The New Constitutional Question

‘Third World’ nations need the investments of transnational corporations and the jobs they provide, otherwise hundreds will die and millions will be worse off. Sweatshops exploit human beings and that fact must be rectified. The poisoning and abusing (verbally, physically, and sexually) must be stopped. Perhaps it would be unreasonable to expect wages to increase and compensations paid, but the fact still stands that corporations must be held accountable for the abuse of the their workers. It is becoming more and more expected of corporations to turn their tide towards a more morally sound future, with the rise of liberal and educated young adult consumers. It is never denied that sweatshop owners must be reigned in and conditions improved, but there is never a shortage of controversy over how this reformation should be done and to what

Globalization, when considered in relation to human rights, can restore one’s belief that it really is worth it. Much has been agreed. Much has been achieved. Much, however, is still in the process of turning from words and ideas to real outcomes for real people.

This article is relevant in the context of increasing global concern over human rights. More recent debates in international relations discuss the importance of the individual over that of states and sovereignty, especially in a society in which national and global boundaries are being transcended and constantly undermined. Multiple levels

Transnational Corporations have been steadfast in calling for respect, support and promotion of human rights (Kline, 2005). This has been done in reference to the United Nations Universal

All around the world, basic human rights, as outlined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, are being violated. As Thomas Pogge argues, these violations contribute to the rise of poverty in multiple nations. The global rate of death caused by poverty is astounding, “…360 million human beings have died prematurely from poverty related causes, with some 18 million more added each year”, and unfortunately these figures are substantially larger than the death count of many wars (Pogge, p.50). The concept of globalization should, in theory, propose solutions to this depressing yet preventable issue. However, due to the power of corporations and the lack of incentive for affluent citizens to change their own spending habits, it only leads to a vicious cycle masked by "solutions" that end up propagating human rights violations.

“economic, social and cultural rights have been seen as requiring high levels of investment, while civil and political rights are said simply to require the State to refrain from interfering with individual freedoms. It is true that many economic, social and cultural rights sometimes require high levels of investment—both financial and human—to ensure their full enjoyment. However, economic, social and cultural rights also require the State to refrain from interfering with individual freedoms, for instance trade union freedoms or the right to seek work of one’s choosing. Similarly, civil and political rights, although comprising individual freedoms, also require investment for their full realization. For example, civil and political rights require infrastructures such as a functioning court system, prisons respecting minimum living conditions for prisoners, legal aid, free and fair elections, and so on.”

The first issue of constitutional propriety that arises in this problem is whether the Scottish Government has the authority to block the UK Parliament from re-reserving powers returned to the UK after leaving the EU. The matters that are currently reserved by the UK parliament are laid out in Schedule 5 of the Scotland act 1998 and include: defence, immigration, foreign policy and many more. The process of leaving the EU, through the triggering of Article 50, and the subsequent ‘Great Repeal Bill’ would result in the immediate repeal of the European Communities Act 1972 thus ending the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice in Britain.

However as we enter a new century the world is changing and becoming more interconnected than ever. In today’s world national sovereignty and human rights have become almost contradictory. As the first insist ‘upon the sole responsibility (for better or for worse) of a state over its subjects, while the latter upon all 'people' having a right to self-determination independent of the state‘(Alston and Macdonald 2008:2)

Trans-National Corporations refer to an economic entity or a group of economic entities operating in two or more countries, regardless of legal framework, the country of origin, and country or countries of activities, where the activities can be considered individually or collectively. Several Trans-National Companies have engaged in expensive campaigns and programmes to positively impact the world. However, the actual motive behind such events is ambiguous. With capitalism and globalisation, large Corporations interested in international development and trade are able to allocate resources to get favourable outcomes for the interests. Hence, these corporations become the most influential source for political and economic dominance, enabling them to be greatly unaccountable for social and economic problems. Therefore, I argue that Trans-National Corporations bring more harm than help to the world. The three primary areas of discussion are the ethics, health and labour, where consumers, children, workers, governments, and organisations are impacted by

Given these difficulties, it is understandable why previous tribunals in have been reluctant to analyse the relationship between the human rights to water and investment law as a normative conflict, and have instead insisted that the obligations under each norm were not mutually exclusive. However, it is possible for a human rights norm to prevail, as shown by the tribunals in SPP and Chemtura. The respondent government in water grab case should argue BITs should not be interpreted so that a government is made to ignore its human rights obligations once it has entered into a concession with a foreign investor, and as there is no alternative but to reallocate water rights following a water grab, the investment protection norm and right to water are contradictory, and one must prevail.

The lynchpin of the 21st century has been the notion of liberalism, whether in relation to individuals, a race or even a nation. Societies are founded on the idea of dominion and other societies have learned to embrace cultural differences and give credibility to them as a result. However today’s era of globalisation has yet to shake off fully the imperialistic attitude that was prevalent up until the 1800. While the intention behind the creation of fundamental human rights – such as the Charter of the United Nations – was an amicable one, the reality has given rise to anomalies when dealing with nations that are outside the norm of accepted practices. This strains the concept of international human rights as it contests the concept of state sovereignty. This essay will argue that international human rights activity can be seen as a struggle to balance the competing claims of sovereignty and international human rights. While some activity by amalgamated international forces are warranted, the process in determining action is in itself the cause of the tension rather than the act.

Current legal mechanisms of accountability fail to account for the fluid nature and power of influence that transnational corporations possess. Transnational Corporations are not static in nature and have tremendous economic and political influence over government policies. These factors result in a lack of due diligence for transnational corporations to uphold human rights. TNCs are economic and legal entities. In theory, TNCs are subject to the law of a country, to the jurisdiction of its courts, but often this is abandoned by the government of countries. TNCs have tremendous influence

Recent years and the continued spread of globalization have illuminated a frequent connection between the process of economic development and the deterioration of human rights. With trade liberalization occupying a significant role in the strategy for creating a world economy and community, concern over the erosion of such fundamental rights as those relating to labor and environmental protections have dominated the globalization debate. However, as the discussion hereafter will demonstrate, these concerns while justified and well-founded often obscure the many strands of progress facilitated by the gradual spread of economic development to the developing spheres of the world. As the research here will demonstrate, there is a positive relationship between human rights and economic development.

The fourth research question relates to the reasons for socio-economic rights being less susceptible to international criminalisation. Socio-economic rights in international law as earlier defined in this research ‘include a variety of rights, such as: (i) the right to work and to just and favourable conditions of work; to rest and leisure; to form and join trade unions and to strike; (ii) the right to social security; to protection of the family, mothers and children; (iii) the right to an adequate standard of living, including adequate food, clothing and housing; (iv) the right to the highest attainable standard of physical and

Henry Ward Beecher once stated, “A law is valuable not because it is law, but because there is right in it.” The importance of having a law that is right is extremely significant, just as having a justice in proper tort laws and human rights. The author, Cees Van Dam, is a professor of International Business and Human Rights at the Rotterdam School of Management at the Erasmus University is an expert in human rights, tort law, and consumer rights. Cees Van Dam, in this article, is writing about the tort law and human rights because of the poor legal protection and representation of human rights against transnational corporations. Cees Van Dam primarily starts the article by discussing the background of the transnational corporations (TNC) and how victims’ rights are treated so poorly.