Campaigns

U.S., European Economic Policy on Myanmar Pulled Between Two Extremes

June 12, 2013
Related Projects: 
Burma Project

How can the world's major economies support political reform and take advantage of business opportunities in Myanmar, without exacerbating human rights abuses and fueling ethnic conflict? In a number of recent and upcoming decision points, the U.S. and European Union have the opportunity to address this question cautiously and strike an appropriate balance.

Program Area: 
Campaigns

U.S. "Approach on Business and Human Rights" Neglects Remedies for Victims

Posted May 03, 2013 by Jonathan Kaufman

I have to admit I'm confused and disappointed by the "U.S. Government Approach on Business and Human Rights," which was published recently.  The Government's scattershot "approach" appears to consist of a random collection of public-private partnerships, generally informative and aspirational guides, and legislative initiatives, most of which are years -- if not decades -- old.  Most glaring of all, despite enthusiastic references to the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, the document completely ignores the need for victims to have access to justice and glosses over the administration's troubling record on remedies.

To be clear, it's not that the U.S. Government hasn't done anything on business and human rights -- undeniably, it has.  Congress has passed laws requiring transparency in the payments extractive companies make to governments and the due diligence companies undertake when sourcing metals from conflict-affected areas of Eastern Congo, and strengthening anti-human trafficking protections in government procurement.  Under President Obama, the U.S. has developed human rights reporting requirements for companies investing in Burma, pledged to implement the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative, and put money and manpower into the Voluntary Principles on Security and Human Rights.

It's just that it galls me to see the government patting itself on the back for this smorgasbord of mostly voluntary initiatives at a time when it has actively worked to undermine access to justice for victims of human rights abuses connected to both U.S. and foreign companies.  Why doesn't this document mention the U.S. brief in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum, in which it argued (successfully, as it turned out) to narrow the ability of U.S. federal courts to hear the claims of victims of human rights abuses abroad?  How can the U.S. trumpet the National Contact Point for the OECD Guidelines for Multinational . . .

Civil society reports & statements on the Shwe and Myanmar-China oil and gas projects

Reports by EarthRights International

Related Projects: 
Shwe Gas Campaign
Program Area: 
Campaigns

Human Rights Reporting Requirements for Burma Near End of Approval Process

March 27, 2013
Related Projects: 
Burma Project

What can the U.S. government do to prevent its decision to allow an influx of U.S. investment into Myanmar from provoking human rights abuses and exacerbating ethnic conflict?  Prodded by civil society groups from both the U.S. and Myanmar, the administration has unveiled a plan: require investors to publicly report on a wide range of policies and procedures that touch on core human rights and environmental concerns.  The approval process for that plan, which has taken nearly a year and in which ERI has participated extensively, appears to be finally coming to a close.

Documents: 
Burma-Reporting-Requirements-Joint-NGO-Submission-March-25-2013.pdf
EarthRights-International-PRA-Review-Reporting-Requirements-on-Responsible-Investment-in-Burma-10.4.12.pdf
Joint-Comment-Re-Reporting-Requirements-on-Responsible-Investment-in-Burma.pdf
Program Area: 
Campaigns

Cambodian villagers ask for US mediation of human rights & land confiscation dispute

October 31, 2012

In 2006, farmland crucial to the economic survival of three villages in Cambodia was illegally confiscated and converted to a sugar plantation and processing factory.  Community members have since gone to great lengths to get their land back from the well-connected Cambodian companies that occupied it.  But they haven’t stopped there.  Instead, they have begun a worldwide quest to hold all the beneficiaries of their suffering to international human rights and corporate responsibility standards, from the plantation owners to the processors to the purchasers.  Today, with the assista

Program Area: 
Campaigns

Kiobel v. Shell, viewed from the Supreme Court steps

Posted October 12, 2012 by Guest

Last week, as the Kiobel case was being argued inside the Supreme Court, and many of ERI’s attorneys were sitting inside listening to oral arguments, I stood outside holding a sign that read, “Corporate Torture is Still Torture.”

As a law student, I would have loved to be sitting in that court room, listening to the caustic banter between Shell’s attorney, Kathleen Sullivan, and the nine Justices. But as an activist, I was so proud to be standing outside, with ERI and other activists, rallying for something in which I so strongly believe: that U.S. courts should provide a forum to everyone, no matter their national origin, to pursue justice for the most heinous of international human rights violations, including torture, murder, and rape.

