Discuss criminalisation first; give examples; then move on to the three patterns typical of the CCB provide examples, discussion how they overlap, provide examples. Conclude by saying that the red flags are an attempt to identify the relevant fact patterns that have given rise to liability.

1 (top level) Linkages of Business to Conflict 

2. (meso level) Responsibility Arising from Linkages

3. (micro level) Managing the risks : hHRDD 

1. Why Conflict (in addition to Human Rights)? (originally because part of the impetus for norm building came from resources wars in west africa in the 1990s and early 2000s; sanctions were ramped up at the UN, but never enforcd, and these are the places where state protection fails; increasingly cant be ignored because we are in a phase in history with increasing violence in internatioannl affairs and decreasing legitimacy of the norms that controlled or bannned such violence)  

4. How do you stay on the right side of those rules? (DD cycle + ConSens: risk and "double materiality"; DD ++; )  

5. What happens if you don't? with examples : threats to staff / Colombia, Lefarge,  / campaigns (BDS / B4UA) / complicity / litigation (DB)  

- Resources / Sources 

    1. Gjerne næringsliv og konflikt (inkl. okkupasjon), som viser at næringslivet har et ansvar under folkerett og UNGP

i. For å vise at «det er ingen lover»-argumentet ikke holder

    1. Enig, deretter mest mulig fokus på det praktiske og hvordan man faktisk utfører hHRDD (guidance, challenges, good practice, etc.)

    2. Gjerne også funnene i den rapporten dere utførte for FIVH ++

  1. Teknologi

    1. Ja, vi får nok dessverre ikke gått i dybden på bruk av verktøy og databaser, gransking, KI, osv., men jeg synes det er kjempeinteressant og relevant å ha med noe

    2. Gjerne ha med viktigst websidene for konfliktområder – det er bare fint å løfte frem gode og relevante aktører som f.eks. Lysverket!

    3. God idé! Jeg kan høre med f.eks. Equinor og en finansaktør? Vi kan jo snakkes om dette.

As sets of GLs and principles of ethical behaviour, RBC / BHR is preventative. Designed to be regulatory, and the basis for accountability.. entering legal regulation via HRDD was, such as Transparency act...EU CSDDD etc

But conflict and war legal regulation is overwhelmed by violence, jurisdiction can be hard to exercise...the common perception is of violent lawlessness

But war and conflict are not law free zones. HRts applies in war zones, and there are laws that govern what happens in war zones and these create liabilities for biz.

How?

By creating criminal liabilities for individuals - incl indiv biz ppl - by criminalizing certain business transactions connected to ICs. (Same in principle as AC law)

Today I am going to talk about What are those ICs and what are some of the common transaction they criminalize, in the hope that biz in the room is able to avoid these, AND that where they don't, that makers of law and policy recognize these for the criminal activities they are.

Gonna start with ...


1. Criminalized transactions?

Examples from case law indicate Three common fact patterns:
- FDI scenario (Lundin, Lafarge)
- Supply chain complicity (van aanraat; DB; RU companies in Ukraine; western companies in Gaza)
- illicit exploitation : WWII pillage, forced labour; SCSL (ago, diamonds) ….antiquities brokers; scrap metal in Syria

2. When thinking about liabilities that arise for biz connected to human rights abuse, a lot of attention in paid to "IHL", in particular the (jus in bello) rules that govern the conduct of hostilities and occupation and the Geneva/Hague Convention protections non-combattants. But in fact there are really four main regimes of which IHL is really one and we generally refer to all of these as "ICL",

ICL (eg ICJ) operationalizes in the form of concrete liabilities. It puts ppl on trial for their involvement in ICs. This crimes are defined by

- IHL
- CAH
- Genocide
- Jus ad bellum complicity (aiding and abetting) state aggression;

Each of these has their Hrts correlates, e.g. violation of right to life, property rights, prohibition against torture...but also self determination , Perm sov over nat res (Ukraine/ Pal/WS)

3. Jurisdiction (where is this happening); UJ, civil and criminal ; Legal personality;

theories of attribution different from RBC (causal connection vs risk based responsibility; objective & subjective elements to prove vs performance based or add as a defence) But the preventative posture of UNGPs - gjedde - is designed to manage the risk of harms to people, it serves as to mitigate the risks to biz by reducing the likelihood of involvement in ICsThe BHR formula for attributing responsibility (and therefore the structure for the analysis cycle) goes something like this

  • The overall analysis is flows (VCs+SCs+GPNs) x space (+time) (= upstream/downstream) / relationships (transactions+partnerships+suppliers+clients) x stakeholders(rightsholders) / attribution (cause-contribution-linkage + aiding&abetting + other tests of attribution e.g. "penger berørt" for AC risk)



  • Break this down into a framework for analysis, a database for storage and retrieval (graph), a formula for risk calculation (based on the graph weights)

  • Sammenhengen mellom folkerett og UNGP: Hva er næringslivets ansvar?

    • Inkl. definisjon av okkupasjon, okkuperte områder og hva andre land/EU gjør på dette (spesielt Vest-Sahara)

        1. Gjerne næringsliv og konflikt (inkl. okkupasjon), som viser at næringslivet har et ansvar under folkerett og UNGP

        2. i. For å vise at «det er ingen lover»-argumentet ikke holder

  • Hvordan følge opp dette ansvaret i praksis?

  • Potensielt: Bruk av teknologi [hvis det passer?]

    • Både i form av f.eks. systemer (sikre at relevante risker er inkludert) og sporing

  • Samtale med selskapene i rommet