Silk Road Report - justice4iran.org...Silk Road Report: October 2016 9 corporations and other...

UnitedNationsandBusiness&HumanRightsOctober2016

SilkRoadReport

JusticeForIranSilkRoadReport:October2016

1

SilkRoadReport

UnitedNationsandBusiness&HumanRights

JusticeforIran

October2016

Email:[email protected]

Website:www.justiceforiran.org

Copyright©JusticeforIran2016

Reproductionofanyorallpartsofthisdocumentispermissibleonlywithpropercitation.


2

TableofContents

ABOUTTHESILKROADPROJECT........................................................................................3

ABOUTTHEREPORT...........................................................................................................4

PARTONE-INSTRUMENTSANDMECHANISMSOFTHEUN.................................................5

I. UNGUIDINGPRINCIPLES.............................................................................................5

A) RESPONSIBILITYOFBUSINESSENTERPRISES............................................................................6

B) RESPONDINGTOHUMANRIGHTSIMPACTS............................................................................8

II. UNWORKINGGROUPONBUSINESSANDHUMANRIGHTS.........................................8

PARTTWO-CONCEPTUALANALYSIS................................................................................10

I. COMPLICITY..............................................................................................................10

II. DUEDILIGENCE........................................................................................................15


3

AboutTheSilkRoadProjectTheSilkRoadwasanancientnetworkoftraderoutesthatforcenturieswerecentral

to cultural interaction through regions of the Asian continent connecting the East

andWest, fromChina to theMediterranean Sea. Tradeon the Silk Roadplayed a

significant role in the development of the civilizations of China, the Subcontinent,

Persia, Europe, the Horn of Africa and Arabia, opening long-distance political and

economicrelationsbetweenthedifferentcivilizations.

The Silk Roadproject aims to promote accountability andprotect human rights in

thecontextofIran’srapidreturntotheworldmarketsafterthe2015NuclearDeal.1

ThroughpublishingreportsonbusinessandhumanrightsinIran,thisprojectintends

to increase awareness among advocates of human rights, particularly lawyers and

civil societyactivists,andaccountability inbusinessandcorporaterelations. Italso

aimstoholdaccountablecorporateswhichareinvolvedorcomplicitinhumanright

violations,usinglegalandotheravailablemechanisms.

1TheJointComprehensivePlanofAction(JCPOA)knowncommonlyasthe Irandealor Irannucleardeal, isaninternationalagreementon thenuclearprogramof Iran reached inViennaon14 July2015between Iran, theP5+1 (the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council—China, France, Russia, UnitedKingdom,UnitedStates—plusGermany),andtheEuropeanUnion.Undertheagreement,IranwillreceiverelieffromU.S.,EuropeanUnion,andUnitedNationsSecurityCouncilnuclear-relatedeconomicsanctions.


4

AbouttheReportThisisourfirstreportfromtheSilkRoadReportserieswhichaimtoshedlightonthe

underlyingconceptsandinstrumentsaswellasmechanismsthatcanbeappliedto

specific cases of recent contracts and agreements between multinational

corporationsandIraniancompanies,someofwhicharecloselylinkedtoorpartially

owned by human rights violators. In this report, we will briefly explore the

instruments and mechanisms of the United Nations in the field of business and

humanrights. Inparticular,wewill focusontheUNGuidingPrinciplesonBusiness

andHumanRightsandexplain theprinciples reflected therein suchas theduty to

protectandcorporateresponsibility,placinggreateremphasisoncomplicityanddue

diligence.


5

PARTONE-InstrumentsandMechanismsoftheUN

I. UNGuidingPrinciplesTheUNGuidingPrinciplesadoptedin2011setoutthegeneralregulatoryandpolicy

measures a state may take in order to fulfil their duty to protect against human

rights violations by third parties, including business enterprises. The Guiding

Principlescanbeconsideredalegalinstrumentofsoftlawthatprovideguidanceto

States on measures to be taken with respect to the three pillars of the United

NationsFramework“Protect,Respect,Remedy”:

1. Thedutyofthestatetoprotecthumanrights

2. Theresponsibilityofbusinessestorespecthumanrights

3. The need for rights and obligations to bematched to appropriate and

effectiveremedieswhenbreached.

