INTRODUCTION

For more than three decades national economies have become increasingly integratred in to ,
and subordinated to global markets for money and commodities, until the aegis of trnsational
corporations, monetarist policies,and neo-liberal ideology.’’ ‘’globalization,’’ as this process has
come to be labelled, has been ‘’driven by the effective regulation and taxation by states, to
exploit cheaper, often unwaged forms of labour, and to realize greater of corporate efficiency
and cost effectiveness from transnational forms of corporate organisations such as sourcing
networks and vertical integration of productive and distributive operation’’.these process of
globalization or the recently emerging global markets have established new of the advanced
industrial centres, bringing about in its wake a reorganization of corporate driven societies
increasingly based on international or transnational relationships, accelerated not only by an
age of information and instant communication but also by the decentralization of capital away
from the core nation –states and are subject to domestic norms, laws and order internally
defined or they have referred to legitimate or illegitimate acts between nation-states and are
subject to international norms,laws,ad order externally defined. In an age of global
crime/violence represent reconfigured located in , or operating throught, more than one
country, and typically these are not subject to internal or external controls or regulation. In the
absence of such definations and controls , many transnational, global,international, and
supranational criminologists , human rights activists,and this other concerned citizens and
groups are struggling with this lack,with its multitude of harms and dangers , and with
strategies for developing global norms, laws, and a transnational order based on the
recognition of universal human rights and social justice for all peoples.
In the globalized world of the 21st century transnational corporations (TNCs) have emerged as
key players on the world stage in economic, social and legal realms. With the rapid
development of technology and increasing liberalization of trade it has become possible for
copporations to operate easily and routinely on a transnational level. The impact that this has
on international human rights is well documented.whilst corporations may rise living standards
and bring prosperity through the provision of jobs,education and technology , corporations are
also frequently the perpetrators of human rights violations. Due to the transnational nature of
the corporate enterise,the monitoring of such violations has become increasingly difficult as
human rights standards to take advantages of such differences. Corporate abuse of human
rights in the 21st century is both systematic and pervasive. Increasingly , criminal liability of
corporations has thus been recognized in domestic civil and common law legal systems based
on a jurisprudential understanding that the corporate entity is a legal person who is
consequently subject to criminal liability. Similarly, international law, in particular international
human rights law,has recognized corporations as having legal personality and thus having
human rights duties and responsibilities under international law.

Despite these domestic and international developments, international criminal law to date has
failed to recognize corporations as legal subjects by restricting the jurisdiction of the
international criminal court (ICC) to natural (not legal) persons. There is one and only one social
responsibility of business –to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its
profits. The relationship between corporations and human rights abuses is a long standing one.
Dating back to the colonial era, companies of the colonizing countries have been criticized for
consistently extending their power and economic wealth through the systematic exploitation of
resources in colonized countries. In times of conflict the interaction between corporations and
questionable human rights standards is often further exacerbated. consider, for example , the
recent conflict in the democratic republic of congo in which more than 80 companies from
developed nations were identified as being directly involved in the illegal exploitation of natural
resources , forced labour and the transfer of weapons to waring parties which have been
implicated in the commission of war crimes. Whilst decolonization in the 1960s and 1970s
brought with it some attempts to establish corporate accountability for human rights abuses,
primarily in the form of voluntary codes of corporate conduct, this has since been replaced by
rapid globalization of the laissez fairze world marketed. Today, corporations are involved in 70%
of all world trade, directly employ ninety million people ( some 20 million of who liv in
developing countries) and produce 25% of the worlds gross product.

As Kinley summarises : “The economic power of TNCs is undoubted they are the driving agents
of the global economy, exercising dominant control over global trade , such positions of
economic influence, TNCs also manage to exercise considerable political leverage in both
domestic and international spheres.
Globalization has meant that corporations are increasingly hard to monitor in terms of
regulations and accountability for human rights abuses. This is the case for several key reasons.
Firstly as corporate activities are increasingly transactional they frequently fall under several
jurisdictions, some of which may not be able to cope with ensuring international human rights
standards are met. Whilst legal norms and practical enforcement methods to ensure corporate
accountability may be the norm in a corporation’s home country(usually first world countries),
host countries ( usually third countries) may either lack functioning legal systems or the
enforcements mechanisms necessary to ensure human rights standards are maintained. It has
also been well documented that corporations frequently relocate or structure themselves in
order to take advantage of such disparate human rights standards and avoid legal liability.
Secondly, the decline of state power as a whole has been met by an increase in power as a
whole has been met by an increase in power of other global actors such as corporations, non
governmental organizations (NGOs) and world financial institutions such as the intetnational
monetary fund (imf) and the world bank. As the political and economic power of these actors
increases, state based domestic enforcement mechanisms such as extraterritorial jurisdiction
do go some way to mitigating this problem, it must be remembered that frequently, ‘states
continue to pursue short term national interests rather than global human values’.

