In its oral statement during the UN negotiations on a Treaty on Business and Human Rights, Treaty Alliance Germany, consisting of 27 civil society organisations welcomes the improvements achieved with the Revised Draft, especially that it places a special focus on improved access to justice and remedies for those affected by human rights violations or environmental destruction. It expresses its regrets that after four sessions of the working group, the EU still has not resolved the question of the mandate and is not engaging constructively in this process. This is particularly true since there is currently a strong momentum in the EU for human rights due diligence legislation. Therefore, it should be of particular interest to the EU and its member states to constructivelyncontribute to the historic chance to establish an international “level playing field” regarding mandatory human rights due diligence and to ensure the successful continuation of the treaty process. In this regard, Germany should not hide behind the EU and engage actively in the process.
October 16, 2019 | Treaty Alliance Germany
Oral Statement of the Treaty Alliance Germany during the 5th session of the UN working group on a Treaty on Business and Human Rights
Dear chairperson, I am speaking on behalf of the Treaty Alliance Germany, consisting of 27 civil society organisations. We welcome the improvements achieved with the Revised Draft, especially that it places a special focus on improved access to justice and remedies for those affected by human rights violations or environmental destruction, thereby strengthening the third pillar of the UNGPs. In our view, liability rules as foreseen in Article 6 of the draft are a key element of the future treaty. They ensure that companies invest in the prevention of harm and, in the case of damages already occurred, they allow for compensation claims by those affected.
However, to ensure the effectiveness of the liability regime, we have the following recommendations:
- as others have already mentioned the orientation on “contractual relationships” lags behind the understanding of responsibility used in the UNGPs
- The reversal of the burden of proof should not only be listed as a possibility in Art. 4, but should be enshrined Article 6, paragraph 6 on civil liability because those affected of business-related human rights abuses typically do not have insight into the internal company processes that led to the abuse and are not in a position to prove the breach of due diligence requirements in court.
- Criminal or administrative liability should not be limited to the list of particularly serious criminal offences such as war crimes, torture and forced labour proposed in paragraph 7. Even below this threshold, regulatory law must be parallel to individual civil law in order to adequately sanction disregard for human rights due diligence obligations by companies.
