Transnational corporations in developing world

multinational corporations in ontogeny knowledge do principal(prenominal) openingtransnational corporations pre cardinald spread their operations around the entire world and argon frequently violating the most basic compassionate reclaims. This news report leave al angiotensin-converting enzyme discuss the negative strike of transnational corporations (hereinafter TNCs) on the natural milieu in host countries. It pull up stakes focus on corporations operational in developing countries. surroundingsal degradation is almost inter associate to wellness, nonwithstanding due to restrictions, the composing depart only focus on the surroundingsal aspect.As a result of the ball-shaped imp crop of TNCs operations and the negative effect on the environs they may ca work, environmental tax shelter is a very pertinent topic. It is very concerning that in that remark be only a few internationalist legal rolls which lay down TNCs responsibilities encountering this matter. Due to the voluntary char former of those, TNCs rotter very practically operate in their own musical mode, without every regard to the environment and what is more, in m either cases the host states argon reluctant to decl be both mea sures to pr counterbalancet contamination done by TNCs.The working theory of this paper is as follows TNCs and host countries spend a penny certain responsibilities regarding environmental safeguard. However, they are reluctant to take measures to prevent environmental befoulment, the former because they are control by profit and the latter because of a lack of lead or con nones. Developing countries where TNCs operate frequently lack sufficient funds for environmental management or are un leaveing to gravel pressure on TNCs because they do non essential to lose TNCs investment.The paper will be divided into three sections. In the first one, the recognition of the powerfulfulness to a sun-loving environment will be examined. This section will involve round global and regional documents which recognize that well(p) and it will soon present how the office to environment is recognized at the national take of states. The second part will contain an oerview of TNCs impact on the environment and research their legal and moral obligations with regard to environmental cherishion. In the 3rd part, responsibility of states to protect peoples right to the environment from being violated by TNCs will be examined. Throughout the paper, cases of environmental defilement by TNCs will be presented. Good practices will be mentioned as well.The paper will among early(a)s, look into the following documents UDHR, ICESCR, proclamation of the coupled Nations Conference on the homo milieu, Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, OECD Guidelines for multinational Enterprises, UN Norms on the Responsibilities of international Corporations and differentwise(a) Business Enterprises with regard to human kind rightlys. Furthermore, constitutions of some countries regarding the environment will be mentioned. As standards of certain claims, cases will be presented and statistical data utilize to support some statements.The Right to a Healthy EnvironmentConsequences of environmental degradation have more and more started to attract international attention in the second part of the 20th century. M any(prenominal)(prenominal) attempts to develop regulations for environmental protection were do, exactly at first, environmental protection was not directly linked to human rights. The Universal Declaration of clement Rights for face recognizes the right to a cadence of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family1 which emphasizes more the br other(a)ly care. The Declaration of the coupled Nations Conference on the gentleman Environment, adopt in 1972 in Stockholm (hereinafter Stockholm Declaration) made a signifi adviset quantity towards environm ental protection by stating Man has the rudimentary right to freedom, equating and adequate conditions of life history, in an environment of a quality that permits a life of dignity and well-being, and he bears a solemn responsibility to protect and advance the environment for present and future generations.2 From this formulation it idler be dumb that environmental protection is a precondition to the enjoyment of human rights. In other words, human rights are seen as a goal and environmental protection as means to achieve it.The Stockholm Declaration influenced the ontogenesis of a number of documents and organizations concerned with the environmental protection. Important to mention is the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development which proclaims the right of human beings to a healthy and productive life in harmony with nature3 and states further that the environmental ask of future generations is a basic human right The right to phylogenesis must be fulfilled so as to equitably forgather developmental and environmental needs of present and future generations.4 in that location personify a number of international and regional documents, principles and norms relating to the concept of the environment5. However, no global human rights treaty which involves the right to environment has been adopted so far. There are several regional documents