欢迎来到联合国，您的世界！ 
OHCHR 
新闻稿 人权理事会
理事会结束关于跨国企业和人权问题以及言论自由问题的互动对话（部分翻译）
理事会结束关于跨国企业和言论自由问题的互动对话
2016年6月17日
分享
上午
日内瓦（2016年6月17日）——人权理事会今天上午结束了与人权与跨国公司和其他工商企业问题工作组主席但丁•派斯（Dante Pesce）以及增进和保护见解和言论自由权问题特别报告员大卫•凯伊（David Kaye）的集体互动对话。
派斯先生在总结发言中表示，《联合国工商业与人权指导原则》是为所有企业制定的，其中的原则4特别关于国营企业。有关落实指导原则的国家行动计划将有助于制定一项具有凝聚力的公共政策框架，同时该框架必须尊重国内和国际的人权准则。在加强企业问责的工作方面，工作组旨在强化获得司法救助和法律补救，派斯先生同时强调了在此方面所需的更强政府领导。
凯伊先生于6月16日进行了总结发言，发言内容、报告内容和互动对话的开始部分可在这里查看。
代表团在互动对话中强调，目前仍然存在许多有关跨国企业运营的人权挑战，并对工作组在此方面的努力表示欢迎。代表团称赞了在工商业背景下作为全球促进人权的关键因素的指导原则，并补充表示国家行动计划必须强化对补救的获取。代表团询问跨国公司与人权问题工作组，指导原则如何具体确保对言论自由权的尊重，并问及了能够直接适用于私营公司的有关战争罪、危害人类罪以及灭绝种族罪的国际法准则。
在有关言论自由的讨论中，发言人表示私营公司可能会对言论自由产生极为显著的影响，并询问了一些如何确保私营公司平台不被用来传播狂热言论。数字世界正飞速向前迈进，其中承载着迅速制定保护隐私、促进言论自由和确保网络安全的政策的需求，也同样需要颁布适当的立法以终止恐怖主义和极端主义团体在网上发表仇恨言论并煽动仇恨情绪。他们强调，网络言论自由必须得到与线下言论自由相同的保护。
比利时、南非、爱沙尼亚、中国、澳大利亚、利比亚、尼日利亚、拉脱维亚、玻利维亚、印度、埃及、尼日尔、布基纳法索、巴拉圭、莫桑比克、加纳、巴基斯坦和巴西在讨论中发言。
以下非政府组织也作了发言：赫尔辛基人权基金会（Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights）、国际人权服务社（International Service for Human Rights）、胡维基金会（Al Khoei Foundation）、国际教育发展会（International Educational Development）、第十九条（Article 19）、新闻标志运动（Press Emblem Campaign）、区域人权与性别公正中心（Centro Regional de Derechos Humanos y Justicia de Genero）、促进参与性民主制度人民团结组织（People’s Solidarity for Participatory Democracy）、国际法学家委员会（International Commission of Jurists）、国际律师协会（International Bar Association）、亚洲人权与发展论坛（Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development）、萨拉玛基金会（Alsalam Foundation）、南美洲印第安人理事会（Indian Council of South America）以及国民觉悟运动（Aliran Kesedaran Negara National Consciousness Movement）。
人权理事会今天举行全天会议，随后将与教育权问题特别报告员以及和平集会与结社自由问题特别报告员开展集体互动对话。
Continuation of Clustered Interactive Dialogue on Transnational Corporations and Human Rights, and on Freedom of Expression
Belgium said that private companies could have a considerable impact on freedom of expression and asked how these companies could avoid their platforms being used for the expression of fanaticism. Belgium believed that State-owned enterprises should take a leading role in advancing and promoting respect for human rights in the context of business and this issue would be included in the national action plan. South Africa highlighted that the exercise of freedom of expression carried with it duties and responsibilities for right holders and asked how in concrete terms could the Guiding Principles ensure respect of this right and which norms of international law could apply directly on private companies for war crimes, crimes against humanity and crimes of genocide. Estonia said that the digital world was moving forward at a great speed and this carried a need to urgently develop policies to protect privacy, advance freedom of expression and ensure cybersecurity. The Internet should be a single, open, non-fractured network to which the same offline rules applied. China was a great supporter of corporate social responsibility and had established a system of judicial assistance to victims of human rights violations committed by business enterprises. The Internet had become the key platform for people to participate in politics and when using it people must abide by the law, protect national interests and construct good order. During its Universal Periodic Review in November 2015, Australia had made a voluntary commitment to undertake national consultations on the implementation of the United Nations Guiding Principles and this process was now underway. Freedom of expression in the digital context must be protected in the same manner as offline. Libya said that some essential issues related to freedom of expression online must be well debated, particularly related to incitement to hatred online, and stressed an urgent need to put an end to hate speech by terrorist and extremists groups by enacting appropriate legislation and exchanging expertise among nations.
