View previous stories
	Tunisian National Dialogue Quartet awarded 2015 Nobel Peace Prize by Norwegian Nobel Committee   Oslo, 10 October 2015   The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided that the Nobel Peace Prize for 2015 is to be awarded to the Tunisian National Dialogue Quartet for its decisive contribution to the building of a pluralistic democracy in Tunisia in the wake of the Jasmine Revolution of 2011. The Quartet was formed in the summer of 2013 when the democratization process was in danger of collapsing as a result of political assassinations and widespread social unrest.   It established an alternative, peaceful political process at a time when the country was on the brink of civil war. It was thus instrumental in enabling Tunisia, in the space of a few years, to establish a constitutional system of government guaranteeing fundamental rights for the entire population, irrespective of gender, political conviction or religious belief.   The National Dialogue Quartet has comprised four key organizations in Tunisian civil society: the Tunisian General Labour Union (UGTT, Union Générale Tunisienne du Travail), the Tunisian Confederation of Industry, Trade and Handicrafts (UTICA, Union Tunisienne de l''Industrie, du Commerce et de l''Artisanat), the Tunisian Human Rights League (LTDH, La Ligue Tunisienne pour la Défense des Droits de l''Homme), and the Tunisian Order of Lawyers (Ordre National des Avocats de Tunisie).   These organizations represent different sectors and values in Tunisian society: working life and welfare, principles of the rule of law and human rights. On this basis, the Quartet exercised its role as a mediator and driving force to advance peaceful democratic development in Tunisia with great moral authority. The Nobel Peace Prize for 2015 is awarded to this Quartet, not to the four individual organizations as such.   The Arab Spring originated in Tunisia in 2010-2011, but quickly spread to a number of countries in North Africa and the Middle East. In many of these countries, the struggle for democracy and fundamental rights has come to a standstill or suffered setbacks. Tunisia, however, has seen a democratic transition based on a vibrant civil society with demands for respect for basic human rights.   An essential factor for the culmination of the revolution in Tunisia in peaceful, democratic elections last autumn was the effort made by the Quartet to support the work of the constituent assembly and to secure approval of the constitutional process among the Tunisian population at large. The Quartet paved the way for a peaceful dialogue between the citizens, the political parties and the authorities and helped to find consensus-based solutions to a wide range of challenges across political and religious divides. The broad-based national dialogue that the Quartet succeeded in establishing countered the spread of violence in Tunisia and its function is therefore comparable to that of the peace congresses to which Alfred Nobel refers in his will.   The course that events have taken in Tunisia since the fall of the authoritarian Ben Ali regime in January 2011 is unique and remarkable for several reasons.   Firstly, it shows that Islamist and secular political movements can work together to achieve significant results in the country''s best interests. The example of Tunisia thus underscores the value of dialogue and a sense of national belonging in a region marked by conflict.   Secondly, the transition in Tunisia shows that civil society institutions and organizations can play a crucial role in a country’s democratization, and that such a process, even under difficult circumstances, can lead to free elections and the peaceful transfer of power. The National Dialogue Quartet must be given much of the credit for this achievement and for ensuring that the benefits of the Jasmine Revolution have not been lost.   Tunisia faces significant political, economic and security challenges. The Norwegian Nobel Committee hopes that this year''s prize will contribute towards safeguarding democracy in Tunisia and be an inspiration to all those who seek to promote peace and democracy in the Middle East, North Africa and the rest of the world. More than anything, the prize is intended as an encouragement to the Tunisian people, who despite major challenges have laid the groundwork for a national fraternity which the Committee hopes will serve as an example to be followed by other countries. Visit the related web page
	Globalization, human rights and business: Why a treaty is a moral and legal necessity by David Bilchitz Fidh, Escr-net, Righting Finance South Africa   September 2015   Thousands of people have had their lives destroyed by the activities of multi-national corporations. Oil spills in Nigeria and gas leaks in India have killed, maimed and caused lasting environmental damage. Yet, these people and their families have struggled to hold the perpetrators to account and receive damages to ameliorate their suffering.   This lamentable situation could be addressed by consensus between states around the world to develop a treaty that ensures human rights violations do not go unpunished (or, at least uncompensated). In the 21st century such a treaty is both a legal and moral necessity. Here is why.   After the devastation of the Second World War and the horrors of the Holocaust, the mood was ripe to create an international order with certain basic moral principles at its core. Human rights were the key concept that created a bridge between law and morality. The intrinsic ‘dignity’ or worth of the human person was seen to give rise to certain entitlements that protect the most basic interests of people: the right to free speech, bodily integrity, food and housing. These protections could only be effective, however, if they created obligations for other actors. The focus at the time was on the obligations of states for realizing human rights.   Since then, the world has changed. Trade has exploded across international borders as have multi-national corporations with a common identity operating in multiple states. The wealth and power of some corporations is said to rival that of states.   A legal paradigm of fundamental rights that ignores these significant development will lack the power adequately to protect the rights of individuals. Difficult problems, however, arise in holding corporations to account for rights violations.   