which explicitly recognize the human right to a healthy environment, for casing Afri scum bag Charter of Human and Peoples Rights6 and American company on Human Rights in the Area of economical, Social and pagan Rights7. It is worth mentioning that the European Convention on Human Rights does not imply the right to a healthy environment but this energy commute in October 2009 the Parliamentary Assembly issued a recommendation that this right be included in an additional protocol to the convention.On the national train, the right to a healthy environment is today codified in numerous constitutions8 and national laws. The formulations of the right vary but in general they include the principle that the human right to a healthy/clean/ skillful/safe environment provides from each one individual a right to an environment that en equal to(p)s him/her well-being and development.9Environmental degradation is closely linked to some other human rights. Pollution of resources such as water, air or malicious gossip is violating the right to health and can have an impact on the right to life. Forced evictions caused by consequences of corporations projects for example are connected to the violation of the right to the property, just to name a few. As stated above, this paper will only focus on the environmental aspect.Transnational CorporationsThe impact of TNCs on the environmentIn the past century, transnational corporations have expanded their activities passim the entire world. They operate in more firmaments such as extractive industries, footwear and textile production, manuf acturing, electronics, construction etc. Most TNCs are registered in unquestionable countries10 but usually move their operations to developing countries. They are attracted by less stringent environmental regulations and bigger tolerance to the pollution they cause, which is closely connected to tolerance to other human rights violations arising from the environmental degradation.11Corporations are open(a) of contributing to better topical anaesthetic living conditions by increasing the standard of living and some surely do. They stimulate development by for example providing jobs, training or modern technical equipment. There are cases where corporations operating in a host outlandish which has lower environmental standards compared to those in their home country, operate beneath stricter standards.This, however, is not a universal practice. TNCs often move their operations to developing countries precisely because they can get external with the bad demand prohibited elsewh ere. In developing countries corporations frequently use potentially dangerous technologies and outdated machinery which are highly pollutant. In 1985 for instance the wattinghouse Electric Corporation from U.S. s one-time(a) a nuclear reactor to Philippines which did not meet U.S. safety standards.12 What is more, examples can be found of TNCs which do not meet neither the standards of the home nor the host country. Such was the outdated equipment in the pesticide plant in Bhopal which was the reason for the worst industrial accident in history.Mining and oil industries are contributing to large-scale environmental pollution. Those, along with other industries cause soil degradation, deforestation, pollution of the atmosphere, contaminate water supplies and have a heavy impact on biodiversity as well. Such degradation is long-term and heavily impacts health. Among other diseases it causes respiratory and lung problems, skin rashes, allergies, tumors and can even result in death. E nvironmental damage is often irreversible or it takes long time for the nature to renew. As it has been recognized in the Rio Declaration, it has an impact on future generations as well.Legal obligations of TNCsThe international system for protection of human rights is a state-based system. That means that states are primeval duty-holders of human rights obligations but they are not exclusive duty-holders. A question arises if TNCs have any obligations13 to comply with these laws. The foreign Covenant of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights14 for example refers to any State, group or person15 as having duties so from this statement it can be deducted that TNCs have duties as well and should thitherfore refrain from violating human rights through with(predicate) their activities. The problem arises with the placardability. Under sure international law namely, states are the ones which are required to raise standards that TNCs must adhere to and states are the ones which will be held liable for human rights violations by corporations.16In the 1970s several codes of conduct concerning the duties of TNCs have been developed, such as OECD-Declaration on International Investments and transnational Enterprises (1976), which includes Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises. In regard to environmental protection, the guidelines state that enterprises should take due account of the need to protect the environment and avoid creating environmentally related health problems. They should more everyplace provide timely information regarding the potential impacts on the environment and health, take measures to minimize the risk of accidents and damage to health and environment and support in