Nigeria hailed the Guiding Principles as the global key point for the promotion of human rights within the business context, adding that national action plans had to strengthen access to remedy. As for freedom of expression, it asked the Special Rapporteur to shed more light on the issue of safety and propagation of extremism online. Latvia shared the concern over worrying trends that had emerged regarding the regulation of digital content. How could States ensure optimal transparency and refrain from pressuring when regulating the private sector? Bolivia underlined that only a binding international instrument would allow States to hold companies accountable. Accountability and compensation across national borders needed to be addressed further, and extraterritorial judicial powers should be invoked. India noted that State regulation of online content was one area that witnessed a lively debate. The relative anonymity that the Internet provided could often be abused with serious individual and social consequences. Egypt supported the idea that all businesses had the obligation to protect human rights. As for freedom of expression online, it did not share the view that private actors could weigh on what kind of content could be published online, due to the risk of inflammatory or extremist messages. Niger noted that States should take vigorous measures against companies that did not respect human rights. Under the national Constitution every person could exercise their right to freedom of expression. Burkina Faso attached special importance to freedom of opinion and had thus taken measures to promote it. Subsidies were provided to the media and journalists, and media content was not subject to State interference.
Paraguay noted its domestic objective of bridging the digital divide, especially in rural areas, and underlined the responsibility of governments and the private sector in focusing on freedom of opinion and expression. Mozambique said that the report of the Working Group on business and human rights was a fair reflection of the work it had undertaken to implement its mandate, and was encouraged by the constructive yet insufficient cooperation of some businesses seeking to protect their interests, noting also that the international community should keep in mind that the Sustainable Development Goals were centred on human rights. Ghana said that the country recognized the importance of the right to freedom of expression. Since their adoption, the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights had become central to their field, and States had to take steps to ensure victims of human rights abuses had access to remedy without restriction. Pakistan said that the right of freedom of expression played an important role in the promotion and protection of democratic values, yet freedom came with responsibility, and it was unfortunate that the Internet was being used by terrorists and extremists, asking the Special Rapporteur for his views on States’ responsibility in providing a normative framework. Brazil said it was incumbent on States to take active steps to ensure that enterprises under their effective control respected and promoted international human rights standards. On the report of the Special Rapporteur, it was noted that mass surveillance had the potential to severely undermine freedom of expression, and technical standards had to be questioned in view of the profound bearing they had on human expression in the digital format.
Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights said tightening repression in Tibet had created a more dangerous political environment for Tibetans in expressing their views, listing several incidents involving individuals in separate geographic locations, calling on the Human Rights Council to urge China to allow the access of independent observers to verify the extent of the violations of freedom of expression. International Service for Human Rights asked what the Council would do to engage with Brazilian authorities, and noted that human rights defenders played an important role in providing accountability for human rights violations, urging the Council to ensure that the relevant resolution reflected the reality on the ground and underlined human rights defenders’ access to remedy.
