Human Rights and American Oil Companies - Essay Example

Your of Human Rights and American Oil Companies This paper examines the link between human rights and multinational companies. It emphasizes on the responsibilities of Petroleum and Oil Exploration companies and their operations overseas. The research question that this paper explores is: What are the human rights requirements and expectations of petroleum companies as they operate in foreign countries and territories? The paper begins by examining the existing laws that protect human rights and the primary legal instrument in American Law that can cause American corporate entities to held to task for misconduct overseas. It also examines prominent cases under the Alien Tort Statute of 1789. The paper goes on to view some codes of best practice in relation to the operations of American multinationals and petroleum companies overseas in relation to human rights. The paper concludes with the writer's opinions and findings about the subject. Human Rights “Human rights create entitlements and are fundamentally different from rights established solely as state obligations that cannot be claimed by the beneficiaries” (Kalin & Kunzli 32). This implies that human rights refer to some inherent rights that people must be granted irrespective of their status and situation. In other words, human rights are not conditional. In includes the right that any human being must be granted in any situation or condition. Although beneficiaries of human rights are individuals, they are sometimes asserted by minorities in various collective forms (Kalin & Kunzli 32). In other words, people can come together a group to demand their human rights in a collective manner. This can be done through group actions like protests on the street or universal adult suffrage elections like a referendum or plebiscite to choose a given option. Human rights are constitutive and not regulative (Milne 103). This is in line with John Locke's view on natural right which requires people to be granted certain rights without having to work for it (Donelly 18). These rights are based on moral vision. This should generally include natural justice wich involves the right to life and the right to fair trial and justice on the part of all human beings. No one must decide whether to grant those rights or not. They are inherent and there are no conditions or exceptions that can be attached to such rules. In a nation, there are three main conceptions that ensure that human rights are entrenched and observed throughout the nation (Milne 104). First of all, human rights are guaranteed where there is the rule of law. In other words, human rights can be guaranteed if there is a constitution and the constitution guarantees some inherent and inalienable rights of people in a given society. Secondly, the supremacy of human rights laws must be guaranteed. And thirdly, there should be equality before the law in the interpretation of human rights law. Due to the supremacy and entrenched nature of human rights, all groups and units within a given nation must honor these laws. This therefore means that businesses in every nation, whether they are international or local, should honor human rights laws. Human rights laws are internationally guaranteed (Kalin & Kunzli 32). This therefore means that there is an international framework within which human rights can be discharged. Laws that Protect Humans Rights In every nation, the constitution and fundamental rights must ensure that basic human rights are protected. The Parliament of every nation must make laws that are sensitive to human rights (Campbell & Goldsworth 259). This therefore means that there should be an entrenched and established universal system that must respect and honor the basic rights of all citizens. The parliament or law making body of every nation should be sensitive to fundamental human rights in the making of laws. Also, in interpreting the law in relation to specific cases, the Judiciary must guarantee the human rights of individuals. Where this is in doubt, Judicial Reviews of specific laws can be conducted to ensure that human rights are honored (Campbell & Goldsworth 259). The former president of the American Bar Association stated that human rights in America is entrenched in the American Bill of Rights as 'Inalienable Rights' (Shestack 8). He goes on to argue that America entered the two World Wars to ensure that human rights are respected and observed around the world. The UN Charter and Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948 gives an international framework within which nations around the world can entrench and respect human rights (Joyce 222). Governments, intergovernmental organizations and legal bodies have a duty to ensure that human rights that are entrenched in legal bodies are honored and respected in the domestic jurisdiction (Shaw 253). This means that there must be close monitoring and efforts made by various stakeholders to ensure that significant effort is made to protect basic human rights of people in nations. This means that locals and foreign organizations will have to honor these fundamental human rights rules. Also, laws in nations oblige their nationals to honor extraterritorial obligations for the respect of human rights (DeShutter 162). This means that by nature, human rights are universal and must be honored by all people around the world. Multinational Companies in Today’s Society Multinational companies are “enterprises which own or control value-added services in two or more countries” (Jones & Dunning 1). Multinationals are companies