Sorry, this entry is only available in العربية.
To download the Report:
Author: admin
(العربية) لمحة مختصرة عن بعض أنظمة العقوبات المفروضة على سوريا
Human Rights and Business Unit
The Human Rights and Business Unit was launched in April 2018 as a stand-alone unit within the Syrian Legal Development Programme to address business or finance related human rights concerns that arise in Syria. The Unit also aims to ensure that human rights remains at the forefront of reconstruction in Syria.
Business and financial activity in Syria, as the conflict continues, create ample opportunities for human rights violations. Many states are scrambling to ensure their businesses can have a role in reconstruction in Syria. However, businesses operating in conflict-affected areas face particularly complex challenges in maintaining human rights in their business activities.
Moreover, reconstruction in Syria allows war criminals and perpetrators of human rights violations who are still in power to profiteer from reconstruction efforts.
The Human Rights and Business Unit works with a variety of stakeholders to ensure all business and financial actors are conscious of their role in protecting the human rights of Syrians and that they have the tools necessary to do so.
SLDP participates in Two Panels at “United Nations Forum on Business and Human Rights” in Geneva
The Human Rights and Business Unit (HRBU) within the Syrian Legal Development Programme participated in the “UN Forum on Business and Human Rights” in November 2019 in Geneva, an event guided and chaired by the UN Working Group on Business and Human Rights and organized by its Secretariat at the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR).
The annual forum is a global platform for stock-taking and lesson-sharing on efforts to move the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights from paper to practice.
Noor Hamadeh -Head of the HRBU Unit- participated as a panelist in 2 sessions.
The first session titled “Regulating businesses in contexts of conflict and occupation: what more is needed?“ was organized by the Essex Business and Human Rights Project in collaboration with Al-Haq, GreenAdvocates, Norwegian People’s Aid, Swedwatch, and SLDP; the session examined the particular risks posed by businesses operating in conflict-affected areas and on the potential for states and businesses to proactively and appropriately manage those risks.
Panelists identified best practices, discussed the difficulties of balancing rights in these contexts, and outline risks for which both businesses and states should be aware. Panelists also elaborated on particular remediation needs for individuals and communities impacted by business activities in situations of armed conflict.
Hamadeh presented on the various business and human rights risks that exist in the Syrian context, including those relating to humanitarian aid provision and reconstruction. Hamadeh also highlighted a number of factors business actors should pay attention to when engaging in the Syrian context, including constantly monitoring conflict conditions and identifying what actors are financing the conflict.
More on this panel can be found here http://bit.ly/2QRBIbT
The second session titled “Regional dialogue: lessons learned, challenges, innovation – WEOG – Part 2 (Home States and responsible investment in post-conflict)“ was organized by the UN Working Group on Business and Human Rights. The session focused on the role of home states in promoting responsible investment and responsible business in post-conflict and reconstruction contexts, as well as considerations for fragile situations more generally. Panelists discussed different ways to ensure that investments contribute to peacebuilding and development in post-conflict and reconstruction contexts such as in Syria, and what the role of home states is.
During this panel, Hamadeh provided recommendations to home states regarding their roles in promoting responsible investment in Syria’s reconstruction including:
- Developing regulations and guidance to govern their businesses’ activities in reconstruction.
- Require humanitarian and UN actors they fund to abide by a minimum human rights due diligence.
- Approach foreign policy around reconstruction from a human rights and accountability based perspective, including using sanctions regimes as an interim accountability measure.
More on this panel can be found here http://bit.ly/2uqZfJk
Participating in the forum is a part of SLDP continuous advocacy with various stakeholders around human rights and business issues in the Syria context.
More on the UN Forum on Business and Human Rights can be found here http://bit.ly/305nTLm
More on the Human Rights and Business Unit can be found here http://bit.ly/2FAouex
Amendments to Law Nr.10/2018 and Legislative Decree Nr.66/2012 in Syria
Syrian President Bashar Al Assad has issued law Nr. 42 of 2018 on Sunday 11/11/2018, amending some articles of law Nr.10 of 2018 and some articles of legislative decree Nr.66 of 2012. These two laws have caused wide international controversy which was showcased by some countries filing complaints to the Security Council against law Nr. 10 considering it to be hindering the return of Syrian refugees. These amendments were issued even before law Nr. 10 was implemented, which confirms that they were made as a result of international pressure on the Syrian government.