Thirdly, as economic growth is constructed in world politics as overwhelming important

through the globalization of free market ideology this has contributed to a correlative lack of
political will to prioritise the protection of human rights. In terms of corporations, the
globalization of the market has thus resulted in a focus o corporate rights rather than corporate
responsibilities.

Despite these factors there has also been a significant trend towards corporate accountability,
pushed primarily by civil society and NGOs who advocate the global enforcement of human
rights norms and standards. This has , in part, contributed to encouraging more ethical business
practices of corporations as well as generating public demands for corporate accountability.
Many corporations are now adopting voluntary codes of conduct aimed at ensuring the
implementation of human rights principles. Nevertheless, it must be remembered that such
codes of conduct remain voluntary and thus provide inadequate protection of human rights in
the absence of effective enforcement mechanisms. In summary, the relationship between
corporations and human rights in a globalized context is threefold. corporations may directly
violate human rights, or have a positive impact on human rights. while it is important to
acknowledge that corporations may at times promote human rights by bringing jobs, capital
and technology capable of improving working conditions and raising living standards in host
countries. however, whilst it cannot be said that pursuit of corporate profit is synonymous with
the abuse of human rights per se, factual evidence shows that in practice is often is. Direct
violations of human rights may include formally illegal exploitation of natural resources during
war time or supporting repressive regimes. As corporations have increased in mobility and
power they also manage to increasingly evade ational laws and economic power to pressure
governments in to ignoring their human rights abuses. Thus, it is clear that in a globalized
context the efforts to sanction corporate human rights abuses must be of an international level.

The difficulty with considering corporations to be legal persons subject to criminal sanctions is
in part due to criminal law’s focus on a guilty mind. Traditionally , corporations have not been
considered legal persons as they were considered unable to form the requisite mental element
to commit crimes. As English notes,’historically a corporation could not be criminally liable in
national law because the corporation was a legal fiction which possessed no independent will.’

This is true both of continental European civil law and anglo saxon common law legal
systems.under the civil law it is expressed by the maxim ‘societas delinqere non
protest’,literally,’corporations cannot commit crimes’.similarly, under the common law
blackstone stated : a corporation cannot commit ‘treason,or felony,or other crime,in its
corporate capacity’. However , more recently both civil and common law legal systems have
independently evolved towards recognizing the corporate entity as a legal person capable of
committing crimes.consequently,in many domestic civil and common law jurisdictions a
corporation can now be held liable as an entity for domestic crimes as well as breaches of
international law.

The development of corporate legal personality in domestic jurisdictions is consistent with

recognision that the corporate entity is more than simply a sum of its constituent parts but in
fact poses a type of independent character as an entity. While personal criminal responsibility
of corporate directors,officers and employees is of course necessary, it has become increasingly
noted that the corporate entity of the 21 st century has significant political,economic and social
power that extends exponentially rather than summative. Corporate criminal liability in both
civil and common law jurisdictions evolved form the enforcement of individual criminal
responsibility for wrongful acts of the corporation. That is,in first instance,directors,then
officers and finally employees of corporations were held liable for corporate itself. This
extension of principle is in part a reflection of the very evolution of criminal law itself.

Holding corporations as a whole, rather than merely the constituent members, criminally
accountable is important for several reasons. Firstly, as already mentioned , the power of the
corporations is greater than the mere summative power of its members. Thus , it is also logical
to consider corporate accountability to be attributed to the corporate entity as a whole rather
than merely its constituent parts. This is particularly so considering that corporations may be
structured specifically to avoid legal liability.recognising corporate legal personality, and thus
imposing criminal liability on the corporate activity, nor can the corporate entity as a whole
shelter behind the criminal liability

CONCLUSION

In an increasingly globalized world it is becoming more and more difficult to impose criminal
sanctions on transnational corporate human right abuses. This is due to a multitude of factors,
including the transnational nature of corporate activity, which allows corporations to locate and
structure themselves so as to take advantage of disparate human rights standards; the
domestic disparities in enforcement mechanisms; procedural difficulties;decline of state
power;and the global focus on economics resulting in an overall lack of political will to prioritise
human rights protection and ensure corporate accountability. Hence if corporate criminality has
to be nailed, it is highly imperative for international law and the international community to
urgently respond to the time’s call instead of being silent mute spectator.