The UNGPs, although not legally binding, are an authoritative global standard on

businessandhumanrights.Theydonotconstituteaninternationalinstrumentthat

can be ratified by States, nor do they create new legal obligations. Instead, they

clarify and elaborate on the implications of relevant provisions of existing

internationalhumanrightsstandardsandprovideguidanceonhowtoputtheminto

practice.TheGuidingPrinciplesrefertoandderivefromStates’existingobligations

under international law.National legislationwill oftenexistormaybe required to

ensurethattheseobligationsareeffectivelyimplementedandenforced.This,inturn,

means that elements of the Guiding Principles may be reflected in domestic law

regulatingbusinessactivities.

Itmustalsobenoted that theUNGPsareoften referred toas soft law.Thereare

however thosewhobelieve that theyare ‘hard’ soft laws.That is,despite the fact

thattheUNGPsarevoluntary,therearemechanismsavailableandmeasurestaken


6

thatgivethemaquasi-regulatorystatus.

Many also believe that it is desirable and even inevitable to move away from

voluntary initiatives and into the domain of regulation, including mandatory due

diligence, in order to better protect people on the ground and to ensure

enforceability.The international treaty process is part ofthe emerging regulatory

dynamic.However, thisprocess is yet tobecomemoreconcreteandnarrow in its

scopeifitistoeffectivelytakeshape.

a) ResponsibilityofBusinessEnterprises

AccordingtoPrinciple13oftheUNGPs,

‘Theresponsibilitytorespecthumanrightsrequiresthatbusinessenterprises:

(a)Avoidcausing orcontributing toadversehuman rights impacts through

theirownactivities,andaddresssuchimpactswhentheyoccur;

(b)Seektopreventormitigateadversehumanrightsimpactsthataredirectly

linked to their operations, products or services by their business

relationships,eveniftheyhavenotcontributedtothoseimpacts.’

Therefore,abusinessmaycause,contribute,orbedirectlylinkedtoahumanrights

impact:2

Causation Contribution Linkage

Businessactionsleaddirectlytoanimpact;e.g.,

• Afactoryexposes

Abusinessincentivises,facilitates,orenablesthirdpartyimpact;e.g.,

Abusiness’operations,productsorservicesaredirectlylinkedtoanimpact

2Foradetaileddiscussiononadverseimpactsofbusinessesonhumanrightssee:INEF,‘AssessingBusiness-RelatedImpactsonHumanRights.IndicatorsandBenchmarksinStandardsandPractice,INEF-Report110’,2016;availableat:http://inef.uni-due.de/cms/index.php?article_id=4&clang=1&pub=1735


7

workerstohazardouschemicalswithoutadequatepersonalprotectiveequipment

• Acompanymanufacturesandsellsinherentlydangerousproductsthatarelikelytocausedeathorseriouspersonalinjury,withoutprovidingadequatewarningtousersabouttherisksorappropriateinstructionsonhowtousethem

• Arestaurantpracticesroutinediscriminationinitstreatmentofcustomers

• Afactory’swastewaterdischargeisthesoleormainsourceofpollutionofacommunity’sdrinkingwater

• Aninternetcompanyprovidesdataaboutusersofitsservicestoarepressivegovernmentthatenablesthegovernmenttotrackandharasspoliticaldissidents,contrarytointernationalhumanrightsstandards

• Anelectronicsretailbrandchangesproductrequirementsforsuppliersrepeatedlyandatthelastminute,withoutadjustingproductiondeadlinesorprices,pushessupplierstobreachlabourstandardstoensurethattheorderisdelivered

• Afoodcompanydeliberatelytargetinghigh-sugarfoodanddrinkatchildren,withanimpactonlevelsofchildobesity