It must be noted that the issuance of this law invalidates the claims of the Russian authorities, who have informed the United Nations about the Syrian government’s intention to step back from law Nr.10. As laws cannot be amended or invalided through political statements, reality also provides continuous prove that the acts of the Syrian government are nothing more than media propaganda aiming at changing the international boycott policy against it, and to drag donor states to contribute towards the reconstruction of what the government’s war machines have destroyed.
Despite the fact that the new decree has amended the deadline by which property owners have to provide their property claims to be now one year, it does not include any amendments of the provisions that allows the administrative unit to perform free deductions of land (Article 2(11)) or the forced mechanism laid down by the law in regards to the disposal of stock ownership by owners through previously specified choices and timelines (Article 2(17)). In addition, the amendments did not deal with the existing inadequacy in provisions related to alternative housing stipulated in law Nr. 10 (Article 2(24)), which, without doubt, constitute a blatant violation of property rights guaranteed by the constitution (Article 15) and international conventions. Therefore, fears and doubts remain existent regarding the extent to which these laws will impact the rights of refugees and internally displaced persons to return to their homes and claim their properties.
For this reason, this paper will include an in-depth reading of decree Nr. 42 of 2018, explaining the amendments made in addition to our observations regarding the new property laws that were issued by the Syrian government.
Firstly: Regarding law Nr. 10 of 2018
1. The law amended the deadline by which owners need to come forward with their property claims to be a whole year starting from the date of declaring an area a developmental zone. Previously, this deadline had been one month only under law Nr. 10 (Article1 A).
2. The law considered the rights registered in the real estate registry (Land registry) to be accurate, valid and accredited in front of the “specialized committees in conflict resolution, distribution and estimation” until the opposite is proven through legal means, regardless if property was claimed by their owners or not or was claimed after the passing of the one year deadline. In other words, the law required the specialized committees to take cadastral registrations into consideration whether or not the owners or the right holders appeared before them or whether or not they filed their claims. This goes without saying given the evidentiary power rea; estate registry has on all people (Article1 Paragraph A.)
3. The invitation by the administrative unit needs to include: owners and in- kind right holders such as claims of placed charges, mortgages, foreclosures, concessions, insurance and restraining orders, whether these rights are proven through formal ways, such as court orders and documented contracts, or not. In addition, these properties and rights include those mentioned in real estate registry records and all other records of the same category such as temporary registration records, municipality records, military housing institution and housing associations (Article1 Paragraph A).
4. The required evidence that needs to be presented could be official documents or even just copies of these documents, and in case of unavailability stakeholders could mention in detail in writing the specifications of their properties, borders, size and legal kinds or the nature of their in-kind rights or all their rights and responsibilities and in- kind claims. This means that the law has given them the opportunity to prove their ownership in legally acceptable ways in front of the specialized administrative and juridical committees or in front of courts in the future.
5. The ones who have the right to come forward with property permits, claims and rights are the persons concerned themselves or through guardianship of minors they represent or through power of attorney of clients they represent (Article1 Paragraph A). The law also allowed the relatives of owners and right holders up to the 4th degree and without power of attorney to represent them in claiming their rights and proving and defending them. This includes the ascendants (fathers, grandfather and their fathers…etc.) and the descendants (children, grandchildren, children of grandchildren), and brothers and sisters and their children and grandchildren, uncles and aunts from both paternal and maternal sides and their children. The law also set out to allow power of attorney to others regarding this aspect (Article1 Paragraph B).
Secondly: Regarding legislative decree Nr. 66 of 2012
1. The law stipulated that it is compulsory to establish specialized legal committees to look into objections, disputes, property claims, and all in-kind disputes related to the real estates of the developmental area (Article2 Paragraph A).
2. The committees have jurisdiction whether or not property ownership and rights had been declared in front of the estimation courts. (Article 2 Paragraph A).
3. Courts must abandon litigation related to property and in-kind rights claims in regard to this specific developmental area and refer these cases to these committees with competent jurisdiction if no final judgment has previously been issued (Article 2 Paragraph A).
4. Personal rights such as rental and investment rights are not included in this law.
5. The law left the door open for those who had no knowledge of a decree being issued in order to create a developmental area that affects their rights, as well as for those who were not able to declare their properties or in-kind rights in front of the estimation and conflict resolution committees, so that they can resort to the specialized court in accordance to the general rules governing this issue (Article 2 Paragraph B).
