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 7. Previous | Next

Does one see a mismatch between Cisco's corporate policies and practices? The answer need not be negative. Although Cisco may claim that it "does not in any way participate in the censorship of information by governments,"131 it should be noted that complicity in human rights abuses can take several forms. Complicity need not always be direct - indirect or silent complicity can also attract liability.132 As Edwin Black shows in his book IBM and the Holocaust, for example, it was IBM's punch card machines that allowed the Nazis to identify and eventually eliminate Jews widi ease and efficiency.133 Therefore, a plausible case against Cisco could be made if it knows or has reason to believe diat the supplied technology will be used by China or other countries for political persecutions. More so when Principle 2 of the Global Compact, to which Cisco is a party, provides that businesses should "make sure that they are not complicit in human rights abuses."134

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 »

Moreover, independent of the complicity question, corporations should be under an obligation to ensure "that their products are not used for human rights violations by those who purchase diem."135 Irresponsible export of arms - which could be used both for legitimate defense and illegitimate repression of minorities - also raises similar concerns regarding the role of corporations in foreseeable human rights abuses.136 The European Union's Code of Conduct on Arms Exports stipulates that member states "will not issue an export license if there is a clear risk diat the proposed export might be used for internal repression."137 By analogy, it is arguable that Cisco can again be made accountable for supplying technology used for Internet censorship in China,138 as Internet censorship in China is repressive conduct, though on less violent terms. It is unethical to continue exporting a technology to a repressive regime simply because what is at stake are the human rights of people living abroad as opposed to U.S. citizens.139 From the human rights perspective, a policy which seeks to safeguard the human rights only of the citizens of the U.S. or its allies is not only inadequate but also unethical.

On the basis of the foregoing analysis, it can be concluded that in an attempt to maximize profits by capturing the Chinese market, Yahoo!, Microsoft, Google, and Cisco have facilitated Internet censorship in China.140 Of these four MNCs, the conduct of Yahoo! is most reprehensible in that the company direcdy contributed to the conviction of several journalists and activists.141 This is not to say that the other three can escape their share of blame. As responsible corporate citizens, all four could have and should have played a more constructive role in protecting and promoting the human rights of their stakeholders in China. Yahoo!, Microsoft, and Google, for example, could have either continued to operate from servers located outside China, or agree to minimal case-bycase censorship rather than going for the overkill.142 They could also have made "public the list of censored words and phrases"143 and offered tools that would have enabled Internet users to dodge censorship.144 Cisco, on the other hand, could have entered a term in its contracts - also in order to comply with its pledge under the Global Compact - requiring supplied hardware not to be used for human rights abuses.145 Instead of putting more pressure on the Chinese government, however, Yahoo!, Microsoft, Google, and Cisco have opted for an easier and more profitable but less ethical option. Rather than pledging their support for the human rights norms, they have pledged to abide by the "Public Pledge of SelfRegulation and Professional Ethics for China Internet Industry,"146 agreeing to censor as if agents of the Chinese government.

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: Business

Most Popular Articles in Business

Most Popular Publications in Business