Al Khoei Foundation drew attention to systematic and State-led persecution and social marginalization of Malaysian Shi’as. There was concern that the Malaysian society was slowly giving way to radical Islam infused with intolerance of oppositional views. International Educational Development warned that Iran continued to severely restrict freedom of expression, association and assembly. The authorities blocked social media and imprisoned journalists and online critics, especially in the Kurdish region. Article 19 noted that legal and extra-legal pressures on new technology companies had profound implications for the civic space on the Internet and human rights. Ensuring greater transparency in decisions of such companies was essential. Presse Embleme Campaign underlined the issue of flow of information in conflict zones, namely propaganda, Internet restrictions, censorship, targeted attacks against communications and media. It suggested that the Special Rapporteur devote one of his next studies to that issue. Centro Regional de Derechos Humanos y Justicia de Genero drew attention to local communities in Brazil which were affected by State-led projects in cooperation with corporations and lacked recourse to justice. It shared the concern over the steps taken by the Brazilian Government to remove environmental licences for construction projects. People’s Solidarity for Participatory Democracy, in a joint statement with MINBYUN-Lawyers for a Democratic Society, stated that in the Republic of Korea there was a lack of oversight by external bodies, such as courts, and no reviewing process for the protection of personal information. State law and enforcement agencies used the Telecommunications Business Act arbitrarily.
International Commission of Jurists said that there were many human rights challenges related to the operation of transnational corporations and reiterated serious concern regarding some elements in the guidance on improving accountability and access to remedy for victims of business related human rights abuses as they might have an unintended effect of providing companies with a shield against legal liability. International Bar Association encouraged the Working Group to take into consideration its guidance on the role of bar associations in developing an institutional strategy and technical assistance for the profession, and the Practical Guide on Businesses and Human Rights for Business Lawyers. Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development was gravely concerned by the actions of several Asian governments which were encouraging private companies to take measures which would further restrict freedom of expression online, including in Cambodia, Thailand and Malaysia. Alsalam Foundation called attention to targeting of individuals for expressing their opinions on social media in Bahrain, such as on the state of prisons in the country or the humanitarian situation in Yemen, including harassment, arrests, and prolonged detention. Indian Council of South America asked the Council and Special Procedures to ensure the protection of defenders of human rights in Latin America, particularly those engaged on indigenous and environmental issues in relation to activities on corporations and business enterprises. Aliran Kesedaran Negara National Consciousness Movement feared that the proposed legal amendments in Malaysia would further restrict freedom of expression online by controlling context and proposing harsher punishments.
Concluding Remarks
DANTE PESCE, Chair of the Working Group on human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises, in concluding remarks, said that the principle of leading by example was a model that looked reasonable and had been supported by 30 statements. The Guiding Principles were designed for all enterprises, and Principle 4 referred to State-owned enterprises in particular; such enterprises were one of major themes at the Working Group’s annual forum in November. He thanked delegations for their many references made to the need to incorporate the Working Group’s recommendations on State-owned enterprises in national action plans on human rights and businesses. Looking at the nine plans published so far, some of them referred to State-owned enterprises, but others did not. Many references had been made to legal remedies and greater levels of accountability, and the Working Group’s aim was to strengthen access to justice and legal remedies. The Working Group had underscored the need for greater leadership from governments. References had been made to negotiations on a treaty in the area of human rights and business, and the Working Group had been pleased to hear Cuba and Ecuador’s views.
Mr. Pesce said South Africa had also referred to national action plans. That would help draw up a cohesive public policy framework. What was needed was that the public policy framework respected human rights, whether domestically or transnationally. The Working Group had no objections to developing a treaty, and thus was ready to cooperate with the governments of South Africa and Ecuador that were leading the negotiations on a binding legal instrument. The Working Group had had an intense dialogue with the Brazilian Government which was very constructive, and hoped for a follow-up visit to see how the recommendations had been implemented. Regarding comments made by Venezuela on how the international community should respond to negative impacts on human rights by business activities, it was noted that the Forum could be attended by all who wanted to follow up on the impact of business on human rights. The Annual Forum would focus on State-owned enterprises this year. Some delegations had asked about next steps, and the first task of governments was to identify expectations from State-owned enterprises.