mitigating adverse effects of their operations.17 The guidelines can be used as recommendation to TNCs but they are not lawfully binding. Today at that place are 42 countries which have signed the document.18A more juvenile voluntary standard developed for promotion of human ri ghts by corporations is the United Nations Global Compact, an initiative for descentes that are committed to aligning their operations and strategies with ten universally accepted principles in the areas of human rights, labor, environment and anti-corruption.19The abovementioned initiatives are two voluntary and it is true that they are a step into the right concern but due to the fact that they are voluntary and not legally binding they have proven not to be effective, which can be seen in cases mentioned throughout the paper.In 2003 a significant document was adopted the UN Norms on the Responsibilities of Transnational Corporations and other Business Enterprises with regard to Human Rights (hereinafter the Norms). The Norms are the first international legal instrument to recognize the obligations of TNCs regarding the protection of human rights. With regard to the environmental protection, it is clearly stated that TNCs shall carry out their activities in accordance with nati onal laws, regulations, administrative practices and policies relating to the preservation of the environment of the countries in which they operate.20 The comment of that clause states that corporations shall obedience the right to a clean and healthy environment in the light of the relationship between the environment and human rights.21 The Norms impose obligations on TNCs to assess the impact of their activities and deliver reports to competent bodies.22 TNCs are furthermore to adopt internal rules of operation which are in deference with the Norms23 and compliancy and protect human rights within their spheres of their activity. Nevertheless, as it is stated in the text, the primary responsibility still lies within the states.24 As can be seen from the way the Norms are formed, they are not purely voluntary. They namely foresee a monitoring and reporting mechanism to determine if TNCs comply with the obligations they have under the Norms. What is more, according to the text TNCs shall provide adequate reparation to communities which have been bear on by TNCs failures to comply with the Norms.25 In April 2004 though, the Commission on Human Rights affirm that Norms have no legal standing and that Sub-Commission should not perform any monitoring.26 That means that Norms are only a consultative document. The same as the abovementioned regulations, the Norms are of voluntary nature and therefore its provisions cannot be implement upon TNCs. It can be concluded that just as any other voluntary document, they will only be observed by a few corporations and these tend to be the ones which are already operating in a positive manner.The international community has so far been ineffectual to reach an agreement on a legally binding document recognizing the right to environment which is strictly order at TNCs. That, however, does not mean that there are no environmental standards TNCs must adhere to succession conducting their practices. TNCs must respect na tional laws of host countries regarding those standards.Moral obligations of TNCsThere is an increasingly strong view that TNCs have ethical or moral duties to respect fundamental human rights in the countries in which they do handicraft. The NGO sector expects TNCs to engage more in their environmental responsibility and that they act to mark that their impact is positive, not negative.27If companies are observed from the perspective that they are created to repair profit and that profit maximization is the only force that drives them, then it is inappropriate for them to have any additional expenses which are not strictly necessary. Milton Friedman in his article on social responsibility of businesses argues that the responsibility is to conduct business in accordance with their desires, which generally will be to make as much money possible.28 He points out that a company engages in certain activities which are good for the community just for its own purposes and profit.29 e arth-closet it be deduced that ethical conduct is only in the scotch refer of a corporation? From that perspective it would mean that TNCs invest money into something that is not strictly necessary for business, but they do it only because they believe they will have some economic benefits from the investment. And if ethical conduct would not be beneficial, would TNCs still consider it?Not all corporations can be goddamned for polluting the environment. Many are operating in positive manners but as already mentioned above, due to the restrictions, this paper is only focusing on those which have a negative impact on the environment. From the latter group, there is a number of TNCs which have improved their policies. The question that arises in this respect is if they do that because they realized that due to new practices they would have a great economic benefit. Is the diverge genuine or are the efforts being made just for the sake of gaining competitive advantage?In times of g lobalization, companies cannot omit the scrutiny of media for their misconduct even if