Abstract
The involvement of corporations in human rights abuses is arguably
as old as the institution of corporation. Corporate involvement in
abuses can be traced to as early as the activities of the British
East India Company, a time when even the notion of human rights in
its present form was unknown. In the 20th century, the corporate
complicity of various multinational corporations (MNCs) in human
rights abuses has attracted wide media attention, engagement of non-governmental
organisations, academic critique, and judicial scrutiny. The alleged
involvement of several leading US corporations - Yahoo!, Microsoft,
Google and Cisco - in Internet censorship in China is the most recent
chain in this long saga of corporate complicity.
This article critically evaluates the efficacy of two regulatory initiatives
- the UN Global Compact and the US Global Online Freedom Act - in
dealing with the specific challenges posed by doing business with
or within China. In considering how much promise these two initiatives
offer in ensuring that corporations take their human rights responsibilities
seriously, two specific claims are advanced. First, that the Global
Compact has failed not only in convincing US corporations to embrace,
support and enact its ten principles, but also in ensuring that participant
corporations seriously fulfill their undertaken commitments. Such
a US-specific inquiry is especially relevant because many MNCs that
have been sued for human rights abuses have a presence in the US.
The second claim is that although home state extraterritorial regulation
is a potential option to tame MNCs' abusive activities, it is unlikely
that the Freedom Act, even if enacted, will achieve its goal of promoting
Internet freedom globally by combating censorship by authoritarian
foreign governments.
Users
Please
log in to take part in the discussion (add own reviews or comments).