• Onefactory’swastewaterdischarges,incombinationwiththedischargesofothercompanies,cumulativelypollutethedrinkingwaterinacommunity

eventhoughthebusinessdidnotcauseorcontributetothatimpact;e.g.,

• Humanrightsimpactsoccurdeepinacompany’ssupplychain,notwithstandingthebusiness’robusteffortstopreventthem

• Theuseofportableultrasoundmachinesbydoctorstoscreenforfemalefoetuses,facilitatingtheirabortioninfavourofmalechildren,notwithstandingprohibitionsbythemanufactureronsuchuse

• Abankprovidingfinancialloanstoanenterpriseforbusinessactivitiesthat,inbreachofagreedstandards,resultintheevictionofcommunities

• Abusinessentersintoajointventurewithanothercompanythatuseslabourforthejointventurethatistaintedwithhumantrafficking,despiteitsagreementandcommitmentnottodoso


8

b) RespondingtoHumanRightsImpacts

Howshouldabusinessrespondtoanimpact?Theproperresponsedependsonthemodeofinvolvement;i.e.whetherthebusinesscaused,contributedto,orismerelylinkedtotheadversehumanrightsimpact,assetforthbelow:

Ifthebusiness... Thenthebusinessshould...

Causedtheharm• Ceasetheactioncausingharm

• Remediatetheharm

Contributedtotheharm

• Ceasetheactioncontributingtotheharm

• Useorbuildleveragetomitigatetheriskoffutureharm

• Contributetoremediationoftheharm

Is merely linked to theharm

• TheUNGPsdoNOTexpectbusinesses to contribute tothe remedywhen they aremerely linked to the harm(althoughtheymaydosoforotherreasons).

• Use or build leverage to seek to mitigate the risk offutureharm

II. UNWorkingGrouponbusinessandhumanrightsIn June 2011 (in resolution A/HRC/17/4), the Human Rights Council decided to

establish a Working Group on the issue of human rights and transnational


9

corporationsandotherbusinessenterprises,consistingoffiveindependentexperts

ofbalancedgeographicalrepresentation,foraperiodofthreeyears.3

Within the frameworkof itsmandate, theWorkingGroup receives informationon

alleged human rights abuses from all relevant sources and, where deemed

appropriate,intervenesdirectlywithStates,businessenterprisesandothersonsuch

allegations.

Suchinterventioncanrelatetoahumanrightsabusewhichhasalreadyoccurred,is

ongoing,orwhichhasahighriskofoccurring.Theprocessinvolvessendingaletter

totheconcernedStatesandbusinessenterprisestodrawtheirattentiontothefacts

of the allegationsmade and the applicable international human rights norms and

standards, in particular the core concepts, obligations, responsibilities and

expectationssetoutintheGuidingPrinciples.

Communications sent and replies received remain confidential until they are

published in joint communication reports submittedateach regular sessionof the

Human Rights Council (in March, June and September). In certain situations,

includingthoseofgraveconcern,theWorkingGroupmayissueapublicstatement

earlier.

In its mode of inquiry, the Working Group encourages States to request from

companies information on human rights due diligence and stresses the need to

ensureaccesstoeffectiveremedy.Dependingonthefactsoftheallegationsmade,

theWorkingGroupmayaddressitselfbothtohomeandhostStatesofthecompany

allegedlyinvolvedinahumanrightsabuse.Whererelevant,theWorkingGroupwill

carryoutsuchcommunicationsjointlyalongwithotherspecialproceduremandates

oftheHumanRightsCouncil.

3http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Business/Pages/WGHRandtransnationalcorporationsandotherbusiness.aspx


10

The Human Rights Council, in its resolution 26/22, encouraged States and private

businesses to cooperate fully with the Working Group including responding to

communicationstransmitted.

PARTTWO-CONCEPTUALANALYSISTwo important concepts embedded in the UN instruments that are important to

examine separately here are ‘complicity’ and ‘due diligence’. These two concepts

mayarisewhenthebusiness’responsibilitytoavoidcausingharmandcontributing

toharmscausedbythirdpartiesareconsidered.

