Good Behavior’, (2003) 116 HLR 2123.
21. Foranoptimisticviewofglobalization seeT.Friedman,TheLexusandthe OliveTree (2000),andforapessimistic one, J. Stiglitz, Globalization and its Discontents (2000).
22. See J. Vaupel and J. Curhan, The Making of Multinational Enterprise (1969). For an essay on definitional problems see Y. Aharoni, ‘On the Definition of aMultinational Corporation’, in A. Kapoor and P. Grub (eds.), The Multinational Enterprise in Transition (1972), 3-20; and,more recently,Wallace, Foranoptimisticviewofglobalization note 10, at 102-19.
23. Art. 20.
24. For a terse review of soft law see C. Chinkin, ‘Normative development in the International Legal System in Commitment and Compliance: The Role of Non-Binding Norms’, in D. Shelton (ed.), The International Legal System (2000), 21. See also H. Baade, ‘The Legal Effects of Codes of Conduct for MNEs’, in N. Horn (ed.), Legal Problems of Codes of Conduct for Multinational Enterprises (1980), 3.
25. P.Weil, ‘Towards Relative Normativity in International Law?’, (1983) 77 AJIL 413.
26. Most dramatically, the government filed a statement objecting to the action brought by activists against Unocal for collaborating with the government of Myanmar in forced labour activities. There are excerpts from the statement at (2003) 97 AJIL 703. The Court of Appeals, sitting en banc, has heard the case but not handed down a decision.
27. For reviews of prospects for litigation against multinational corporations in courts outside theUnited States see the chapters by Byers, Meeran, Nollkaemper, and Betlem in Kamminga and Zia-Zarifi, Most dramatically, the government filed a statement objecting to the action brought by activists against Unocal for collaborating with the government of Myanmar in forced labour activities note 2, at 241-305.