In this century, it is easy for a companies to operate from anywhere in the world. The advancement in technology has enabled companies to control international businesses from abroad. Other companies use subsidiaries to operate in foreign countries. The world has become one big global market. However, all countries and states have different laws and regulations governing the conduct of business in their respective jurisdictions. Issues such as human rights, social responsibility and corporate responsibility are different in different nations. This paper seeks to research on the thesis statement “Should there be international law regarding human rights that all companies have to follow for operating internationally?”

When a company decides to operate in a foreign country, issues of moral clarity kicks in. without familiar laws, standards of ethical conduct and shared attitudes as in the homeland, there is no certainty. Such a company is left to evaluate if investing in a certain country is viable or not. When a company decides to invest in a foreign country, then employs people from the same country in senior management, which code of standards should be used by the company? The company cannot just impose the home standards in a foreign country since it can even fail. There needs to be evaluations to decide the best code of conduct.  In developing the code of conduct, issues of cultural differences, social differences and governing laws should be considered. A great problem can arise when the foreign company decides to use standards that are lower than those in the home country.

According to cultural relativism, there are no right and wrong internationally. Every country has its own ethical considerations and what the country does is their own problem. As Donaldson (1996) stipulates, many countries have challenges adequately policing big corporations when they want to. In many countries especially the developing countries, in adequate regulation and ineffective regulation allows some companies to be dishonest. When some of the European pharmaceutical companies wanted a cheap damping site in the 1980s, they approached the west coast countries of Africa. Nigeria agreed to take some of the toxics. Barrels of the toxics were placed near a residential area and neither the local workers who unloaded the barrels nor the residents knew what the barrels contained (Donaldson, 1996). This was clearly wrong.

In the past, there have been cases of companies violating human rights by violating some common procedures. An example is what happened in Bangladesh.  In 24^th November 2012, a fire raged out of control at the Tazreen Fashion garment factory resulting to the horrible deaths of 112 workers. Most of the dead workers were burned beyond recognition.  Tazreen was sewing Disney and Wal-Mart garments (Kernaghan, 2012). The major issue was that the facility lacked a sprinkler system, exterior fire escapes, and fire extinguishers did not work. The escape gates were padlocked and the workers were trapped.  Though some of the gates were not closed, the only stairway available led down to where the fire started.

After three weeks, Wal-Mart and Disney were mentioned in a report released by the Institute for Global Labor and Human Rights. Dream International Toy Factory in Shenzhen, China was accused of not having fire extinguishers, emergency doors and exit doors are blocked. In addition, piles of cotton, wool, yarns and shipping materials reached to the ceiling.  The factory has around 2000 workers who live in crowded dorms. In addition, there has never been a fire drill in the factory (Kernaghan, 2012). Everything about the factory and workers protection was wrong.  This is a violation of the international workers rights standards.

The two companies make a lot of money at the expense of foreign workers who work for long hours. Americans buy and use foreign toys without the knowledge of the workers who make the goods. Companies such as Disney and Wal-Mart have enforceable laws that protect their products and trademarks but fail to extend these legal protections to the workers (Kernaghan, 2012).

In 1967 when Israel occupied some parts of Palestine, the government stared establishing settlements in those areas. It is evident that some private businesses are involved in the settlement policies set by Israel. In the west bank, there are commercial centers, residential settlements, and agricultural land and administration zones. As stipulated by the Fourth Geneva Convention, an occupying power is prohibited from transferring its citizens to the territory of displacing the population of the occupied territory (Human Rights Watch, 2016). In addition, the confiscation of water, land and natural resources by Israel violate the Hague regulation of 1907. It stipulates that the occupying power should not exploit the natural resources for its own benefit.  It is also evident that Israel violates international human rights by discriminating against the Palestinians through policies that govern all aspects of their life. Israel forcibly displaces the Palestinians in area c while encouraging the settlement of Jewish.

As stipulated in the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, business are required to take care not to go against the human rights. Business activities where negative consequences on human rights cannot be avoided should be closed down. Israel’s failure to follow international laws violates the same human rights they are supposed to protect. In the west bank, Israel operates a two-tiered system where the Jewish Israel settlers receive preferential treatment as the Palestinians are mistreated (Human Rights Watch, 2016). The courts here apply the Israel civil laws affording the Israelites rights and legal protection. The Palestinians are however subjected to Israel military laws. The international humanitarian law stipulates that military law should govern an occupied territory regardless of the citizenship.

In the year 2010, the Human Rights Watch published report documenting the discrimination against Palestinians while favoring settlers. The report found out that the policies applied in the west bank amounts to forcible transfer of a population in an occupation. Palestinians who are unable to earn a living or build a home are forced to migrate out of the area.  The report also describes how the businesses owned by the settlers contribute to, depend on and benefit from the unlawful restrictions and confiscation of Palestinians land.  Some of the businesses operate in the residential settlements selling products and providing services while other businesses operate in the industrial zone (Human Rights Watch, 2016). The industrial zone was specifically built to house settlement businesses.

From the examples above, it is clear that many businesses, big corporations and countries do not always follow international laws and regulations when operating in foreign countries. This raises the question whether it would be good to have an international law regarding how businesses should be operated in all countries and also to protect human rights. If Tazreen Fashion garment factory and Dream International Toy Factory were both based in America, the kind of treatment the workers receive would not be the same.

A study by Elisa Giuliani (2014) concluded that there should be a difference between the cluster firms’ adoption of corporate social responsibility (CSR) policies imposed by global buyers and the actual human rights practices of the firms. In the developing countries, industrial clusters have demonstrated capability to enter global markets. Some industries in the developing countries populated by successful companies have managed to upgrade the products quality, production performance and have succeeded in international markets.  In the 1990s, much of research in the developing countries concentrated on how firms in the developing countries accumulate knowledge.  As this topic received attention, another challenge arose. There was a need for these firms to comply with a set of international environmental and social standards.

