[Vision2020] Alien Torts Claims Act: International
Corporate Accoutability
Jeff Harkins
jeffh at moscow.com
Sun Mar 26 08:59:24 PST 2006
Ted,
Thank you for your patience. I have had an
opportunity to get up to speed on this
issue. Here is what I have gleaned thus far .........
The problems of labor and human rights abuses you
address are an interesting and troubling one and
are issues that have persisted for some
time. Labor/human exploitation has been a tenet
of mankind for as long as humans have existed. I
share your concern about the problems. I also
recognize that the problem is very complex. At
one end of the exploitation scale is the simple
fact that an employer who hires personnel will
expect to obtain some reward for providing a job
(the billing rate for the services provided by
the employee will exceed the pay rate to the
employee). The theory is that the employer
accepts the risk that the business processes will
provide a risk/return reward. The employee is
provided an opportunity of reduced uncertainty
about future earnings. Market forces will
mitigate the labor exchange rates so that
comparable skills will earn competitive wages.
Of course, at the other end of the spectrum lie
the most hideous and extreme abuses of labor and
human rights. I am just as troubled about those
problems as you are (of course, that is a utility
theory issue - comparative personal preferences -
so we will have to trust that you and I see the
problem from some stand of equivalence).
Where we probably disagree is how to address
those problems. I am persuaded that the most
effective way of resolving most of the labor and
human rights abuses in the world is to
promote/establish/encourage democratic forms of
government. From basic democracies arise
"appropriate" standards of rights and the means
by which those rights will be vested and
enforced. I also recognize that it takes a great
deal of time for democratic systems to evolve and
mature to a stage where they will be effective in
addressing the rights abuses. The United States,
founded as a democratic republic, has been
addressing such problems for all of its brief
200+ years and still has not eliminated abuse in our society.
Thus when we inject our "concerns" about human
rights and human abuses onto the world stage,
there is an issue of hypocrisy that must be
managed/dealt with. In one sense, it becomes
"our view of the world versus their view". Our
challenge is really one of how best to bridge the divide.
You have focused a lot of your energy on the
abuse of multinational corporations,
e.g., WalMart, Google - and I recognize that
there are problems of abuse by many multinational
corporations. But I have visited most of the
references you have cited and I am encouraged
that a lot of sunshine is pouring on to these
issues. I am also encouraged that the world
community is vesting in a legal system that can
bridge geopolitical boundaries.
Given the enormous size of the problem (and the
corresponding cost of "fixing" the problem) I am
persuaded that a persistent and directed movement
toward democracy throughout the world is the only
viable long-term solution. I am also reinforced
in my view that our investments in educating
citizens from disenfranchised/intolerant
countries is the best long term strategy for
promoting a grass roots democratic movement in those countries.
Should we pursue legal actions against
multinational corporations when we can
demonstrate legal standing? Absolutely - if
such actions are warranted, they should be
pursued (I think we agree on this point).
But as we pursue strategies that interfere with
market actions (for example, boycotting or
military action or very stringent policies for
free world companies) we have to be careful that
the cure does not cost more than the disease.
China is now the number 1 trading partner for
Idaho - China is our number 1 customer. If we
are "too aggressive" in our policies toward
Chinese-made products, we can expect Chinese
importers to retaliate. It is clear to me that you understand this.
I don't think we are so far apart in our thinking.
Again, thank you for your patience. I will have
some specific comments about the "Internet
Corporation" issue in another post. I have been
in a dialogue with some computer science types on
this issue - the results of that dialogue have
been quite enlightening. Cyberspace is a very
interesting element to get ahold of.
t 10:35 PM 3/25/2006, you wrote:
>Jeff et. al.
>
>I apologize for the mistaken sending of the
>incomplete response that posted to the list
>today... It must be a wayward finger that caused this...
>I won't blame my software or computer.
>
>Jeff, I think the USA should keep trading with
>China, but take a more aggressive stance toward
>not allowing US based multinationals to be
>complicit in violating or tolerating labor,
>environmental or human rights abuses in foreign
>nations. I think it is a valid moral argument
>that consumers and citizens of the USA can and
>should insist that the products they are buying
>imported from other nations are not associated
>with labor, environmental or human rights
>abuses, whether the products come from US based
>multinationals or not. They can vote with their
>wallet, and also pressure our government to
>adopt more aggressive regulation of US based
>multinationals to avoid labor, environmental or
>human rights abuses being committed or tolerated in foreign nations.
>
>I thought it was rather clear from my previous
>responses that I support more firm regulation of
>US based multinationals, to ensure they are not
>complicit with violations of labor,
>environmental or human rights law when operating
>in foreign nations, and not just based on the
>laws of the nation they are operating in. And
>that those who raise these issues in regards to
>hesitation to heartily support Wal-Mart's
>expansion in the US, are raising significant and
>valid moral issues, along with the argument that
>corporations that gain significant competitive
>advantages over US based manufacturers by taking
>advantage of a lack of labor, environmental or
>human rights law, or enforcement of such law, in
>other nations, laws that US based manufacturers
>must follow, can have negative impacts on US
>workers and jobs, and our economy.
>
>It appears that our brief discussion on this
>issue was approached too "personally." So I
>will let other scholars, who know far more than
>I do, present some of the complex issues,
>arguments and solutions relating to these issues.
>
>I am sure Jeff has heard of the Alien Torts
>Claims Act? There is debate that in fact US
>based multinationals can be held liable within
>the US in US courts for human rights violations
>in foreign nations. Some think certain
>applications of law in this regard to be
>invalid, but the cases have been in court, nonetheless.
>
>Information at the links below relating to
>multinationals, and the legal and regulatory
>environment, both domestic and international,
>that addresses assuring they are not violating
>labor, environmental and human rights laws:
>
><http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=4131>http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=4131
>
>
>http://www.earthrights.org/files/Reports/inourcourt.pdf
>
>
><http://law.vanderbilt.edu/journal/37-01/pagnattaro.pdf>http://law.vanderbilt.edu/journal/37-01/pagnattaro.pdf
>
>-------------
>
>Ted Moffett
>
>
>_____________________________________________________
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> http://www.fsr.net
> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20060326/db64fd1d/attachment-0001.htm
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list