Introduction
With the world gradually being transformed into a global village from the perspective of commerce, commercial injustice is also becoming a global issue. Further, even in the nations that erstwhile did not embrace capitalism, the corporate world is continually embracing capitalism policies. When the interests of a company are premised on a good bottom line alone, ethical lines will become blurred. Further, with globalization, corporations have increased exponentially in pecuniary power and actual influence that they have overtaken some governments. Indeed, some global corporations are more powerful than some governments. The combination of a great power and influence and capitalist tendencies have culminated into a lack of scruples in some corporations. This has resulted in human rights abuses, which local courts have not been able to remedy due to the aforesaid influence (Augenstein & Kinley, 2015). This research paper looks at the issue of the propensity of corporations to breach human rights in the US and globally and whether a World Court of Human Rights specifically dealing with corporations would be sufficient in curbing this menace.
International Courts
Whereas the globe is politically subdivided into many nations, states, and kingdoms, it all contains a populace with the common denominator of humanity. Local laws may differ on various issues but there are fundamental inalienable rights that traverse all political, cultural, and religious divisions. These inalienable rights are the concept behind the advent of international courts (ICs). An IC, therefore, adjudicates over issues of a local or international nature relating to fundamental issues that the local courts have either failed or neglected to handle. Further, the ambit of the jurisdiction of ICs involves those issues that may not be outlawed by local laws, but are unlawful under international laws (Alter, 2013). There are also issues that put individuals against the government and its entities. In this scenario, the individual may feel that justice shall not be properly meted by the courts which may be influenced by government. Further, for any reason, a local jurisdiction can refer a matter to an IC.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Among the most popular ICs are the International Criminal Court (ICC) based in the Hague in the Netherlands. The ICC specifically deals with criminal liability for breach of crimes against humanity. It was established vide the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court as adopted on the 17th day of July, 1998 (Alter, 2013). The court has been operational since 1st July, 2002. However, the court has not been very successful in curbing crimes against humanity globally. Its powers are also undermined by the fact that some of the most aggressive nations in the world, led by the USA are not member states. The second is the International Court of Justice (ICJ). This can be defined as the judicial arm of the United Nations and mainly deals with international disputes that involve member governments pitted against one another or a private entity.
Necessity for a World Court for Business and Human Rights
Among the most powerful commodity based companies in the world are in the USA with entities such as Apple Inc. and Microsoft Inc. In search of a better bottom line, these companies have moved their production lines to poor third world countries and to the poorest areas thereof (Augenstein & Kinley, 2015). This enables them to negotiate the lowest possible taxes with the corrupt regimes and also get the cheapest possible labor force through exploitation. The production costs differences are however not reflected in the prices of the high end products they produce most of which are way above the pecuniary capacity of their labor forces.
This pattern, in relative scales is being repeated by the corporate world globally. Indeed, the human rights abuses are being occasioned by criminal regimes and poor leadership pales in comparison to corporate human rights abuses. There is, therefore, an urgent need for a World Court for Business and Human Rights.
Propensity for Success of the envisaged World Court for Business and Human Rights
It is not a secret that ICs have been generally a major failure. The article by Helfer (2013) has classified the effectiveness of ICs into 4 major categories of case specific effectiveness that evaluates the capacity of the courts to solve the dispute as opposed to just providing a ruling. The envisaged courts would be successful since corporations are above all committed to profits. Bad publicity is an anathema to commercial success. The second category is the Erga Omnes effectiveness that deals with the effectiveness of the courts to the general populace or the majority. With the parties involved in commercial disputes adhering to the judgments, this effectiveness will also be achieved.
The third is the embeddedness effectiveness that evaluates whether through continued rulings, the courts are becoming less necessary as local judicial instruments are strengthened thereby. The proceedings in the envisaged court will be exponentially expensive for the parties involved both in legal fees and publicity. To avoid this, most corporations will amend their way of doing things. This will improve the general conduct of commerce, thus ensuring effectiveness. Finally, there is the effectiveness through development of the law since through the principle of stare decisis , courts also create and develop laws (Helfer, 2013). International civil and business laws are still being developed and are less political and controversial than criminal laws. Further, with the advent of globalization, there is an element of global congruency in the corporate world. On these premises, the envisaged court will be very effective in developing international laws to be followed by all including local courts.
The USA and the World Court of Human Rights
Until the 2008 global financial crisis, the statement that, when America sneezes the world catches the cold was a common joke. The practical lack of scruples in corporate America, coupled with extremely lax regulations occasioned a global financial crises (Augenstein & Kinley, 2015). Unfortunately, when first world nations are worried about falling stock market points and capitalization, the chain of events is also causing actual deaths and lack of primary needs in poorer nations. Therefore, it is extremely important for all major economies in the nations to be part of the envisaged courts. Indeed, without nations such as the USA, China, India and Germany being members of the court, its impact would be miniscule. It is for this reason that the USA should be an integral member of the envisaged court and also make it primary.
Conclusion
The upshot of the foregoing is that corporations have grown to an extent that they have gradually outgrown the control of local governments. Further, with growth has arisen a commonality in capitalist tendencies. With exponential powers, inability to be controlled and capitalist tendencies, there is an increased propensity to breach human rights. This situation has created a great need for a human rights court dealing purely with corporations. Further, with some of the largest corporations being headquartered in the USA, it is imperative for the US to be a member of this court. As clearly outlined above, there is an absolute likelihood that for commercial reasons, corporations will be more inclined to adhere to judgments of these courts than have governments. This will make the envisaged court immune to the failure that has visited other ICs.
References
Alter, K. J. (2013). The multiple roles of international courts and tribunals: Enforcement, dispute settlement, constitutional and administrative review. Faculty Working Papers. Paper 212
Augenstein, D., & Kinley, D. (2015). Beyond the 100 Acre Wood: In which international human rights law finds new ways to tame global corporate power. The International Journal of Human Rights , 19 (6), 828-848.
Helfer, L. R. (2013). The effectiveness of international adjudicators. In K. Alter, C. Romano & S. Yuval, Oxford Handbook of International Adjudication (464-482). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