that have a presence in one or more countries. In relation to human rights, multinationals are required to voluntarily utilize the Code of Best Practice and protect humans and the environment (Beisinghoff 88). The UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights urged that “every individual and every organ of society shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for human rights and freedoms by progressive measures … to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance” (Mullerat 388). This therefore means that as good multinational companies (MNCs) are required not only to observe fundamental human rights but also make efforts to encourage all parties they interact with to promote the observance of human rights. There are governmental, legal and business frameworks that expect multinational companies (MNCs) (Horrigan ix). This framework of legal requirements are supposed to be honored by organizations through corporate governance to ensure corporate responsiveness to regulation and responsibility. The privatization of the petroleum industry over the past couple of years has caused the transformation of the oil industry from government control to private control (Neresian 174). Due to the fact that most oil exploration is done in the developing world, numerous multinational companies from foreign countries including America have stakes in the exploration of petroleum resources overseas. This requires the funding of explorations, establishment of infrastructure and extraction of crude oil which often have social and environmental consequences (Neresian 174). These consequences require some kind of social responsiveness to prevent human rights crises in foreign nations. Due to the universal and global nature of human rights laws, there are rules and legal instruments that oblige multinational companies to operate in a manner that recognize human rights of the inhabitants of these nations. Some of them include the American Alien Tort Statute (ATS). The Alien Tort Statute of 1789 The Alien Tort Statute (ATS) of 1789 make it possible for people whose rights have been infringed upon in foreign nations to bring charges against Americans in American courts. Chapter 20 of Section 9 (b) states that the Alien Tort Statute “... causes an alien to sue for tort only [committed] in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States Judiciary Act of 1789”. The Jurisdiction of the Alien Tort Statute of 1789 is based on the US States Court instrument 28 USC SS 1350 (Born 36). This implies that when there is a human rights violation against a foreigner in a foreign country, that individual can come to America and sue the American in certain American courts. The Alien Tort Statute was largely ignored for two centuries and became popular after 1980 (Born 36). Generally, the Alien Tort Statute of 1789 was instituted as a national branch of Common Law in relation to foreign nations (Koebele 32). It includes the establishment of safe conducts of ambassadors, piracy and treaties involving the United States (Koebele 32). The original plan was that if these international treaties and international laws are breached, foreigners could report the matter for tribunals to be set up to try the case in relation to the specific treaties that are breached (Koebele 32). The term “Laws of Nations” can be used interchangeably with international law (Henner 19). Commentaries on this law indicated that laws of particular jurisdictions are called municipal law in contract with international law. International law is defined by Henner as “... system of rules deduced by international reason and established by universal consent among civilized inhabitants of the world to decide disputes, regulate ceremonies, civil and economic observance of justice in good faith” (20). This therefore means that Alien Tort Statute spans over laws and statutes in foreign nations which are acceptable in the United States. This therefore means that human rights violations that occur in foreign nations in blatant disregard of 'civilized laws' can be punishable in the United States if foreign nationals take the matter to court. This therefore means that oil companies have to ensure that they adhere to standards of human rights that are acceptable in America. Thus, the export of human rights observance requirements through international rules and conventions makes human rights standards ubiquitous and almost hegemous around the globe. This therefore means that American multinational corporations have the obligation to ensure that they honor and respect human rights around the globe. This means that if they fail to do so, they are liable to civil lawsuits under the Alien Tort Statute. “Alien Tort Statute litigation threatens to spin out of control. More than a dozen current cases cite corporate defendants from their operations in Asia, the Middle East, Africa and Latin America; more than 50 multinational companies are in the dock and the damages claimed exceed $200 billion” (Hufbauer and Mitrokostas 7). This therefore means that today, the Alien Tort Statute is being invoked as more and more people are suing American businesses for their overseas operations and activities. There are 12 circuit courts that foreigners can present their tort cases to ensure that multinationals are taken to task under the Alien Tort Statute of 1789 (Hufbauer & Mitrokostas 7). There have been some classical cases that have been handled under this statute and this has set some judicial precedence for the application of the Alien Tort Statute. Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain This case came about because a US Drug Enforcement Agency member was kidnapped and killed in Mexico in 1985 by what was suspected to be a drug cartel that was being investigated. Alvarez-Machain was identified by the US Drug Enforcement Agency as one of the parties that took part in the kidnap and murder of the US Drug Enforcement officer. The US Drug Enforcement issued a warrant for the arrest of Mr. Alvarez-Machin who was in Mexico. However, the US Drug Enforcement Agency could not get the Mexican government to extradite Mr. Alvarez-Machain. So the US Drug Enforcement Agency hired Jose Fransico Sosa to abduct Mr. Alvarez-Machin and bring him to the United States. Mr. Alvarez-Machin was tried in a US District court and was acquitted due to the lack of evidence. Alvarez-Machin filed a lawsuit against his capture under the Federal Tort Claims Act and the Alien Tort Statute. It was held that the Federal Tort Claims Act could be invoked because the plan to abduct him was hatched on US soil. Secondly, it was held that according to the Alien Tort Statute, it was illegal for the Drug Enforcement Agency to abduct and torture Alvarez-Machin from a foreign country in 2004. Sarei v. Rio Tinto In this case, the residents of the island of Bougainville in Papua New Guinea filed a suite in 2000 under the Alien Tort Statute alleging amongst other things that: 1. Rio Tinto took part in the perpetrating of war crimes against the people of the island alongside Papua New Guinea's army. 2. The Environmental activities of Rio Tinto on the island is detrimental to the environment and health of residents and 3. Rio Tinto is involved in discrimination against Black workers on the island. In October 2011, a US court upheld the residents' claims of racial discrimination and crimes against humanity but it rejected the claims of genocide and war crimes. The case is still pending. Presbyterian Church of Sudan v. Talisman Energy, Inc. In this case, the Presbyterian Church of Sudan brought a lawsuit against Talisman Energy in a US Federal Court. It cited amongst other things that Talisman had condone with the Sudanese government in perpetrating human rights abuses against non-Muslim Sudanese living in areas where Talisman held oil concessions in Southern Sudan. The Presbyterian Church stated that Talisman stood back when severe human rights abuses like ethnic cleansing, massive civilian displacement, extrajudicial killing, torture, rape and the burning of villages and churches went on. The case was dismissed in 2006 because of the lack of evidence linking Talisman Oil due to the lack of evidence. In February 2007, the Church appealed against the ruling. It was again dismissed in October 2009 stating that the plaintiff must show that the defendants “purposefully” aided and abetedin the violation of international law. This could not be proven decisively. Wang Xiaoning v. Yahoo! In this case, Wang Xiaoning posted information on the Yahoo Website. The information demanded freedom and democracy in China. This happened to be illegal in China although it is against one of the most fundamental human rights to freedom of speech in America. The Chinese authorities demanded the details of the information of Wang from Yahoo. Yahoo disclosed the personal information of Wang even though they knew that Wang will be tortured and detained. The Chinese authorities arrested Wang and sentenced him to ten years in prison. The wife of Wang sued Yahoo in April 2007 in an American court. Under the Alien Tort Statute and Torture Victim Protection Act 1991 in a court in San Francisco. The suit was upheld and Yahoo compensated Wang's family. However, Wang is still serving his jail term in China. Bowoto v. Chevron Corp. Bowoto and other survivors of Nigerian military aggression sued Chevron USA in a US Court. They alleged that Chevron Nigeria, a subsidiary of Chevron USA backed the military action that was undertaken by the Nigerian military. Nine jurors sitting on the case held that Chevron was not liable since they could not prove that Chevron Nigeria had purposefully hired the Nigerian military to commit the crimes they committed. Doe v. Unocal In this case, a set of Burmese villagers sued Union Oil Company of California (Unocal). The subsidiary of Unocal was alleged to have been involved in human rights violations like forced labor in the construction of a gas pipeline in Burma. It was established in this case that abuses in foreign companies by Oil American companies could be held liable. However, Unocal could not be made to pay damages to these plaintiffs because they could not prove that Unocal required the Burmese military to commit those crimes. However, in an appeal, Unocal agreed to compensate the victims and provide funds to improve the lives of people from the area within which the atrocities occurred. Risk Assessment Article 20 of UNESCO's Universal Declaration of Bioethics requires “appropriate assessment and adequate management of risk related to medicine, life sciences and associated technologies should be promoted” (Jean 271). Due to the nature of the operations of Petroleum companies, they have an inherent tendency to cause environmental and social change which can potentially interfere with the lives and health of people who are connected with the company. This means that American petroleum companies need to take care to avoid human rights abuses overseas since there is the potential of incurring serious legal suits which can significantly affect operations and activities of these American companies. In a very general model of assessing risks of a company, there are six fundamental questions that businesses should ask themselves before they act (Crawshaw, Cullen and William 296). 