States should control corporations across national borders to protect communities from the negative impacts of their activities, UN human rights experts have said in an authoritative new guidance * on the Obligations of States parties to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) in the context of business activities. “States should regulate corporations that are domiciled in their territory and/or jurisdiction. This refers to corporations which have their statutory seat, central administration or principal place of business on their national territory,” the experts of the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural rights say in the guidance*, officially termed the General Comment, published today. In practice, the Committee expects home States of transnational corporations to establish appropriate remedies, guaranteeing effective access to justice for victims of business-related human rights abuses when more than one country is involved. In light of the practices revealed by the Panama Papers and the Bahamas Leaks, the General Comment emphasizes that States should ensure corporate strategies do not undermine their efforts to fully realize the rights set out in the Covenant. The new General Comment sets out what States can and must do in order to ensure that companies do not violate rights such as the right to food, housing, health or work, which the States themselves are bound to respect: “Businesses cannot ignore that the expectations of society are changing. The first ones to change shall be rewarded by consumers, whose purchasing choices are increasingly driven by immaterial aspects — the reputation of the company, and the ethical and sustainability dimensions associated with its products.” The issue of business and human rights has been addressed recently in different forums, including the Human Rights Council and the International Labour Conference, and through a combination of tools — regulations, self-imposed codes of conduct, economic incentives and action plans. Zdzislaw Kedzia, the Vice-Chair of the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural rights noted that “It may be tempting for States to seek refuge behind the initiatives taken by the corporate sector, rather than adopting the appropriate regulatory and policy initiatives that they must adopt. Our General Comment seeks to recall their obligations under the Covenant and define the role they must assume in regulating corporate conduct.”
Health equity in economic and trade policies
In 1978, the Alma-Ata International Conference on Primary Health Care stated, in its final declaration, that “economic and social development, based on a New International Economic Order, is of basic importance to the fullest attainment of health for all.” This video raises why this call is still relevant today and why it should be recalled and renewed now we celebrate the 40th Anniversary of the Alma-Ata Declaration at the Global Conference on Primary Health Care in Astana, on 25-26 October 2018.
In 1978, the Alma-Ata International Conference on Primary Health Care stated, in its final declaration, that “economic and social development, based on a New International Economic Order, is of basic importance to the fullest attainment of health for all.” In Astana at the Cafe Session this video shares why this call is still relevant today and why it should be recalled and renewed now the world celebrates the 40th Anniversary of the Alma-Ata Declaration at the Global Conference on Primary Health Care in Astana, on 25-26 October. The film reminds that Primary Health Care is more than basic health care and some sort of financial protection but rather a radical comprehensive concept based on economic justice. The video calls for a new economic global order as was called for in 1978.
At the end of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) General Assemblies, held from 25–30 September 2009, frustration at the lack of consensus was palpable, especially among developing countries calling for a legally-binding international instrument. ‘We believe our countries are being treated unfairly,’ said a delegate from Burundi during the plenary session, in reference to the fact that there is as yet no international instrument to protect traditional knowledge and genetic resources. ‘The [WIPO] Secretariat is an arbiter and should intervene,’ he added. But others questioned the legally binding instrument as an outcome. Korea suggested in plenary that ‘perhaps we can prevent misappropriation without proprietisation,” and suggested looking at options to protect traditional knowledge and genetic resources within the existing system, and several developed countries said a renewed mandate should not commit to a specific outcome. Botswana and Zimbabwe mentioned efforts through the African Regional Intellectual Property Office (ARIPO) to create a regional instrument, while Ecuador spoke of creating a national biodiversity and traditional knowledge database that would include sui generis protection measures.
