Pub Date : 2020-08-05DOI: 10.1163/9789004441651_043
{"title":"My Last Bow","authors":"","doi":"10.1163/9789004441651_043","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004441651_043","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":365393,"journal":{"name":"Critical Storytelling from behind Invisible Bars","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-08-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131365701","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-08-05DOI: 10.1163/9789004441651_008
{"title":"The Great Wall of Insanity","authors":"","doi":"10.1163/9789004441651_008","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004441651_008","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":365393,"journal":{"name":"Critical Storytelling from behind Invisible Bars","volume":"135 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-08-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"114926348","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-06-01DOI: 10.1515/9781400824441-014
Elizabeth Weed, Naomi Schor, Mary Anne Doane
The Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) is emerging from a devastating five-year war that is estimated to have cost the lives of more than three million people. Multinational corporations have been accused of helping to perpetuate the war and of profiteering from it. In a series of reports documenting the links between business, resource exploitation and conflict in the DRC, a UN Panel of Experts listed companies considered to be in violation of international business norms such as the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises. The UN reports raised the expectation that governments would hold to account those companies that were responsible for misconduct in the DRC. To date, there have been few signs of a response. The furore created by the Panel’s reports has heightened the need to distinguish between culpable multinational enterprises and those who acted responsibly in the DRC. Yet the Panel’s final report failed to establish this distinction with rigour and clarity. Many unanswered questions remain about the allegations against companies. This raises concerns about how corporations should conduct business in zones of conflict and whether their behaviour ought to be regulated. This report by Rights and Accountability in Development (RAID) examines the role of companies in the DRC conflict, their reactions to being listed by the UN Panel and the publicly unanswered questions that remain about their conduct. It frames the questions in relation to the OECD Guidelines. Governments adhering to the Guidelines have a responsibility to ensure that they are applied. It is in nobody’s interest — neither that of responsible companies, nor that of the people of the DRC — to leave these questions unresolved. This report should act as a catalyst for action by governments. An electronic version of RAID’s full report has been submitted to the UN Security Council, the Committee established under Security Council resolution 1533 (2004) to monitor an arms embargo in eastern DRC, OECD Governments, the OECD’s Committee on International Investment and Multinational Enterprises (CIME) and the International Criminal Court. Companies are urged to use the good offices of the NCPs to both provide and obtain further information.
{"title":"Unanswered Questions","authors":"Elizabeth Weed, Naomi Schor, Mary Anne Doane","doi":"10.1515/9781400824441-014","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400824441-014","url":null,"abstract":"The Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) is emerging from a devastating five-year war that is estimated to have cost the lives of more than three million people. Multinational corporations have been accused of helping to perpetuate the war and of profiteering from it. In a series of reports documenting the links between business, resource exploitation and conflict in the DRC, a UN Panel of Experts listed companies considered to be in violation of international business norms such as the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises. The UN reports raised the expectation that governments would hold to account those companies that were responsible for misconduct in the DRC. To date, there have been few signs of a response. The furore created by the Panel’s reports has heightened the need to distinguish between culpable multinational enterprises and those who acted responsibly in the DRC. Yet the Panel’s final report failed to establish this distinction with rigour and clarity. Many unanswered questions remain about the allegations against companies. This raises concerns about how corporations should conduct business in zones of conflict and whether their behaviour ought to be regulated. This report by Rights and Accountability in Development (RAID) examines the role of companies in the DRC conflict, their reactions to being listed by the UN Panel and the publicly unanswered questions that remain about their conduct. It frames the questions in relation to the OECD Guidelines. Governments adhering to the Guidelines have a responsibility to ensure that they are applied. It is in nobody’s interest — neither that of responsible companies, nor that of the people of the DRC — to leave these questions unresolved. This report should act as a catalyst for action by governments. An electronic version of RAID’s full report has been submitted to the UN Security Council, the Committee established under Security Council resolution 1533 (2004) to monitor an arms embargo in eastern DRC, OECD Governments, the OECD’s Committee on International Investment and Multinational Enterprises (CIME) and the International Criminal Court. Companies are urged to use the good offices of the NCPs to both provide and obtain further information.","PeriodicalId":365393,"journal":{"name":"Critical Storytelling from behind Invisible Bars","volume":"5 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127283154","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：