1. Who can cause harm? Identify the units of a business that can cause human rights abuses. 2. What could cause harm? Identify the main situations and incidents that can lead to human rights abuses by the company. 3. Who could be harmed? Identify the potential victims of human rights abuses and get a good evaluation of such persons. 4. What could be harmed? Evaluate the extent and scope of harm that can be caused. 5. What are the risks and hazards? Identify the potential situations that can cause unexpected but devastating human rights crises. 6. What plans and control measures can be put in place? Identify a framework within which the potential problems and issues can be controlled and prevented from causing problems. This set of lose questions require companies to identify stakeholders, who include individuals and social groups that are likely to be affected socially, environmentally and healthwise (Leader and Ong 176). There is therefore the need to assess the risks and evaluate the impacts of the occurrence of such events. Also, a strategy of the avoidance and prevention of the impacts of these risks must be identified and put in place. Harding et al identify a structured format for the identification of human rights risks (144). In this situation, there are five main things that businesses need to do to evaluate and control risks in relation to potential human rights risks. 1. Hazard Identification: This involves the identification of potential events that will cause the company to cause human rights abuses for people overseas. 2. Hazard Characterization: This involves the evaluation and classification of risks to ensure that they can be handled according to some effective standards and methods in order to avoid or ameliorate their effects. 3. Exposure Assessment: The possibility of the risk occurring in the operations of the company should be evaluated carefully. This should be done by trying to understand the various ways or means through which the human right violations identified can occur in the company's operations and existence. 4. Risk Characterization: Based on the internal structures of the company, the risks should be categorized and put in a form that can make it more convenient to handle. 5. Risk Communication: This involves an effective and efficient way of monitoring and communicating the status of various human rights risks as the company proceeds. This will ensure that there is a proactive system to control and prevent the occurrence of the human rights' risk. Communications between Companies and Public Security Voluntary principles on Security and Human Rights 2000 identifies three main codes that ensures that petroleum companies can interact with local inhabitants of the area they operate in and the law enforcement agencies (Murphy 269). 1. There is the need for petroleum companies to undertake risk assessment. 2. Companies relations with public security agencies 3. Establishment and maintenance of private security. Due to the fact that numerous cases had been raised about petroleum companies conniving with national armies overseas, there is need for such companies to ensure that they maintain a positive relationship with public security agencies. The Voluntary Principles and Security system put together in 2000, the following three standards were put together by the key players in the industry. 1. Individuals who have been credibly implicated in human rights abuses should not provide security services for mining companies. 2. Force should be used only when it is strictly necessary and it should be used to an extent proportionate to the threat. 3. The rights of individuals should not be violated whilst exercising fundamental human rights and freedom of association or exercising their collective bargaining power. This therefore means that American oil companies will have to take reasonable steps to ensure that their private security services should be done carefully to prevent the violation of rights of helpless people. The UN Protocol Additional To the Geneva Convention of August 1949 and Relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflict 1977 states that there should be humane treatment of people who seek to stand up for their rights and there is the need to protect civilian population in every situation where collective action is exercised. Tully also identify that in relating to public security agencies, an American oil company will have to consult with the host government and local community about the important security arrangements (450). Abuses that occur at this time should be communicated and action should be taken at different point in time. Also, the deployment and conduct of public security forces in relation to the activities of an American petroleum company must safeguard human rights. In line with this, there should be consultation and advice that must be sought by the American petroleum company from the host government and home (ie American) government to ensure that the security services operate within the right framework of human rights observances. For mining and petroleum related risk management systems, Leipziger identifies six major steps that encompass internationally accepted codes and systems for human rights risk management (149). They include: 1. Identification of Security Risks in relation to political, economic, civil and social factors in protecting personnel and assets. 