Multinational corporations in particular have been singled out as important figures, for better or worse, in the maintenance of human rights given their economic status and international dimension.
Reliance has instead been placed upon a number of soft law instruments the most important one of which is the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights.
Numerous cases such as Doe v. Unocal Corp. alleging gross human rights violations carried out by multinationals or their associates in countries such as Burma (Myanmar) exist.
[6] Those who argue against the imposition of international law upon multinationals contend that to do so would mean conveying rights which would inevitably enhance the influence and power they hold.
[7] Recent developments have seen the articulation of the human rights obligations of corporations but no enforceable regulatory mechanism exists at the international level.
The OECD, European Commission, and the United Nations Global Compact have all endorsed the Principles as providing clarity and a point of reference for future developments.
“They provide non-binding principles and standards for responsible business conduct in a global context consistent with applicable laws and internationally recognised standards.”[14] Section IV of the updated 2011 version of the Guidelines deals directly with human rights and reiterates much of the content present in the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights.
Amnesty International in its Briefing for the UK National Contact Point advised on the potential repercussions of a Final Statement for companies found to be non-compliant.
[20] Whilst codes promote accountability, critics have argued that given their voluntary nature, and generally speaking lack of enforcement mechanisms, they are of limited value.
In Europe jurisdiction is granted to hear civil claims against via Resolution 44/2001 of the European Council but this requires that the corporation in question be domiciled in a Member State.
[25] However, the application of the statute to claims made against multinational corporations for human rights violations occurring abroad remains uncertain.
[26] The recent decision of the Supreme Court in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co. ruled that there is a presumption against the extraterritorial application of the Alien Tort Statue.