In this final output document from the G20 Summit, held from 3-4 November in Cannes, France, the G20 outlines its decisions to ‘re-invigorate economic growth, create jobs, ensure financial stability, promote social inclusion and make globalisation serve the needs of the people’. Members at the Summit agreed on an Action plan for Growth and Jobs to address short-term vulnerabilities and strengthen medium-term foundations for growth, and promised to reform the international monetary system to make it more representative, stable and resilient. They agreed on actions and principles that are intended to help reap the benefits from financial integration and increase the resilience against volatile capital flows. This includes coherent conclusions to guide the G20 in the management of capital flows, common principles for co-operation between the International Monetary Fund and regional financial arrangements, and an action plan for local currency bond markets. Other areas in which members agreed to co-operate include: reforming the financial sector and enhancing market integrity; addressing commodity price volatility and promoting agriculture; improving energy markets and pursuing the fight against climate change; avoiding protectionism and strengthening the multilateral trading system; addressing the challenges of development by committing to ensure a more inclusive and resilient growth; fighting against corruption and reforming global governance.
There is a silent, ongoing, global war between motor cars and people. It is silent because, though it kills many times more people than armed conflicts and terrorist acts combined, it seldom hits the headlines in the way they do. It is global because, though it started in the rich world just over a century ago, it has spread throughout the world and is now spreading like wildfire through poor countries;or poor communities within rich countries.
Christian Brothers Investment Services, Inc. (CBIS) and 15 other faith-based institutional investors with approximately $35 million in Abbott Laboratories (NYSE: ABT) holdings responded today to the pharmaceutical company's decision to withdraw new drug applications from Thailand with a request that Abbott immediately reverse its decision.
In this report, the authors consider the four biggest global agricultural commodity traders: Archer Daniels Midland, Bunge, Cargill, and Louis Dreyfus, often collectively referred to as ‘the ABCD companies’. The ABCD companies are often invisible in policy debates about farmers and consumers, and they are careful about where and when they get involved in such debates, rarely seeking the limelight. The report looks at critical issues in agriculture and food security, such as the ‘financialisation’ of agricultural products, the emergence of Asian competitors to the ABCDs and the impact of the large-scale biofuel industry on food security. The authors argue that food price volatility is a problem and commodity speculation and biofuels, alongside other factors such as export bans, are helping to drive volatility. The role played by the ABCD trading firms is important, but that how to address them and limit their power is not obvious, and regulations and changes will probably need to target broader reforms. But understanding the economic and political power of the ABCDs is essential to developing policies that will protect the interests of smallholder farmers and poor consumers in developing countries, the authors conclude.
For too long Africans have been dependent on aid and medicines from the West, argues the author of this article, but Brazil, India, China and South Africa (BRICS) are emerging as dominant players in Africa’s health markets. In the late-1990s, Brazil played an instrumental role in shifting the paradigm of healthcare and human rights when it challenged the World Trade Organisation (WTO) and its intellectual property regime. Brazil violated a WTO clause to provide antiretroviral drugs and to lower their price. This reaffirmed medicine as a fundamental human right. While many drugs continue to be developed in the West, India has stepped in to manufacture generic medicines for the world's poorest countries. Through low-cost support and commodities, India has filled a gap in the global market. China has an increasing role to play in the global health arena. It invested $36.1 billion in 2011 in research and development, placing the country in a position to become a major player in healthcare innovation. Additionally, given the sheer scale of industry and financial resources available, China has the capacity to develop and supply HIV drugs and technologies to meet the needs of the African epidemic. The departure of traditional international funders like the United Kingdom and the United States presents an opportunity for new sources of engagement with the growing BRICS economies. Investing in the health of Africa will fuel development, enhance diplomacy and build South-South solidarity, the author argues.
Roughly a decade on from the launch of a new era of commercial and strategic alignment, China-Africa ties continue to mature, substantially altering the make-up of Africa’s political and economic milieu, according to this paper. The authors evaluate the current and potential scale of China’s position in Africa, and, in so doing, pose questions as to the role of Africa’s traditional Western partners in the continent’s ongoing economic progression. Bilateral trade in 2011 reached US$160 bn, up by 28% from the previous year, when China accounted for 18% of Africa’s trade (up from 10% in 2008). African exports to China increased by one-third in 2011, while Africa’s imports from China (23.7%) increased by 4%. Fluctuations in currency and domestic prices have little explanatory role in why China has undermined the position of developed nations in Africa, the authors argue. What counts is China’s foresighted engagement with Africa back at the start of the past decade, allowing Beijing to steal a march on Africa’s other partnerships. Importantly, China is well-positioned to be a significant player in Africa’s next phase of development.