Nonetheless, as I helped with the vigil ERI had organized, I waited impatiently for the attorneys to emerge. As I handed out brightly colored signs with #ShameOnShell emblazoned across them, I could not stop thinking about what was happening inside. I was so anxious.

Human rights advocates rally outside the Supreme Court on Oct 1, 2012Human rights advocates rally outside the Supreme Court on Oct 1, 2012

Although I only began interning at ERI a month ago, I have long been following their work. In fact, ERI and others’ groundbreaking work with the Alien Tort Statute was one of the primary reasons I decided to go to law school. Rallying outside the Court, I was acutely aware of the tireless labor by ERI and others, over three decades of ATS human rights cases, and I struggled with the thought of all of that being taken away. I knew that a . . .

U.S. State Department Must Hold U.S. Companies in Burma to International Standards

October 10, 2012
Related Projects: 
Burma Project
Transparency

New investors in Burma should be required to publicly report on their human rights and environmental impacts, land acquisitions, security arrangements, and government payments – as well as those of their subsidiaries and business partners – based on internationally accepted standards and best practices, according to a comment ERI submitted to the State Department last week. 

Documents: 
ERI-PRA-Review-Reporting-Requirements-on-Responsible-Investment-in-Burma-10.4.12.pdf
Joint-Comment-Re-Reporting-Requirements-on-Responsible-Investment-in-Burma.pdf
Program Area: 
Campaigns

Dear Shell: Happy Talk Like a Pirate Day!

Posted September 19, 2012 by Mike Uehlein

We've shared a lot of posts lately about Kiobel v. Shell, including several about the perverse moral gymnastics Shell has employed in their defense. When Shell filed a brief in the case, we called out how it misstated the law and demeaned human rights victims, particularly survivors of Apartheid in South Africa. Later, one of our interns noticed a passage in Shell's brief that, frankly, sounded like childish selfishness rather than a legal argument. And last week we shared two posts about Shell's misrepresentation of the position of Professor John Ruggie, a prominent human rights expert and the former U.N. Special Representative on Business & Human Rights. 

We could blog about these issues forever (and we might!), but it will be hard to write anything that cuts to the heart of the matter quite as effectively as the 97 second video below. We posted it today, International Talk Like a Pirate Day, to call attention to Shell's twisted pirate morals.

If you love this video as much as we do, please share it on Facebook and on Twitter. Here's a suggested tweet:

This is how Shell Oil celebrates Talk-Like-A-Pirate Day http://t.co/pxQAjPlR #TLAPD #HumanRights #ShameOnShell

If you want to share it on Facebook, go to our post and share directly from there to make sure we have the largest combined impact.

Several of my colleagues were in the court room last winter, when the words in the video were recorded. They tell me that, when Justice Breyer asked about "Pirates Incorporated," the whole room started laughing. But Shell's lawyer didn't bat an eye. She just kept defending corporate power at all costs, no matter how absurd the argument. Shell will stop at nothing to avoid taking responsibility . . .

SEC adopts rules ending secret oil payments

Posted August 23, 2012 by Rick Herz

The SEC adopted rules yesterday that require oil, gas and mining companies to disclose the payments they make to foreign governments. These rules implement Section 1504 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, which mandates such disclosures.

For too long, oil companies have made payments to foreign governments in secret. This has made it easy for foreign officials to misuse or outright steal their people’s money, and exceedingly difficult for NGOs, journalists and civil society to track government revenues and root out fraud, waste and corruption. In short, secrecy is a major contributor to the resource curse, which is the paradox that many resource-rich countries that should be well-off actually experience lower growth and far greater poverty than resource-poor countries. Section 1504 is designed to combat the resource curse, as well as to protect investors by ensuring that they have sufficient information to assess political risk.

Industry lobbyists had asked the SEC to create a series of exemptions and other loop holes that were at odds with Congress’ intent to create a real reporting requirement. Those efforts are described in Maia’s post from last week. While we are still in the process of reviewing the full 232 pages of rule text released late yesterday afternoon, based on the description of the rules offered by SEC staffers at yesterday's hearing and a preliminary reading, the SEC at least appears to have rejected most of the extractive industry's attempts to gut the statute. If so, that would be a big victory for those who have long labored to end secret payments and the resource curse, and for millions of people in resource rich nations.

We also note that the fact that the SEC adopted any rules at all is itself a victory for ERI and our client . . .

Subscribe to Campaigns