2. Assessment of the potential for violence: In other words, an American oil company will have to analyze the possibility of violence occurring and the taking of reasonable action to ensure that such situations are handled appropriately. 3. Human Rights Records that are available should be carefully examined and appropriate steps would be taken to ensure that in each situation, progressive steps are taken to ensure that better human rights activities are undertaken in the future. 4. Rule of Law which involves the judiciary and prosecution authorities should be examined closely and proper steps should be taken to ensure that the company operates reasonably within these systems and structures. 5. Conflict Analysis should be conducted to understand the history and root causes of violence in the area. 6. Equipment transfer should also be carefully studied. This will give the oil company a strong overview of the licensing requirements, risks and negative consequences. These must be taken into consideration and the rights of individuals who could be affected by them should be respected and safeguarded. Business and Human Rights: The Ruggie Report The Ruggie Report seeks to “Protect, Respect and Remedy” human rights abuses of multinationals in their operations (Gross & Compa 89). The Ruggie Report encourages companies to reduce governance gaps created by globalization. It encourages multinationals to carry out due diligence to ensure that the rights of the nations within which they operate is honored. Due diligence is “a process whereby companies not only ensure compliance with national laws but also manage the risk of human rights harm with a view of avoiding it. The scope of human rights related due diligence is determined by the context in which a company is operating its activities and the relationships associated with these activities” (OECD 88). This idea of due diligence should be applied in the country and local context through a careful evaluation of the business and its human rights connections. Secondly, the impact of a company's own activities on the rights of other people should be carefully examined and evaluated. Finally, a business must always assess and find out if they contribute to abuses or not (OECD 88). Ruggie identifies four main steps that companies need to taken into consideration in setting up a system that must safeguard human rights whilst the company operates. They include: 1. Adoption of human rights policy and practically implementing them. 2. Considering human rights implications of a given project before implementing them. 3. Establishing human rights policies and maintaining them throughout the companies, its subsidiaries and supply chain and 4. Monitoring and auditing implementation of human rights policy and the company's human rights performance. State Duty to Protect Human Rights States have a duty to protect human rights in the national and outside the national territory (De Sutter 162). This is supported by the fact that there are some laws and statutes that ensure that companies including American oil companies set up systems that ensure that they comply with important laws around the world. Social Impact Assessment Provision Social Impact Assessment is defined by the Interorganizational committee of the US National Marine Fisheries Service as “The consequences to human populations of any public or private activities that alter the way people live, work, play, relate to one another, organize to meet their needs and generally cope as members of society. The term also includes cultural impacts involving changes to the norms, values and beliefs that guide and rationalize their cognition of themselves and their society” (Van Willigen 175). This suggests that whilst an American oil company operates in a foreign nation, there is the strong likelihood that the operations will affect the human rights of some people. Businesses therefore have some obligations to examine the impact of their activities on the society and environment and try to make changes where appropriate. This has some legal backing in the Laws of America. Legal Mandates The main law that provides a legal backing to this in America is the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (Van Willigen 177). The legal regulatory mandate for Social Impact Assessment is paragraph (c) of Section 102 which requires the following: 1. Environmental impact of proposed acts of businesses 2. State adverse effects that cannot be avoided. 3. Identification of alternatives to the proposed action 4. Relationship between short term environmental and long-term productivity and 5. Reversible and irreversible commitment of resources. This shows that American oil companies are obliged to take due care in examining their activities and their impacts on the society and environment. This way, these businesses can identify potential human rights abuses and avoid them. This therefore means that such companies have an obligation to ensure that these standards in relation to human rights are applied in foreign nations. This way these American oil companies will be prevented from possible lawsuits that can be raised in American courts. Conclusion In conclusion, I realize that human rights are inalienable rights that every human being possesses. It is universal by virtue of international convention and this means every nation needs to uphold human rights. Multinationals like American oil companies have a legal and moral responsibility to observe human rights irrespective of where they are operating. Petroleum companies need to be sensitive to the social and environmental impacts of their operations. This is because there is a legal obligation for them to act in a way