日内瓦（2016年6月17日）——人权理事会今天上午结束了与人权与跨国公司和其他工商企业问题工作组主席但丁•派斯（Dante Pesce）以及增进和保护见解和言论自由权问题特别报告员大卫•凯伊（David Kaye）的集体互动对话。
派斯先生在总结发言中表示，《联合国工商业与人权指导原则》是为所有企业制定的，其中的原则4特别关于国营企业。有关落实指导原则的国家行动计划将有助于制定一项具有凝聚力的公共政策框架，同时该框架必须尊重国内和国际的人权准则。在加强企业问责的工作方面，工作组旨在强化获得司法救助和法律补救，派斯先生同时强调了在此方面所需的更强政府领导。
凯伊先生于6月16日进行了总结发言，发言内容、报告内容和互动对话的开始部分可在这里查看。
代表团在互动对话中强调，目前仍然存在许多有关跨国企业运营的人权挑战，并对工作组在此方面的努力表示欢迎。代表团称赞了在工商业背景下作为全球促进人权的关键因素的指导原则，并补充表示国家行动计划必须强化对补救的获取。代表团询问跨国公司与人权问题工作组，指导原则如何具体确保对言论自由权的尊重，并问及了能够直接适用于私营公司的有关战争罪、危害人类罪以及灭绝种族罪的国际法准则。
在有关言论自由的讨论中，发言人表示私营公司可能会对言论自由产生极为显著的影响，并询问了一些如何确保私营公司平台不被用来传播狂热言论。数字世界正飞速向前迈进，其中承载着迅速制定保护隐私、促进言论自由和确保网络安全的政策的需求，也同样需要颁布适当的立法以终止恐怖主义和极端主义团体在网上发表仇恨言论并煽动仇恨情绪。他们强调，网络言论自由必须得到与线下言论自由相同的保护。
比利时、南非、爱沙尼亚、中国、澳大利亚、利比亚、尼日利亚、拉脱维亚、玻利维亚、印度、埃及、尼日尔、布基纳法索、巴拉圭、莫桑比克、加纳、巴基斯坦和巴西在讨论中发言。
以下非政府组织也作了发言：赫尔辛基人权基金会（Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights）、国际人权服务社（International Service for Human Rights）、胡维基金会（Al Khoei Foundation）、国际教育发展会（International Educational Development）、第十九条（Article 19）、新闻标志运动（Press Emblem Campaign）、区域人权与性别公正中心（Centro Regional de Derechos Humanos y Justicia de Genero）、促进参与性民主制度人民团结组织（People’s Solidarity for Participatory Democracy）、国际法学家委员会（International Commission of Jurists）、国际律师协会（International Bar Association）、亚洲人权与发展论坛（Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development）、萨拉玛基金会（Alsalam Foundation）、南美洲印第安人理事会（Indian Council of South America）以及国民觉悟运动（Aliran Kesedaran Negara National Consciousness Movement）。
人权理事会今天举行全天会议，随后将与教育权问题特别报告员以及和平集会与结社自由问题特别报告员开展集体互动对话。
Continuation of Clustered Interactive Dialogue on Transnational Corporations and Human Rights, and on Freedom of Expression
Belgium said that private companies could have a considerable impact on freedom of expression and asked how these companies could avoid their platforms being used for the expression of fanaticism. Belgium believed that State-owned enterprises should take a leading role in advancing and promoting respect for human rights in the context of business and this issue would be included in the national action plan. South Africa highlighted that the exercise of freedom of expression carried with it duties and responsibilities for right holders and asked how in concrete terms could the Guiding Principles ensure respect of this right and which norms of international law could apply directly on private companies for war crimes, crimes against humanity and crimes of genocide. Estonia said that the digital world was moving forward at a great speed and this carried a need to urgently develop policies to protect privacy, advance freedom of expression and ensure cybersecurity. The Internet should be a single, open, non-fractured network to which the same offline rules applied. China was a great supporter of corporate social responsibility and had established a system of judicial assistance to victims of human rights violations committed by business enterprises. The Internet had become the key platform for people to participate in politics and when using it people must abide by the law, protect national interests and construct good order. During its Universal Periodic Review in November 2015, Australia had made a voluntary commitment to undertake national consultations on the implementation of the United Nations Guiding Principles and this process was now underway. Freedom of expression in the digital context must be protected in the same manner as offline. Libya said that some essential issues related to freedom of expression online must be well debated, particularly related to incitement to hatred online, and stressed an urgent need to put an end to hate speech by terrorist and extremists groups by enacting appropriate legislation and exchanging expertise among nations.