There are events that have discredited big corporations such as the case of Wall-Mat and Disney mentioned above. In the 1990s, Nike was accused of child labor. Such events have prompted other stakeholders to pay attention to CSR practices. For the clusters operating in Global markets with the headquarter sin developing countries, they are exposed to media campaigns and international NGOs who campaign against any social irresponsibility of the clusters or their suppliers. Such global pressures have forced the cluster firms to adopt the code of conduct, rules, regulations and other CSR policies. However, this does not mean that the firms are completely responsible (Giuliani, 2014). It is common for firms to be both responsible and irresponsible concurrently using the CSR policies as insurance. In both policy and academic arenas, there is a growing concern about the negative environmental and social conduct of firms.

Human right obligation is contemporary international law. Internationally, all people and businesses are expected to uphold human rights. However, as demonstrated earlier by use of examples, this does not always happen. Some states never guarantee respect for such rights within their jurisdiction. By applying a universal human rights approach, there is an advantage of not leaving chances for firms to exploit. An international law governing the upholding of human rights will go a long way in eliminating the gaps exploited by big firms.  Business practices for firms operating in developing countries should uphold and promote universal right (Giuliani, 2014).

In recent times, it has been realised that corporations have become a threat to human rights. In 2002, the shell company was accused of working with the government to suppress the opposition in South Africa. In addition the economic capabilities of some big corporations erode the power of the state to protect its citizens mostly in the less and developing countries.  There is always a connection between eh affected citizens and the corporations. This kind of connection should not be ignored. In some cases, corporation control the well being of the workers.

In South Africa for example, the private sector is the biggest provider of employment. This tends to support the view that human rights obligations should be regulated by businesses themselves. In such a case, companies will have control over the workers than the government. The government can thus do little to protect the workers. However, in 2008, the government of South Africa enacted the Companies act of 2008 (Gwanyanya, 2015). The act stipulated the framework for companies to uphold human rights obligation and also made CSR binding.  The major aim of the act was to reinforce the human rights responsibilities of companies operating in the country.

First, the act incorporated the bill of rights. This was to ensure that when companies are making policies, they have to incorporate the bill of rights. The act also regulates the duties of companies directors and how they can exercise their functions. The act also established the social and ethics committee. Specific kinds of companies are expected to establish this committee which is mandated to monitor the activities of the company. The monitoring is in line with any relevant regulation, requirement and any prevailing code of conduct and standards.  Most of the developing countries have the same problem as South Africa had. The code of conduct and human rights upholding is determined at company level (Gwanyanya, 2015).  Issues such as corruption and political favours have led to the deterioration of the problem.

Traditionally, international law was based on treaties signed between countries. This accompanied a thinking that was conceptual about the transborder obligations.  After the end of World War 2, the architects of the postwar system replaced the state-centric rules with ambitious institutions governed by multilateral treaties. Such global constitutions wanted to allocate institutional responsibility to rules of international law (Koh, 1997). For example the political conflicts were to be handled by the United Nations and its organs. Many other institutions were formed to govern international laws such as World Bank, International Monetary Fund and the General Agreements on Tariffs and Trade. This concept of international laws was a concept for organising international activities and relations of numerous players.

Harold Hongju Koh (1997) concluded that there are differences that exist in doing something for a moral reason, for a normative reason and for a legal reason. Legal reasons according to him are conjoined in the concept of obedience. This means that following an international law is a weakness on the part of a nation. A foreign actors’ moral obligation to follow an international law or value is only when the law is internalised in the domestic legal system. He argues that for a country to follow international law has to be internalised in the domestic legal system. In addition, international players can only abide to international law only when they accept the legitimacy of such laws through some internal process.

Human rights violation by states as well as corporation is increasing at this century. Corporation s are using all means to make more revenues including disregarding the lives of the workers.  What was observed in the Wall-Mart and Disney factories is very unfortunate but the corporation behaved irresponsibly. The problem is that some countries no longer have the power to protect their citizens from exploitation and abuse. This is mainly due to corruption and favours.  In addition, these big corporations are the main sources of employment in the developing countries. Thus they have full control of the workers and their well being. In this scenario, the government can do little to protect the citizens. In addition, lack of international laws can give some nations a go ahead to mistreat its citizens. International organizations such as United Nations have for many years protected the rights of people all over the world. Thus it is paramount for there to be an international law regarding human rights that all companies should follow.

References

Donaldson, T. (1996). Values in Tension: Ethics Away from Home. Retrieved April 21, 2016, from https://hbr.org/1996/09/values-in-tension-ethics-away-from-home

Giuliani, E. (2016). Human rights and corporate social responsibility in developing countries’ industrial clusters. Journal of Business Ethics, 133(1), 39-54.

Gwanyanya, M. (2015). The South African Companies Act and the realisation of corporate human rights responsibilities. PER: Potchefstroomse Elektroniese Regsblad, 18(1), 3102-3131.

Human Rights Watch. (2016, January 19). Occupation, Inc. Retrieved April 21, 2016, from https://www.hrw.org/node/285045/

Kernaghan, C. (2012, December 17). Wal-Mart and Disney Toys from Hell. Retrieved April 21, 2016, from http://www.globallabourrights.org/reports/wal-mart-and-disney-toys-from-hell

Koh, H. H. (1997, January 1). Why do nations obey international law? Retrieved April 21, 2016, from http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2897&context=fss_papers

Do you need an Original High Quality Academic Custom Essay?