First, the corporation may directly violate human rights by itself or in conjunction with another actor. This typically involves civil and political rights, such as the right to personal security. For example, “a corporation may hire state security forces to protect its facilities that engage in torture as occurred in Myanmar in association with Unocal Corp. ” Also, a corporation may directly violate rights by prohibiting collective bargaining or discriminating against minorities. The second category concerns indirect effects.
This involves the corporation’s influence on host governments. Corporations can undermine the state’s stability to fulfil human rights law. They use their influence to encourage governments to adopt policies of liberalization, deregulation and privatization that ignore human rights consequences. It is clear to say that, the policies and activities of TNCs directly give negative impacts to the state because of state policy usually based on the business demand rather than people demand therefore it leads to the poor democracy.
Then, it can threaten the state sovereignty and democracy. However, it should be noted that, there are some positive influences of the MNCs; therefore, it is necessary to manage and control MNCs conduct by establishing and adopting policies and initiatives in order to minimize effects of MNCs on human rights.Corporations have duties and obligations under international human rights law. They have begun to accept increased responsibility in conjunction with their increased role in international relations and human rights.
Voluntary initiatives, on the other hand, created by the private sector are likely agreed to exercise the self-regulation in order to make them more socially responsible. Thus, in order to manage globalisation, “there are two possibly ways that MNCs can be held accountable and socially responsible for their human rights and there are following, first, through legal liability and second, through non-legal means – Legal Liability Means As regards with the legal liability, there are two ways that MNCs can be held accountable which is either being directly or indirectly.
Indirectly, means government or state can control the activities of MNCs for the purpose of humanity. Therefore, it is necessary for the state to regulate the companies operating in order to protect the rights of people. As regards with the matter of national laws “There are two possible ways of monitoring national laws in which this indirect obligation must be enforced. First, by ensuring that rights protect in international treaty obligations are present in national law together with a functioning legal system to enforce them.
The second is by ensuring that the legal system is indeed functioning, i. e. that it does not contain loopholes which corporations can exploit to behave in a way which violates human rights. In addition, and bringing states to account on these responsibilities can force them to put pressure on companies. So, it is important to pressure both MNCs’ home states to ensure that they act responsibly in other countries, and the host states where MNEs operate to formulate and implement appropriate legislation regulating business activity in their jurisdiction and not to collude with MNCs.
As regards with international legal codes, it can establish coherent universal standards and can also provide a ‘level playing field’ for all businesses; something cannot be done by an array of codes of conduct. Finally, there is some evidence that business leaders prefer obligation and clarity instead of voluntarism and confusion. While the extant of international legal framework impose legal obligations to respect human rights mainly on states and intergovernmental organisations (IGOs), there is no logical reason that MNCs cannot bear human rights-related obligations.
This is because; the preamble of the UDHR is addressed not only to states but also to ‘every individual and every organ of society’. Therefore, it is not possible for non-sates actors including MNCs whose action have a strong impact on the enjoyment of human rights by the larger society, to absolve themselves from the duty to uphold international human rights standards. On the other hand, imposing regulations directly on MNCs offers greater possibilities for winning actual redress for victims of abuses by MNCs.
While approaches in the host country are usually fruitless, approaches can be made under either domestic or international law. ” – Non-legal Means As regards with the non-legal means or voluntary initiatives are also very important, in order to punish the companies that fail to protect the fundamental of human rights. However, these instruments are non-binding, and therefore create no legal duties to observe the standards contained therein. Furthermore, voluntary approaches to improving corporate conduct have taken place at both collective and individual levels.