General Observations
1. The practical implementation of these laws is the judge that determines the extend of protection of the right of property of owners and in-kind right holders. This cannot be determined unless the said laws have been used as the legal basis for reconstructing the affected areas in practice. The reason for that is the rightful lack of trust in the Syrian agencies and institutions, whether administrative or juridical.
2. Many of the procedures set out in the law could be totally disregarded based on outside instructions, such as those requiring security clearances for some kinds of power of attorneys.
3. These laws do not present sufficient guarantees to protect the rights of people belonging to the political opposition or even normal citizens, as long as the Syrian government could refer them to the Counter-Terrorism Court” and try them in absentia or issue sentences against them seizing or expropriating their property. The government could also perform these acts through the ministry of finance and other state agencies that have been used by the government as a mean to punish opposition or those whose loyalty to the government is questioned.
4. These laws cannot under any circumstances be considered a guarantee that would encourage Syrian refugees and internally displaced people to return to Syria. On the contrary they establish a hinderance and a violation of the right of return.
Without a Court: Ensuring Corporate Accountability: Non-judicial strategies for promoting corporate accountability in Syria
Feb 16, 2021 | | Download as PDF | This post is also available in: Arabic
There are various non-judicial strategies through which NGOs can hold businesses accountable, these include non-judicial grievance mechanisms and economic pressure tactics.
Over the past year, the unrelenting persistence of the Syrian conflict, one of the deadliest humanitarian crises of our time, has been coupled with the seemingly premature steps to reconstruct the country – the estimated costs of which will be between $100 to $350 billion, with some putting it as high as $1 trillion.
As the country scrambles for investments and multinational corporations race for contracts, dilemmas will likely arise. It will be near impossible to avoid the regime’s power system of patronage, interdependency, and widespread corruption, which the country’s business elites and government actors have long engaged in. Licenses for mobile phone networks, for example, have gone to Rami Makhlouf, Bashar al-Assad’s first cousin, concentrating profits in his hands. Makhlouf also controls free trade zones and runs more than 200 foreign companies operating in Syria. In 2011, it was estimated that his net worth sat at $2 billion, with some Syrian economists putting it at $6 billion.
As such, intensive scrutiny needs to be paid towards business enterprises operating in the country so as to hold these multinational corporations accountable for any war crimes and/or human rights violations they may be complicit in.
Under international criminal law, business actors and stakeholders may be held liable for committing, planning, ordering, aiding or abetting criminal acts which “threaten the peace, security, and well-being of the world.” A single act or omission by a corporation can be sufficient to attract criminal liability. This includes, for example, the provision of moral support, goods, services, information, personnel, logistical or financial assistance.
However, as there is yet an international court to look into the crimes committed in Syria, and given that national courts are still slow in dealing with such crimes, alternative methods of putting pressure on companies to respect human rights needs to be explored by international and Syrian NGOs. This blog post lists a few.
One example, is a non-judicial grievance mechanism, which is a formal complaint process against business-related human rights abuses. These complaints can be filed through corporate-level grievance mechanisms – ranging from well-established mechanisms to hotlines – or via self-regulatory initiatives found in different sectors, such as the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil and the Fair Wear Foundation.
National human rights institutions and development finance institutions, which finance the activities of the corporation in question, can receive complaints as well. The procedure can also take place as part of international agreements between states such as mechanisms linked to UN treaty-based and charter-based bodies and the International Labour Organization’s Committee on Freedom of Association.
NGOs can also push for the creation of a system whereby companies’ social performance is regularly monitored by independent, impartial outside auditors. While not in the context of a conflict, some of the main NGOs that have taken on this approach are the Fair Labor Association and Social Accountability International.
NGOs that favour engagement can choose to adopt less confrontational tactics by drawing in corporations through the use of dialogue and moral argumentation backed by research in order to persuade corporations to voluntarily act socially responsible.
Additionally, NGOs can look at adopting economic pressure strategies. One such example is filing shareholder resolutions. By doing so, NGOs can exert economic and moral influence at shareholder meetings. Such a tactic does not usually succeed in attracting a majority of votes at these meetings, but will get the attention of a business’s board of directors and top managers.