I. Complicity

Questionsof complicitymayarisewhenabusinessenterprise contributes to,or is

seen as contributing to, adverse human rights impacts caused by other parties. It

mustbenotedthatcomplicityhasbeenusedindifferentcontextswhichhasgivenit

differentmeanings. In itsbroadermeaning,businessenterprisesmaybeperceived

asbeing‘complicit’intheactsofanotherpartywhere,forexample,theyareseento

benefitfromanabusecommittedbythatparty.Inthenarrowermeaning,asusedin

criminal law,mostnational jurisdictionsprohibit complicity in thecommissionofa

crime,andanumberallowforcriminalliabilityofbusinessenterprisesinsuchcases.4

Infact,justastheconceptofimpunityinthesphereofhumanrightsisnotconfined

to the strict historical definition, in the context of business andhuman rights, the

concept of complicity is now used in amuchmore complex fashion. As such, the

4Somesources,therefore,referto‘involvement’inhumanrightsviolationsinordertoavoidconfusionwiththehighlyrestrictiveconceptof‘complicity’incriminallaw,i.e.‘aidingandabetting’.


11

phrase “business complicity in human rights abuses” is used to describe what is

viewedasundesirablebusinessinvolvementinsuchabuses.5

The2005ReportoftheUNHCHRstatesthatacompanyiscomplicitinhumanrights

abuses if “it authorizes, tolerates or knowingly ignores human rights abuses

committed by an entity associated with it, or if the company knowingly provides

practical assistance or encouragement that has a substantial effect on the

perpetrationofhumanrightsabuses.”6

Various NCP7decisions have confirmed that companies can, through their own

actions or omissions, be complicit in or profit from violations of human rights by

states and other actors in human rights abuses.8However, there continues to be

considerable theoretical confusion and uncertainty about the boundaries of this

concept. In particular, it is unclear when legal liability, both civil (domestic

jurisdictions) and criminal (both international and domestic), could arise for such

complicity.

Whiletheexactrequiredlinkbetweeneffectivebusinessactorsanddirectactorsof

humanrights infringements ismainlysubjecttotheapplicable legalscheme,anICJ

ExpertLegalPanelhasadoptedathree-prongapproachtoidentifythe“zoneoflegal

risk”:

1. Causation/Contribution: Did the company’s conduct enable, exacerbate or

facilitatethegrosshumanrightsabuses?

5InternationalCommissionofJuristsExpertLegalPanel,“CorporateComplicityandLegalAccountability”(September2008),vol.1,p.3:http://icj.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/200/07/Corporate-complicity-legal-accountability-vol1-publication-2009-eng.pdf6ReportoftheUnitedNationsHighCommissioneronHumanRightsontheResponsibilitiesofTransnationalCorporationsandRelatedBusinessEnterpriseswithRegardtoHumanRights,UNDocE/CN.4/2005/91(2005),para.33.7NationalContactPoints.8http://www.oecdwatch.org/cases/Case_81;StatementbytheNorwegianNationalContactPoint(29November2005):http://www.oecd.org/daf/inv/mne/37439881.pdf,pp.68-69.


12

Enabling entails that without the company’s conduct the abuses would have not

taken place (ex: providing security services to state or private security personnel

used to identify and arrest community protestors). Exacerbating means that the

company’sconductmakestheabusesandharm-causingexacerbatedoraggravated

(ex: by providing earth moving equipment used to demolish houses). Facilitating

occurswhenthecompany’sconductchangedthewayinwhichabuseswerecarried

outand/orthenatureandextentoftheharmsufferedbythevictims,dependingon

the jurisdiction (ex: selling sophisticated surveillance software to government

authorities used to target dissidents or minority groups). In either of these cases

there isasufficientlyclose link in lawbetweenthecompany’sconductandhuman

rightsabuses.

