Content provided in partnership with

CORPORATE COMPLICITY IN INTERNET CENSORSHIP IN CHINA: WHO CARES FOR THE GLOBAL COMPACT OR THE GLOBAL ONLINE FREEDOM ACT?

George Washington International Law Review, The, 2007 by Deva, Surya

<< Page 1 Continued from page 16. Previous | Next

The vagueness of the Compact principles is further buttressed by the use of concepts which themselves do not currendy have a definite meaning. Take, for example, the terms "complicity" and "sphere of influence." The Compact's statement that businesses should "make sure that they are not complicit in human rights abuses"262 does not go far enough in helping corporations to identify situations of complicity that should be avoided. What amounts to complicity in a given scenario has proved a complex area that requires careful exploration.263

Most Popular Articles in Business: Research and Markets : Tesco Plc - SWOT Framework Analysis; Do Us a Flavor - Ben & Jerry's Issues a Call for Euphoric New Flavors; eBay made easy: ready to start an eBay business? These 5 simple steps will ...; Katrina's lawsuit surge: a legal battle to force insurers to pay for flood ...; Wal-Mart's newest distribution center opened last month near the southwest ...; More »

We may also recall that the Compact Principles are subject to a general rider requiring companies to take measures only within their sphere of influence.264 But what constitutes a corporation's "sphere of influence," though fundamental to the efficacy of Compact principles, is a matter of uncertainty and speculation. No guidance is given on whether it will include the subsidiary and affiliate concerns, or the supply chains of a parent corporation.265

This is not to say that the U.N. Compact Office has not made any efforts to infuse some certainty into these key concepts. Implementing the Global Compact: A Booklet for Inspiration, for example, explains three types of complicity - direct, beneficial and silent266 - which mirror those identified by Clapham and Jerbi.267 Companies are advised to "actively avoid all kinds of direct and indirect complicity."268 The Booklet also provides a self-evaluation test for complicity.269 A company in doubt should ascertain "the effect on violations if our company or other similar companies did not par- ticipate in the activity in question or did not work with the partner in question."270 Although the three types of complicity are defined quite broadly, the application of the suggested test may produce narrow results. Let us hypothetically apply the test to the controversial roles of Yahoo!, Microsoft, Google, and Cisco in Internet censorship in China. By applying the test, all four corporations could come to the conclusion that irrespective of their role there would be censorship and control over Internet use in China. So, they are not complicit in the instant Internet censorship. If the test brings such a result, then it is arguably not satisfactory.

3) Communication on Progress

The Global Compact initially required participating companies to submit an annual "net report" to show their commitment towards the Compact principles.271 In January 2003, this requirement was replaced with the submission of an annual Communication on Progress (COP).272 The COP is intended to both "ensure and deepen the commitment of Global Compact participants and to safeguard the integrity of the initiative."273 A failure to provide the COP will result in that corporation being listed on the Global Compact's website as a "non-communicating" participant, or "inactive" if the COP is not submitted for two consecutive years.274 Despite not being very onerous, about one-quarter of the total participants (mostly corporations) have defaulted on this requirement.275

CORPORATE COMPLICITY IN INTERNET CENSORSHIP IN CHINA: WHO CARES FOR THE GLOBAL COMPACT OR THE GLOBAL ONLINE FREEDOM ACT?

George Washington International Law Review, The, 2007 by Deva, Surya

Find Research Guides for:

Find Featured Titles for: Sports

Most Popular Articles in Business

Most Popular Publications in Business