that safeguards human rights everywhere they operate. The Alien Tort Statute of 1789 makes it possible for foreign nationals to sue American multinationals including oil companies for human rights abuses perpetrated overseas. Several lawsuits have been successfully brought against American multinationals by foreign nationals for human rights abuses that occurred overseas. From this cases, it can be noted that this law makes it illegal to hatch human rights abuse plots on US soil and carry them out elsewhere. Also, abuses carried out fully by US companies overseas can lead to lawsuits in the US. This prohibition involves aiding foreign governments or influencing foreign governments to abuse human rights overseas. However, it is evident that in these cases, there is difficulty in establishing the link between American companies and foreign governments or armies. This is because American courts require strong evidence that shows that an American company acted purposefully to support the foreign government or military to support in the violation of human rights in cases brought under the Alien Tort Statute of 1789. American oil companies are therefore required to be sensitive to environmental and social factors that are related to human rights. And due to the inherent nature of the petroleum industry, there is a strong need ensure that extra effort is made to prevent human rights abuses by these companies. A risk management system can be conveniently set up to ensure that American oil companies prevent international human rights abuses. This requires a proactive system to ensure that possible risks are identified and dealt with before they become human rights cases. Proper risk communication and good relationships with security agencies are key. Risks of carrying out human rights abuses should be carefully monitored and examined. Also, care should be taken to ensure that security agencies discharge their functions without causing any serious human rights problems. Social Impact Assessment is important and this has legal backing through the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 which makes it imperative for businesses to examine the consequences of their projects before carrying them out. Works Cited Beisinghoff, Niels. Corporations & Human Rights Amsterdam: Peter Lang Publishing. 2009. Print. Born Gary. International Civil Litigation in the United States Courts: Commentary & Materials. New York: Kluwer Law International. 1996. Print. Campbell John, Goldsworth Denys Jeffrey & Ackary Sarah. Protecting Human Rights: Instruments & Institutions. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2003. Print. Crawshaw Ralph, Cullen Stuart & Williams Tom. Human Rights & Policing. Amsterdam: Martinus Nijhoff. 2007. Print. De Schutter Oliver. International Human Rights Law: Cases, Materials & Commentaries. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2010. Print. Donelly, Jack. Universal Human Rights in Theory & Practice. New York: Cornell University Press. 2003. Print. Gross, James & Compa Lance. Human Rights in Labor & Employment Relatoins. New York: Cornell University Press. 2010. Print. Harding Christopher, Kohl Uta & Salmon Naomi. Human Rights in the Market Place. Ashgate Publishing Ltd. 2011. Print. Henner, Peter. Human Rights and the Alien Law Statute: Law, History & Analysis. Chicago IL: American Bar Association. 2008. Print. Horrigan Bryan. Corporate Social Responsibility in the 21st Century: Debates, Models & Practices Across Government, Law & Business. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing. 2010. Print. Hufbauer Gary Clyde & Mitrokostas Nicholas. Awakening the Monster: The Alien Tort Statute of 1789. Washington DC: Peterson Institute. 2003. Print. Jean Michele. The UNESCO Universal Declaration on Bioethics & Human Rights. UNESCO. 2009. Print. Jones, Geoffrey & Dunning John. Transnational Corporations London: Taylor Routledge. 1997. Print. Joyce Avery James. Human Rights: International Documents Vol 2. BRILL Archive. 1978. Journal. Kalin Walter & Kunzli Jorg. The Law of International Human Rights Protection. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2009. Print. Koebele Michael. Corporate Responsibility Under the Alien Tort Statute. Amsterdam: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. 2009. Print. Leader Sheldon & Ong David. Global Project Finance, Human Rights & Sustainable Development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2011. Print. Leipziger Deborah. The Corporate Responsibility Code Book. Greenleaf Publishing. 2010. Print. Milne Alan John Mitchell. Human Rights & Human Diversity. London: Sterling Publishing. 1986. Print. Mullerat Ramon. International Corporate Social Responsibility: The Role of Corporations in the Economic Order of the 21st Century. Amsterdam: Kluwer Law. 2009. Print. Murphy, Sean. United States Practice in International Law Vol. 1. Volumes 1999 – 2001. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Nersesian, Roy. Energy for the 21st Century. New York, ME Sharpe Publishing. 2009. Print. Organization of Economic Co-operation and Development. Annual Report of OECD Guidelines for Multinational Companies. OECD Publishiers. 2010. Print. Shaw Malcolm Nathan. International Law New York: Cambridge University Press. 2005. Print. Shestack Jerome. “Lawyers; Role in Human Rights”. ABA Journal. Vol 84. 1998. Journal. Tully Stephen. International Documents on Corporate Responsibility. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing. 2007. Print. Van Willigen. Applied Anthropology: An Introduction. Greenwood Publishing Group. 2007. Print. Read More