Other economic pressure tactics include advocating for the boycott of a company’s products and stock divestment, a strategy that can have considerable impact on a corporation’s profits and investments, which are central to its existence. Proponents of this strategy look to boycotts against Nestle, Nike, Starbucks, and most prominently the BDS (Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions) movement. BDS is a global campaign that seeks to pressure the Israeli state to comply with international law and uphold the rights of Palestinian citizens by promoting various forms of boycott against Israel.
NGOs can also advocate to their local or national governments to adopt selective purchasing or selective procurement laws. These are indirect sanctions aimed at condemning human rights violations, such as those adopted by American cities and counties in protest of the South African apartheid regime. Another example is the 1997 Massachusetts Burma Law, which penalized corporations that continued to conduct business with the repressive Burmese regime through adding a surcharge to contracts.
Advocating at the government level is critical, because in addition to setting standards for multinational corporations, governments provide tax and other regulatory incentives as a reward for corporations’ good behaviour, which they may lose if they engage in abuses.
Economic pressure strategies, which are more confrontational, may have more effective outcomes in view of the fact that when a corporation’s financial interests are threatened, it is more likely to act. Such strategies are generally adopted by NGOs that view engagement as ineffective due to the absence of enforcement mechanisms and the belief that corporations will only act by means of economic coercion and legally binding obligations.
In addition to the aforementioned strategies and tactics, NGOs need to mobilize consumers and governments. A company’s power lies in the marketplace, ergo, if consumers remain ill-informed or indifferent to the negative practices adopted by a multinational corporation, it is unlikely that these mechanisms will prove successful.
For this reason, a widely practiced confrontational method by NGOs is moral stigmatization, more commonly known as “naming and shaming.” That is, publicly smearing business enterprises found to be in violation of human rights. This method will likely force companies, which are sensitive to public criticism, to act responsibly.
However, such strategies also risk corporate backlash and consequently economic instability. Business enterprises can choose to withhold capital for economic growth by refusing to provide new investments in an economy, this is known as capital strike. Capital flight can take place as well, meaning corporations can relocate, resulting in a large-scale withdrawal of financial assets and capital. Therefore, tactics adopted by NGOs in the Syrian context need to be carefully thought of.
Reconstruction in Syria seems to be on the way and it will be on the shoulders of the international human rights community, including Syrian NGOs, to ensure that the protection of civilians’ security and rights is made a priority by keeping multinational corporations accountable to their actions through exploring all possible means.
To download the Report:
REPORT: International Law and Reconstruction in Syria: A Cautionary Note for Businesses
An increasingly loud rhetoric within the Syrian conflict is shifting towards the reconstruction of the country. While the need for Syria’s reconstruction is not debatable, the vastness of international crimes committed in Syria creates an environment rich with potential for complicity in war crimes for foreign and multinational businesses interested in participating in reconstruction in Syria. Businesses may face international criminal liability for a diverse number of activities that could be linked to crimes already committed, crimes that are ongoing, and crimes that could be committed in Syria. The activities range from providing financial or logistical means, to even providing moral support to war crimes.
The Syrian Legal Development Programme has launched a report on the international legal liabilities that businesses may face in reconstruction in Syria titled “International Law and Reconstruction in Syria: A Cautionary Note for Businesses.” The report explains the various legal liabilities that businesses may face as a result of a number of activities they may conduct in reconstruction of Syria, and draws on conclusions by international and domestic courts. It does so while explaining the Syrian crime and economic scene, citing hundreds of sources. The report also concludes with a list of recommendations for businesses, States, international actors, and Syrian civil society for avoiding international law violations in Syria’s reconstruction.
To download the Report:
Toolkit: The Human Rights and Business Toolkit for Syria
Supported by the European Union, The Swiss FDFA, the Dutch MFA and Impunity Watch, The Human Rights and Business Unit of the Syrian Legal Development Programme is pleased to introduce the Human Rights and Business Toolkit for Syria.
The toolkit aims at helping human rights defenders working on Syria to identify, document, engage and advocate on human rights issues linked to business activity in Syria, and holding perpetrators of business-related human rights abuses to account. It is tailored to the Syrian conflict and aimed at Syrian civil society organisations (CSOs) and individual human rights defenders concerned about the impact businesses have on the human rights situation in Syria.
