Corporate accountability for alleged human rights violations in action: UK NCP Initial Assessment of LPHR’s complaint against G4S Posted on 2 June 2014 by Administrator Ground-breaking and Significant Today’s decision by the UK National Contact Point (UK NCP) for the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises (OECD Guidelines) to accept in their Initial Assessment that issues raised in LPHR’s complaint regarding the activities of G4S PLC in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT) are substantiated and require further examination, is both ground-breaking and significant.
Ground-breaking because it marks the first time that the implementation mechanism for the OECD Guidelines has been successfully utilised to this stage in the procedure regarding the relationship between activities of a corporation and adverse human rights impacts against Palestinians in Israel and the OPT.
And significant because of its potential to bring positive and effective change to Palestinians adversely affected by serious, continuing and pervasive international law and human rights violations.
The emphasis of the process is on the two parties coming together and seeking to mediate a satisfactory resolution to the issues raised.
LPHR is therefore hopeful that the next stage in the process offers the opportunity to substantively engage with G4S PLC to facilitate corporate respect and accountability for human rights.
Business Conduct and Human Rights The nexus between business and human rights is rapidly developing as an important area of domestic and international focus and concern.
The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises (OECD Guidelines) has a fundamental role in this context.
The OECD Guidelines provide for responsible business conduct which governments encourage companies to observe wherever they operate.
In 2011, the Guidelines were updated to incorporate distinct recommendations in relation to internationally recognised human rights standards, including the United Nations’ Guiding Principles on business and human rights devised by Harvard Professor John Ruggie and his team.
The relationship between business conduct and human rights has acute importance in the context of Israel’s treatment of Palestinians.
There is significant evidence-based concern that multinational companies are engaged in contracted work which contribute to Israel’s alleged breaches of international humanitarian and human rights law adversely affecting Palestinians.
The goal of LPHR’s Business and Human Rights project is therefore to be at the forefront of meaningful and expert engagement with corporate legal accountability processes, so to ensure multinational enterprises effectively meet their responsibilities to respect the human rights of Palestinians.
LPHR’s Complaint and Human Rights Context LPHR worked with human rights organisations based in the OPT and Israel to gather credible evidence of the involvement of G4S in human rights and international law breaches.
LPHR subsequently raised a complaint under the OECD Guidelines that G4S, contrary to the OECD Guidelines, has breached the obligation to respect human rights of those affected by their activities.
G4S, a leading international security solutions group, and their subsidiaries in Israel, provide equipment and services to checkpoints in the Separation Barrier (the Wall) constructed by Israel predominantly within the West Bank including East Jerusalem, to the Erez Crossing located at the border between Gaza Strip and Israel, and to Israeli Prison Service prisons and detention centres (IPS Facilities) in Israel and in the West Bank.
As recognised by the International Court of Justice in 2004, the Wall was constructed by Israel in breach of its obligations under international humanitarian and human rights law.
The existence and operation of the Wall gravely and without adequate justification infringes the rights of Palestinians residing in the West Bank including East Jerusalem, restricting access to essential services such as healthcare, even in cases of emergencies.
Equipment provided and maintained by G4S for use within the Wall comprises a part of its unlawful regime.
The evidence in the complaint also shows that Palestinian prisoners in IPS Facilities, both in Israel and in the West Bank, are detained and treated in a manner contrary to international humanitarian and human rights law.
Palestinian children, whose detention is routine in such IPS Facilities, are particularly impacted by such infringements.
Children as well as adults are reportedly subjected to torture or inhuman and degrading treatment, such as solitary confinement, beatings, verbal abuse, shackling, use of stress positions, humiliation and aggressive interrogation.
G4S provide and maintain equipment in such prisons.
Rule of Law and Transformative Change To arrest the process of deepening human rights deterioration for Palestinians, a complete commitment to upholding the rule of law is necessary and paramount for all actors and stakeholders in the region.
As the great Lord Bingham clearly and compellingly explained in his wonderful book, a meaningful definition of the rule of law must include the protection of fundamental human rights and robust processes to ensure they are respected and remedied.
The OECD complaint mechanism offers a novel approach to the resolution of human rights violation claims.
It offers the parties the opportunity to engage with one another in a collaborative forum with the NCP facilitating a mediation process to resolve the issues it has identified for further consideration.
By bringing the parties ‘to the table’ in a non-adversarial context, the process has enormous potential to effectively strengthen corporate adherence to international rule of law by consent rather than sanction (or threat of sanction) and thus has the capacity in this case to contribute to a real and positive transformation of the rights of Palestinians in the OPT and Israel.
Furthermore, as a legal charity, at LPHR we believe that considered utilisation of the OECD evidence-based mediation, investigation and accountability process falls squarely within our heightened social responsibility as lawyers to protect and promote fundamental rights and the rule of law.
It is in this context that we welcome today’s Initial Assessment and the UK NCP’s acknowledgement that there are serious issues raised by our complaint which warrant further examination.
Co-operation and Expertise LPHR critically relied on the co-operation and expertise of human rights organisations in Israel and the OPT to assemble information and witness evidence to support the complaint.
These organisations are: Who Profits, Defence for Children International Palestine, Addameer Prisoner Support and Human Rights Organisation, Women’s Centre for Legal Aid and Counselling, Al-Haq, Military Court Watch and Al Mezan.
We are extremely grateful to them for their invaluable contribution and, in particular, to the individuals who contributed witness statements disclosing what were painful and difficult experiences.
The dignity of Palestinian communities in the face of the kind of human rights violations the complaint outlines is truly remarkable and humbling.
The working model for this complaint exemplifies our preference, where possible, to utilise the expertise of human rights NGOs operating in Israel and the OPT so to optimise the effectiveness of our legal projects.
It is essential to our values as an organisation that there is recognition of the importance of these human rights organisations’ unrelenting frontline work in challenging rule of law violations and their determined advocacy for fundamental rights in extremely difficult circumstances.
As Director of LPHR, I worked with legally trained members at LPHR who offered their assistance as volunteers and we were fortunate to be able to instruct expert human rights lawyers at Leigh Day and Doughty Street Chambers in preparing the complaint.
The diligence, commitment and human rights expertise of everyone who worked with us is strongly valued and appreciated.
Common Interest and Resolution The structure of the implementation mechanism for the OECD Guidelines reflects a notion that civil society and corporations have a common interest with adhering governments to ensure that multinational enterprises respect the human rights of those affected by their activities.
The primary recourse, following initial assessment, to a mediation and conciliation platform demonstrates that facilitating a consensual resolution of serious and substantiated issues is considered to be both realistic and desirable.
LPHR absolutely supports this view.
As summarised in the Initial Assessment, our complaint ‘asks that the company provides information about where and how its equipment is used and what due diligence checks have been conducted in providing it.
The complaint also asks that the company stops servicing the equipment, to remove it, to agree to an independent audit of these actions, and to agree to identify ways to compensate people who have suffered adverse impacts’.
[2] We look forward to further engaging with G4S PLC as the matter proceeds and are hopeful that the process will contribute to a positive transformation of the human rights situation for Palestinians adversely impacted by this company’s activities, setting a precedent for good corporate practice in the region for other companies going forward.