it is taking place at the other side of the world. There are many campaigns calling for consumers attention to domineering operations of TNCs which give them bad publicity that may consequently slim down the sales.30 Organizations like Corporate Watch, Global Exchange or CorpWatch are forever exposing TNCs for the environmental damage they cause. TNCs do not want consumers to think of their check as a bad brand because of their negative practices and may change their conduct for that reason. The importance of public scrutiny is growing. What is more, this might be the main likewisel for forcing TNCs to become more answerable towards the environment since they may want to avoid negative publicity which can affect their sales.On the other hand, what they might do is to advertise their good practices when in fact they s eyelide by to work in environmentally destructive practices. Unilever for example portrays itself as a business which exercises the same concern for the environment wherever it operates and whose policy is to fix safety of its operations for the environment.31 Greenpeace on the other hand has accused Unilever of manifold standards because the company had allowed its Indian subsidiary to dump several tones of highly nephrotoxic mercury cop in a surrounding protected nature reserve.32 Another case worth mentioning is Royal-Dutch Shell which now portrays itself as a good corporate citizen by announcing it operates in environmentally and socially responsible ways.33 According to Corporate Watch however, the corporation continues, behind the greenwash, with many of its old ways.34StatesAs already mentioned above, states are primary duty-bearers of human rights and have obligations to respect, protect and fulfill the human rights of their citizens in accordance with their national laws and with international documents they are parties to. States are the on es who establish treaties, they are the ones who sign them and must play the primordial regulatory role over activities within their territory.35 With regard to the subject of this paper that means that states should have an overview of TNCs operations on their territory and make sure that corporations respect national environmental regulations.The implementation of environmental laws largely depends on each countrys efforts to enforce them. Frequently when dealing with TNCs, host countries on one hand lack the capacity or on the other hand, the political will to enforce the laws and consequently fail to respond to threats of TNCs to the environment.As mentioned above, many TNCs operate in Third World countries and these often do not have sufficient means for environmental management. There might be a lack of funding and lack of mechanisms needed to monitor compliance with laws. Therefore states are frequently unable to pressurize TNCs into adhering to their environmental laws. tra ding operations of the U.S. corporation Newmont Mining and Peruvian firm Buenaventura in Yanacocha in Peru can be given as an example. Mining activities have resulted in depletion and pollution of water supplies, which led the topical anaesthetic community to organize numerous protests. In 2006, with the change of government, an agreement between the TNC, communitys representatives and the government was concluded. The three parties agreed that the TNC would arm a water purification plant and carry out studies of the local water supply. Upon that, a local NGO insisted that the government must act to stop the environmental pollution and got a response of the Minister of capability who claimed that government would take steps to ensure that the rights are respected, but he pointed to the lack of funds for setting up an autonomous oversight body.36 whatsoever truth definitely lies behind the fact that developing countries are qualified in their funds and thus may not be able to per form certain activities. Still it has to be taken into account that the country kale from TNC activities as well so the lack of capacities can in many cases be connected to the lack of will.The second aspect of non-enforcement of environmental laws is, as mentioned in the preceding paragraphs, that states might be unwilling to put pressure on TNCs. One of the reasons is because of the fear that corporations might transfer their investments to other countries. Less stringent environmental laws or failure of states to enforce the laws might be more attractive to TNCs. States namely have economic benefits from TNCs investments and some put priority on those over environmental issues and consequently over their citizens rights.It is not rare that countries give out concessions to TNCs even though they are aware of the environmental pollution the TNCs cause. What is more, governments frequently even actively service of process TNCs, sometimes with use of violence against their own citi zens. This has been the case in the example that follows. Freeport Indonesia has been operating a gold and copper mine in West Papua since 1970s and polluting irresponsibly almost without any liability. At the time when Freeport started its minelaying operation this was the cornerstone of the countrys economy. In order to lead the country towards economic stability, the government had given the corporation generous concessions. In exchange, the