Examples:providingadviceorsupportthatencouragestheprincipalperpetratorto

committheact;purchasing,hiringorprovidinggoodsorservicessuchasweapons,

tools, financing, fuel, computer systems, vehicles or transportation, security or

infrastructure; entering into any form of business agreement through which the

company makes a deal in which it is foreseen that in fulfilling its side of the

agreement,thebusinesspartnerwillcommitactsthatamounttogrosshumanrights

abuses; or yet an omission – failure to act – such as deciding not to refuse

governmentimposedforcedlabour.

Morecomplexsituationsarisewherethecontributionmadebythecompanyisnot

necessarilyuseddirectlybytheperpetrator,butneverthelessitbuildsupthegeneral

capacityoftheperpetrator–intheformofmuch-neededrevenue(paymentoftaxes

orotherdues),products,andinfrastructuresuchasroads,railways,communication

systemsorpowerstations.

Underexistingcriminalorcivillegalprinciples,meresilentpresenceinthecountryor

areas where gross human rights abuses are being committed, would usually not

amount to involvement in the human rights abuses committed in the country or


13

region. However, in some situations, presence and silence are not neutral in law.

Although as yet untested in court, an argument could bemade that under some

special circumstances, a companyor its individualofficials exercise such influence,

weightandauthorityovertheprincipalperpetratorsthattheirsilentpresencewould

be taken by the principal to communicate approval andmoral encouragement to

commit the gross human rights abuses. This should be considered in light of the

commonfactthatthecompanybenefitscommerciallyfromabusinessrelationship

withthosewhocommitgrosshumanrightsabuses. Insuchasituation,thegreater

the political and economic influence wielded by the company, the more likely

complicitycouldbeestablished.

2. Knowledge&Foreseeability:Didthecompanyhavethenecessary“stateof

mind”? Did the company know, or should it have known, that its conduct

would be likely to contribute to the gross human rights abuses, or was it

wilfullyblindtothatrisk?

The fact thata companyneitherwishednordesired to contribute togrosshuman

rightsabusesisirrelevanttothequestionofwhether,inadoptingaparticularcourse

ofconduct,itbecamecomplicitinthoseabusesandsubsequentlyenteredazoneof

legal risk. In both criminal and civil law, legal responsibility can arise where a

company actively sought to contribute to gross human rights abuses, or simply

whereitknewthatitscourseofconductwaslikelytocontributetosuchabusesand,

eventhoughitmaynothavewantedtheabusestooccur,undertookthecourseof

conduct anyway. Under the law of civil remedies, liability can arise evenwhere a

companyhasnoknowledgeastotheriskofharm,becausethelawmayholdthatit

shouldhaveknownastheriskwasreasonablyforeseeable.

Where evidence of knowledge and foreseeability is concerned, the internal

deliberations and knowledge of company officials (inquiries undertaken by the

company or required, or information brought to its attention), as well as the


14

surrounding objective circumstances (publicly available information, unusual or

suspiciouscircumstances,durationofthecompany’spresenceintheregion,etc.)are

bothrelevant indeterminingwhetheracompanykneworshouldhaveknownthat

grosshumanrightsabuseswouldresultfromitsactions.

Obligations of due diligence fact-finding and assessments are of particular

importanceinthissense.Underthelawofcivilremedies,areasonableandprudent

company’s level of knowledge would be based on due diligence, including risk

assessment,andwillincludetheinformationsuchstepswouldhavebroughttolight

initsassessmentofwhatacompanyshouldhaveknown.

3. Proximity:Wasthecompanycloseorproximate(geographically,orinterms

of the duration, frequency and/or intensity of interactions or business

transactions)totheprincipalperpetratorofthehumanrightsabusesorthe

victims?9

Thecloser–ormoreproximate–acompanyis,intimeandspaceandrelationship,

tothosewhocarryoutthehumanrightsabusesorthosewhosuffertheabuses,the

more likely it is that the company could be held legally responsible when it is

complicit.

