Sphere Of Influence

1611 Words4 Pages

CONTENTIONS CONCEPTS
• Sphere of Influence - When reading the Compact, it is evident that the concept of ‘sphere of influence’ plays a key role in its interpretation. This concept has, however, resulted in much legal uncertainty, debate and even criticism, as it is considered by many to be very vague and general. By the same token, the term ‘complicity’, although generously used throughout the Compact, has also not been assigned a definite and clear meaning. Schutte contends that the Compact will remain inefficient and ineffective pending the establishment of clear and certain (acceptable) means being ascribed to the concept. For purposes of the discussion contained in this Thesis, the notion of ‘sphere of influence’ should be viewed as …show more content…

Of note, here is the fact that the company itself does not have to be involved in the violation.
The Compact furthermore contains suggestions on how companies might avoid being complicity, namely:
• by conducting a human rights impact assessment on at periodical basis;
• by having explicit human rights policies that protect the workforce; and
• by having explicit policies to protect the supply chain.
Because of the lack of legal precedents on this issue, the Special Representative recommends that one looks to criminal law for guidance, and in particular the issues relating to aiding and abetting. In this regard, international criminal law prohibits aiding and abetting.

Aiding and abetting requires firstly, the act or omission must have a substantial effect on the commissioning of the crime and secondly, an element of knowledge of contribution to the crime must be present.

Over the years, courts have interpreted aiding and abetting to include instances where an entity was:
• directed to assist the wrongdoers;
• encouraged the human rights violation to be committed;
• lend moral support to the wrongdoers; and
• facilitated the crime in some way, manner or …show more content…

Such violations can also occur in connection with the companies’ operations, for example through the use of security forces that commit abuses to protect the company’s property and installations, deportation of people and environmental damage to facilitate the company’s projects, or arrest and persecution of workers seeking to promote trade union rights. A company may be regarded as complicit to such actions only when those actions are taken in order to protect the company’s property or investment and the company has not taken reasonable measures to prevent the abuses.

In sum:
1) knowingly providing or substantially contributing to a human rights violation gives rise to complicity;
2) where a company receives some form of benefit from a human rights violation, this gesture may be viewed as the company being complicit in the human rights violation;
3) in instances of omission way the company neglecting to speak up, full well knowing that the human rights violations are taking place, such omission may give rise to finding complicity on the part of the company;

Open Document