To download the Report:
Report: BUSINESS ACTIVITY LINKED TO HUMAN RIGHTS IN SYRIA
The Syrian Legal Development Programme (SLDP)’s Human Rights and Business Unit has been documenting business-related activities that may contribute to international crimes or human rights violations in Syria on an ongoing basis since its founding in April 2018. SLDP has chosen to publish findings from this period in particular (1 April – 30 September 2018) as opposed to a more recent period is to avoid jeopardizing current investigations into more recent business-related activities and their human rights impacts .For more recent specific data please get in touch directly with our team.
With this report, SLDP aims to provide evidence of the types human rights violations and international crimes business activity in Syria is contributing to. These findings are intended to empower Syrian civil society and international actors by providing them with the information they need to respond to potential violations of international law by Syrian business elites, multinational businesses, and other business actors in Syria.
To download the Report:
To download the Findings:
Press Release: A group of 42 Syrian civil society organizations welcome the Dutch government’s decision to hold the Syrian authorities accountable and highlight the need for other states to support this step and take similar ones.
Wednesday, 23 September 2020
The Dutch government issued a statement announcing that it had sent a diplomatic note to the Syrian authorities holding them responsible for gross human rights violations and torture in particular, in the context of its efforts to refer the matter to the International Court of Justice. The Dutch government’s decision comes after several previous attempts in the Security Council to refer to the violations’ file committed in Syria, which were met with the use of the veto right by Russia and China. Whereas, based on international law obligations, the note calls on Syria to assume responsibility in ending violations and redressing victims, and in the event of failure to respond as well as failure of arbitration, the Netherlands will resort to the International Court of Justice.
The statement of the Dutch government clearly indicates that the failure of the Security Council to end impunity, as well as the increasing evidence of violations and crimes were the most important motivation for this action to hold perpetrators accountable against impunity. The statement singled out torture crimes with reference to the use of chemical weapons and the bombing and shelling of hospitals.
The Dutch Government’s action based on Syria’s obligations towards all member states of the Convention against Torture, which in turn is based on the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice as stipulated in Article 30 of the Convention, clearly calls for a broader international action to build on the immense efforts of investigation committees, Syrian and international human rights organizations over years to build data and evidence for a wide range of violations committed by the Syrian authorities, such as hospitals’ bombing and shelling as well as the use of chemical weapons for decades, and to rely on other international agreements and treaties to move towards international accountability mechanisms outside the framework of the Security Council, which is always obstructed by the right to veto.
The signatories underline the importance of the Netherlands’ action as a real step toward accountability and call on the rest of the active countries in the Syrian context to take similar steps based on the international agreements signed by Syria previously.
This first action must be followed by serious steps to build on. We, the Syrian civil society, are ready to cooperate with the Netherlands’ Ministry of Foreign Affairs through submitting documentations, testimonials and analysis that we worked and are still working on.
Signatory organizations:
1. Access Center For Human Rights
2. Adel Center For Human Rights
3. ASHNA for development
4. Association of Detainees and Missing Persons in Sednaya Prison
5. Badael
6. Baytna
7. Bercav
8. Butterfly Impact Center
9. Caesar Families Association
10. Center for Global Policy (CGP)
11. Children of One World
12. Dawlaty
13. Families for Freedom.
14. Freie Deutsch-Syrische Gesellschaft e.V. in Hamburg
15. Human Rights Guardians
16. Human Rights Organization in Syria- MAF
17. Hurras Network
18. Justice for life
19. Kesh Malek Organization
20. Lawyers and doctors for Human Rights LDHR
21. Local Administration Councils Unit (LACU)
22. Local Development and Small-Projects Support (LDSPS)
23. Nophotozone
24. Nuon-an organization for peacebuilding
25. Pro-justice
26. Shaml Syrian CSOs Coalition
27. Start Point
28. Syria Civil Defense- The White Helmets
29. Syrian American Medical Society
30. Syrian Association for Citizen Dignity “SACD”
31. Syrian Center for Media and Freedom of Expression (SCM)
32. Syrian Lawyers Aggregation
33. Syrian Legal Development Programme (SLDP)
34. Syrian Network for Human Rights (SN4HR)
35. Syrian Women’s Network
36. Syrians for Truth and Justice-STJ
37. Ta’afi (Kesh Malek)
38. The Day After
39. The National Commission on Detainees and Missing Persons
40. The Syria Campaign
41. Urnammu for justice & human rights
42. Women Now For Development