Evidenceofproximityofacompanytotheprincipalperpetratorsand/orvictimsof

the harm caused is established based on various factors including geographical

proximity; economic dominance in the marketplace and political/business

relationships;the legalnatureofthebusinessrelationshipswiththirdparties(joint

venture, long-term strategic partnership, partner-subsidiary, in so far as the

relationshipentails“shareddecision-makingandclosecoordination”);andintensity,

9InternationalCommissionofJuristsExpertLegalPanel,“CorporateComplicityandLegalAccountability”(September2008),vol.1,pp.8-26


15

durationandtextureoftherelationshipbetweenthecompanyandperpetratorsor

victimsofhumanrightsabuses.

Aprudentcompanyshouldbeawarethatthecloseritistotheprincipalperpetrator

ofgrosshumanrightsabusesor thevictimsofabuses, themore likely it is to face

allegationsofcomplicity,andthecloseritwillbetoazoneof legalriskwhereinits

conductmay have enabled, exacerbated or facilitated the abuses. Furthermore, it

willbemorelikelythatthelawwillconsiderthatthecompanyknewoftheabuses,

orthatitshouldhaveknown.

Prof. John Ruggie has summarized these principles in the following terms: “What

constitutescomplicityinbothlegalandnon-legaltermsisnotuniform,norisitstatic.

Despite thismessy reality, theevidence todate lends itself to several conclusions.

Firstly,knowinglyprovidingasubstantialcontributiontohumanrightsabusescould

result in a company being held accountable in both legal and non-legal settings.

Secondly,beingseentobenefitfromabusemayattracttheattentionofsocialactors

even if it does not lead to legal liability. Thirdly, and similarly, mere presence in

contexts where abuses are taking place may attract attention from other social

actorsbut isunlikely,by itself, to lead to legal liability. In short,bothoperating in

contexts where abuses occur and the appearance of benefiting from such abuses

shouldserveasredflagsforcompaniestoensurethattheyexerciseduediligence,

adaptedforthespecificcontextoftheiroperations.”10

II. DueDiligenceDue diligence is a process through which enterprises actively identify, prevent,

10UNHumanRightsCouncil,Clarifyingtheconceptsof"sphereofinfluence"and"complicity":reportoftheSpecialRepresentativeoftheSecretary-GeneralontheIssueofHumanRightsandTransnationalCorporationsandOtherBusinessEnterprises,JohnRuggie,15May2008,A/HRC/8/16,availableat:http://www.refworld.org/docid/484d1fe12.html.


16

mitigate(diminish)andaccountforhowtheyaddressandmanagetheiractualand

potentialharmandadverse impacts.Companies shouldhaveongoingprocesses in

placethatwillbringexistingorpotentialcorporatemisconducttolight,addressand

changeirresponsiblebehaviourandremedythesituationwhenthingsgowrong.

Companiesmustnotonlyrespondtoongoingharmfulpractices,buttheymustalso

take preventative steps to avoid potential future adverse impacts. Additionally,

enterprisesshouldalsoavoidcontributingtonegativeimpactsandaddressrealand

potentialviolationsofinternationallyrecognisedstandardsintheirsupplychainand

throughouttheirbusinessrelationships.Duediligenceshouldbeanintegralpartof

thedecision-makingandriskmanagementsystemsoftheenterprise.Inotherwords,

it should go beyond simplymanaging risks to the enterprise itself to identify and

addressimpactsonindividuals,workers,communitiesandtheenvironment.

AccordingtoPrinciple17oftheUNGPs:

‘Inordertoidentify,prevent,mitigateandaccountforhowtheyaddresstheir

adversehumanrights impacts,businessenterprisesshouldcarryouthuman

rightsduediligence.Theprocessshouldincludeassessingactualandpotential

human rights impacts, integrating and acting upon the findings, tracking

responses,andcommunicatinghowimpactsareaddressed.Humanrightsdue

diligence:

(a) Should cover adverse human rights impacts that the business

enterprise may cause or contribute tothrough its own activities,or

whichmaybedirectlylinkedtoitsoperations,productsorservicesby

itsbusinessrelationships;

(b)Willvaryincomplexitywiththesizeofthebusinessenterprise,the

riskofseverehumanrightsimpacts,andthenatureandcontextofits

operations;


17

(c) Shouldbeongoing, recognizing that thehuman rights risksmay

change over time as the business enterprise’s operations and

operatingcontextevolve.