company provided employment, understructure and technology. The mining company, operating in the way it chose, with little regard for environmental consequences, and the government have therefore both benefited from the activities. While operating, Freeport has been disposing hazardous waste into the nearby rivers, polluting the water and the surrounding environment which has caused severe health problems of the local population. When opposition to the TNC started gaining power, Freeport relied on the state military for security. It was cla imed that Freeport financed Indonesian military to violently repress protests against its environmental crimes.37 This case is very complex and it is evident that Freeport is mingled in the political issues as well. Both parties profit from the situation to the evil of the environment and local communities. The government with its power is able to repress any opposition and it calculates that it has no intention to stop the environmental degradation because the profits it has from Freeports operations are too significant. The environmental harm caused does not seem to be of much importance and the same holds true for the health of the population.As can be seen from the cases mentioned throughout the paper, implementation of laws on the sate level in many cases proves to be insufficient. Some governments take the exact antonym role to what they are supposed to be doing instead of preventing TNCs environmental pollution and protecting their citizens they take an active role and s upport TNCs misconducts. Laws are too often not enforced and TNCs can continue exploiting the resources and polluting the environment without any limitations.ConclusionIn the past few decades the initiative to recognize the right to a healthy environment has become stronger. The progress can be seen from the increasing number of documents recognizing the importance of environmental protection. At the regional level, there are a few treaties recognizing the right to a healthy environment, however no global treaty exists yet which recognizes this right. The international law is in this perspective lagging behind some national laws many states have namely recognized the right to a healthy environment in their constitutions.Activities of transnational corporations around the world have become unavoidable. TNCs are in the main registered in developed countries and often operate with harmful business practices in the Third World. There is no global binding treaty directed at TNCs regard ing their conduct towards the environment and this proves to be a weakness of current international law. TNCs can therefore often get away with the pollution they cause. Many voluntary regulations exist but these cannot be legally enforced. They can only be seen as guidelines which TNCs are not obliged to follow. single corporations that want to adhere to them will do so and it can be expected that those will probably be the ones which already operate in ethical ways. Voluntary guidelines will therefore not impact corporations which are responsible for the worst abuses. The importance of media in this regard is growing. Criticism of TNCs doings might be the main weapon against their misconduct since they may want to avoid negative publicity which can affect their sales.It remains the fundamental role of each government to enforce environmental laws. It is up to each state to ensure that TNCs operating under its jurisdiction do not operate in an environmentally harmful manner. In t he case of developing countries these often lack sufficient funds for environmental regulation or mechanisms to monitor TNCs performance. At the same time, they are often reluctant to act because of the fear of losing TNCs investment. Countries frequently place priority on economic benefits over environmental protection and it is not rare that they even help TNCs in their environmental exploitation by violently repressing resistance of their citizens. It can therefore be concluded that national governments of developing countries can in many cases not be relied upon to play their role in environmental protection.BibliographyPrimary SourcesSecondary SourcesAfrican Charter of Human and Peoples RightsAmerican Convention on Human Rights in the Area of Economic, Social and Cultural RightsButtefield, put off Philippines Expected to File Suit Against Westinghouse New York Times, 1 Dec., 1988. http//www.nytimes.com/1988/12/01/business/philippines-expected-to-file-suit-against-westinghouse. html?pagewanted=1 (accessed 5 Dec. 2009).Business and Human Rights Resource Center. Freeport Indonesia. Several Articles. http//www.business-humanrights.org/Categories/Individualcompanies/F/FreeportIndonesiapartofFreeport-McMoRan (accessed 10 Dec. 2009).Cleaver, Harry. Freeport McMoRan And Human Rights Violations In West Papua. UT Watch. http//www.utwatch.org/corporations/freeportfiles/cleaver.html (accessed 10 Dec. 2009). comment on the Norms on the Responsibilities of Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises with Regard to Human Rights, U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/2003/38/Rev.2 (2003). http//www1.umn.edu/humanrts/links/commentary-Aug2003.html (accessed 10 Dec. 2009).Corporate Watch. Royal-Dutch Shell Group. http//www.corporatewatch.org/?lid=302 (accessed 12 Dec. 2009).Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment (Stockholm, 16 June 1972) UN Doc. A/Conf.48/14, reprinted in 11 ILM 1416 (1972) http//www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/Default.asp? DocumentID=97ArticleID=1503 (accessed 9 Dec. 2009).Forsythe, David P. The Political delivery of Human Rights Transnational Corporations. Lincoln, University of Nebraska, 2001.Fortune. Global 500. 2009 Annual Ranking of the Worlds Largest Corporations. http//money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/global500/2009/full_list/ (accessed 11 Dec. 2009).Friedman, Milton The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits. New York Times Magazine, 13 September 1970, 32. http//www.colorado.edu/studentgroups/libertarians/issues/friedman-soc-resp-business.html (accessed 10 Dec. 2009).Gallagher, Kevin P. and Lyuba Zarsky. Rethinking Foreign Investment for Development, 2006. http//www.paecon.net/PAEReview/issue37/GallagherZarsky37.htm (accessed 10 Dec. 2009).Greenpeace. Several Articles on Unilever. http//www.greenpeace.org.uk/tags/unilever?page=1 (accessed 10 Dec. 2009). Grow, Brian Social Responsibility Fundamentally subverter? Business Week, 15 August 2005. http//www.businessweek.com/mag azine/content/05_33/b3947115_mz017.htm (accessed 10 Dec. 2009).International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (New York, 16 Dec. 1966) 993 U.N.T.S. 3, entered into force 3 Jan. 1976.International Law Programme Discussion Group. Norms on the Human Rights Responsibilities of Transnational Corporations where next? 17 June 2004. http//www.chathamhouse.org.uk/files/3244_ilp170604.pdf (accessed 10 Dec. 2009).Jgers, Nicola The Legal Status of the Multinational Corporation Under International Law. In Linking Human Rights and the Environment, ed. Romina Picolotti and Jorge Daniel Taillant, 31-56. Tuscon, The University of Arizona Press, 2003.Kiss, Alexandre The Right to the Conservation of the Environment. In Linking Human Rights and the Environment, ed. Romina Picolotti and Jorge Daniel Taillant, 31-56. Tuscon, The University of Arizona Press, 2003.Maggio, Greg and Owen J. Lynch Human Rights, Environment, and Economic Development. Existing and Emerging Standards in Internati onal Law and Global Society. CIEL stead Page, 15 Nov. 1997. http//www.ciel.org/Publications/olpaper3.html (accessed 11 Dec. 2009).Marsden, Chris In Defence of Corporate Responsibility. URL (accessed 8 Dec. 2009).OECD-Declaration on International Investments and Multinational Enterprises (21 June 1976) OECD Press Release A (76), 20. http//www.oecd.org/dataoecd/56/36/1922428.pdf (accessed 9 Dec. 2009).OReilly, Paddy and Sophia Tickell TNCs and Social Issues in the Developing World. In Human Rights Standards and the Responsibility of Transnational Corporations, ed. Michael K. Addo, 273-287. The Hague Kluwer Law International, 1999.Rio Declaration on Environment and Development (14 June 1992) UN Doc. A/Conf.151/5/Rev.1, reprinted in 31 ILM 874 (1992). http//www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/Default.asp?DocumentID=78ArticleID=1163 (accessed 9 Dec. 2009).Salazar, Milagros PERU take away Out the Water with the Gold. Inter Press Service. CorpWatch webpage. http//www.corpwatch.org/articl e.php?id=14157 (accessed 14 Dec. 2009).Sende, Analia Marcella The Responsibilities of States for Actions of Transnational Corporations Affecting Social and Economic Rights A Comparative Analysis of the calling to Protect. 15 Colum. J. Eur. L. Online 33 (2009) http//www.cjel.net/online/15_2-marsella-sende/ (accessed 14 Dec. 2009).Shell. Webpage. http//www.shell.com/ (accessed 12 Dec. 2009).Tonkin, David. The Complex Story of Freeport. indoors Indonesia. Dec. 2004 http//www.insideindonesia.org/content/view/219/29/ (accessed 13 Dec. 2009).UN Commission on Human Rights, Round-up of 60th Session, U.N. Doc. HR/CN/1099 (26 April 2004). http//www.unis.unvienna.org/unis/pressrels/2004/hrcn1099.html (accessed 10 Dec. 2009).UN Human Rights Commission Resolution 2004/11, U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/2004/L.73/Rev.1 (20 April 2004). URLUN Norms on the Responsibilities of Transnational Corporations and other Business Enterprises with regard to Human Rights (13 Aug. 2003) U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/2003/12/Rev. 2 (2003) http//www1.umn.edu/humanrts/links/norms-Aug2003.html (accessed 10 Dec. 2009).Unilever. Unilever Environment Policy. http//www.unilever.com/images/sd_Environment-Policy_tcm13-173498.pdf (accessed 12 Dec. 2009).United Nations Organization. UN Global Compact, The Ten Principles. 2000. http//www.unglobalcompact.org/AboutTheGC/TheTenPrinciples/index.html (accessed 9 Dec. 2009).Universal Declaration of Human Rights (10 Dec. 1948), U.N.G.A. Res. 217 A (III) (10 Dec. 1948). http//www.un.org/Overview/rights.html (accessed 13 Dec. 2009).University of Michigan. The Curse of Oil in Ogoniland. http//www.umich.edu/snre492/cases_03-04/Ogoni/Ogoni_case_study.htm (accessed 20 Dec. 2009).Zarsky, Lyuba (1997) Stuck In the mud? Nation-States, Globalization and the Environment. The Hague. OECD.Woodroffe, Jessica Regulating Multinational Corporations. In Human Rights Standards and the Responsibility of Transnational Corporations, ed. Michael K. Addo, 131-142. The Hague Kluwer Law Inter