First, international law has traditionally been built on the idea that each state is sovereign within its own domain and responsible for holding accountable those who commit wrongs within its domain. It is less well equipped to address wrong-doers who cross borders: where, for instance, an environmentally destructive strategy is planned in one country and executed in another. Suing a corporation in the country where a wrong is committed may thus fail to affect the real centre of power or wealth.   This problem is compounded by a second difficulty in that, in law, each corporation is regarded as a ‘separate legal person.’ As such, a multinational corporation does not in fact exist: it is rather a network of different entities all formed in terms of the laws of different countries. When a corporation in one country commits a wrong, the related corporations in other countries can disavow responsibility for its actions as they are distinct ‘persons’ in law.   The possibility of justice for victims of human rights violations diminishes even further when we consider that multi-nationals often commit violations in countries with weak legal systems and where the independence of the judiciary is in doubt. The likelihood of successful prosecutions or claims for compensation is very limited in these jurisdictions.   Taken together, these three challenges create opportunities for multinationals to evade responsibility for wrongs they commit. To address them, it is necessary to devise an international solution which requires the collective action of states. This could be done in one of two ways.   The first approach would be for multi-national corporations to become capable of being sued for wrongs they commit across the world in any state where they have offices. This would mean that victims who can find no succour in their local courts could approach foreign courts to provide them with a remedy.   The United States, until recently, pioneered this solution with the creative use of an old statute known as the Alien Tort Claims Act (the ATCA). Unfortunately, the Supreme Court in the recent Kiobel decision severely limited the potential uses of ATCA for these purposes, allowing such actions to succeed only where there is a strong link to the territory of the United States.   A treaty on business and human rights could require all states to adopt laws permitting them to hold corporations to account for violations of fundamental rights they commit across the world. Such an approach has been adopted in the United Nations Convention against Corruption (UNCAC) and would help address the problem that no single state wishes to be seen as the sole enforcer of human rights norms, thus rendering it less attractive to business.   The second and most ambitious solution would be to establish an international court that could adjudicate cases where corporations violate fundamental rights across international borders. Such a court would be truly global in nature and be able to address the lacunae that arise in international law from the challenges discussed above.   It would allow for the development of specific case law in this area and enable a deeper understanding of the obligations corporations owe in relation to fundamental rights. Its construction would need to be thought about carefully to ensure that it is not swamped by cases and that it does not replace the role of national courts.   There are many good reasons for a global treaty on business and human rights: one of the most significant is its ability to ensure that a remedy is found for victims of human rights violations by corporations.   The current initiatives at the global level – such as the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human rights – lack the necessary legal status to offer a clear solution.   Objections thus far have been largely pragmatic, recognising significant division between developed and developing states on the need for such an international instrument. In June 2014, the Human Rights Council, in an initiative spearheaded by Ecuador and South Africa, agreed to commence discussions surrounding the possibility of such a treaty.   The first meeting of this inter-governmental working group occurred in July in Geneva and drew in a range of experts from across the world. The treaty initiative has also stimulated many NGO initiatives across the world which are engaging directly with the people are affected by human rights violations of corporations.   It is a great shame, however, that the United States and European Union countries – which profess to take human rights seriously – oppose this initiative. Their opposition increasingly strikes one as simply based on the self-interested expediency of their business interests and displays a callous disregard for the very real suffering of individuals that arises from inadequate regulation at the international level.   In the face of such strong division, it is necessary to stand up quietly and forcefully for why such a treaty is needed. Many visionary international developments – such as the formation of an international criminal court – have emerged in the face of initial division between states, because they fill a clear moral and legal vacuum.   A new global consensus needs to be forged too on business and human rights: the starting point is to recognize the moral and legal necessity for a treaty in this area.   Expediency of the powerful should not be allowed to trump the basic principle of justice: anyone whose fundamental rights are violated by corporations must be able to ensure the perpetrator is punished and compensates them for their loss.   * David Bilchitz is a Professor at the University of Johannesburg and Director of the South African Institute for Advanced Constitutional, Public, Human Rights and International Law. He is also Secretary-General of the International Association of Constitutional Law.   http://www.rightingfinance.org/?p=1362 http://www.fidh.org/en/issues/globalisation-human-rights/fidh-in-nairobi-to-discuss-corporate-accountability http://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/270-general/52832-puvan-selvanathan-resigns-from-un-working-group-on-business-a-human-rights-calling-for-a-binding-treaty.html http://kenan.ethics.duke.edu/humanrights/files/2014/11/Business-and-Human-Rights-Treaty-Is-Now-the-Time.pdf http://www.escr-net.org/corporateaccountability/treatyinitiative http://www.fidh.org/en/issues/globalisation-human-rights/ http://bit.ly/2l9Dub7 Visit the related web page
	View more stories