TheUNGPsaimtoestablishtheresponsibilityofallbusinessestoundertakehuman

rights due diligence in their entire supply chain, including subsidiaries, sub-

contractorsandsuppliers.UndertheUNGPs,itisnotsufficientforabusinesssimply

todeclarethatitrespectshumanrights,eitherbypromulgatingacommitmenttodo

so or agreeing to do so in a contractual undertaking. The business is instead

expectedtotakeactivestepstofollowthroughonthiscommitment.Humanrights

due diligence is therefore an ongoing process to enable businesses to ‘know and

show’thattheyareaddressingtheirhumanrightsimpactsthroughassessingimpacts,

taking integratedactioninresponseto identifiedimpacts,trackingandmonitoring,

andcommunicatingthecompany’seffortstoaddressitshumanrightsimpacts.Asa

result, theprocessenablesbusinesses toavoidbeing ‘namedandshamed’ fornot

knowingtheirhumanrightsimpactsandnottakingstepstoavoidormitigatethem.

Conductingappropriatehumanrightsduediligenceshouldhelpbusinessenterprises

address the risk of legal claims against them by showing that they took every

reasonablesteptoavoidinvolvementinanallegedhumanrightsabuse.Itis,infact,

commonpracticeinnationalandinternationalinstrumentstoincludeduediligence

asadefence(forexample,theECFoodLawRegulationandtheUKBriberyAct).Thus,

ifabusinessenterpriseprovesthattheyhadcarriedoutproperduediligence,then

they have a defence and may be exempt from legal sanctions. Such laws and

regulations may also make it mandatory for corporations to report on their due

diligence policies and practices along supply chains (for example, the EU Non-

Financial Reporting Directive and the UKModern Slavery Act). However, business

enterprisesconductingsuchduediligenceshouldnotassumethat,thisbyitself,will


18

automatically and fully absolve them from liability for causing or contributing to

humanrightsabuses.11

11UNHCR,"GuidingPrinciplesonBusinessandHumanRights:ImplementingtheUnitedNations‘Protect,RespectandRemedy’Framework",2011;availableat:www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/GuidingPrinciplesBusinessHR_EN.pdf


19

AboutTheSilkRoadProject

The Silk Roadwas an ancient network of trade routes thatwere for centuries

centraltoculturalinteractionthroughregionsoftheAsiancontinentconnecting

theEastandWest,fromChinatotheMediterraneanSea.TradeontheSilkRoad

played a significant role in the development of the civilizations of China, the

Subcontinent, Persia, Europe, the Horn of Africa and Arabia, opening long-

distancepoliticalandeconomicrelationsbetweenthecivilizations.

TheSilkRoadprojectaimstopromoteaccountabilityandprotecthuman

rights in thecontextof Iran’s rapid return to theworldmarketsafter the2015

NuclearDeal.1ThroughpublishingreportsonbusinessandhumanrightsinIran,

this project intends to increase awareness among advocates of human rights,

particularlylawyersandcivilsocietyactivists,andaccountabilityinbusinessand

corporate relations. It also aims to hold accountable corporates which are

involvedor complicit in human right violations, using legal andother available

mechanisms.

JusticeforIran

April2017

Email:[email protected]

Website:www.justiceforiran.org

Copyright©JusticeforIran2017

Silk Road Report - justice4iran.org...Silk Road Report: October 2016 9 corporations and other...

Documents

Transcript of Silk Road Report - justice4iran.org...Silk Road Report: October 2016 9 corporations and other...