Nigeria hailed the Guiding Principles as the global key point for the promotion of human rights within the business context, adding that national action plans had to strengthen access to remedy. As for freedom of expression, it asked the Special Rapporteur to shed more light on the issue of safety and propagation of extremism online. Latvia shared the concern over worrying trends that had emerged regarding the regulation of digital content. How could States ensure optimal transparency and refrain from pressuring when regulating the private sector? Bolivia underlined that only a binding international instrument would allow States to hold companies accountable. Accountability and compensation across national borders needed to be addressed further, and extraterritorial judicial powers should be invoked. India noted that State regulation of online content was one area that witnessed a lively debate. The relative anonymity that the Internet provided could often be abused with serious individual and social consequences. Egypt supported the idea that all businesses had the obligation to protect human rights. As for freedom of expression online, it did not share the view that private actors could weigh on what kind of content could be published online, due to the risk of inflammatory or extremist messages. Niger noted that States should take vigorous measures against companies that did not respect human rights. Under the national Constitution every person could exercise their right to freedom of expression. Burkina Faso attached special importance to freedom of opinion and had thus taken measures to promote it. Subsidies were provided to the media and journalists, and media content was not subject to State interference.
Paraguay noted its domestic objective of bridging the digital divide, especially in rural areas, and underlined the responsibility of governments and the private sector in focusing on freedom of opinion and expression. Mozambique said that the report of the Working Group on business and human rights was a fair reflection of the work it had undertaken to implement its mandate, and was encouraged by the constructive yet insufficient cooperation of some businesses seeking to protect their interests, noting also that the international community should keep in mind that the Sustainable Development Goals were centred on human rights. Ghana said that the country recognized the importance of the right to freedom of expression. Since their adoption, the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights had become central to their field, and States had to take steps to ensure victims of human rights abuses had access to remedy without restriction. Pakistan said that the right of freedom of expression played an important role in the promotion and protection of democratic values, yet freedom came with responsibility, and it was unfortunate that the Internet was being used by terrorists and extremists, asking the Special Rapporteur for his views on States’ responsibility in providing a normative framework. Brazil said it was incumbent on States to take active steps to ensure that enterprises under their effective control respected and promoted international human rights standards. On the report of the Special Rapporteur, it was noted that mass surveillance had the potential to severely undermine freedom of expression, and technical standards had to be questioned in view of the profound bearing they had on human expression in the digital format.
Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights said tightening repression in Tibet had created a more dangerous political environment for Tibetans in expressing their views, listing several incidents involving individuals in separate geographic locations, calling on the Human Rights Council to urge China to allow the access of independent observers to verify the extent of the violations of freedom of expression. International Service for Human Rights asked what the Council would do to engage with Brazilian authorities, and noted that human rights defenders played an important role in providing accountability for human rights violations, urging the Council to ensure that the relevant resolution reflected the reality on the ground and underlined human rights defenders’ access to remedy.
Al Khoei Foundation drew attention to systematic and State-led persecution and social marginalization of Malaysian Shi’as. There was concern that the Malaysian society was slowly giving way to radical Islam infused with intolerance of oppositional views. International Educational Development warned that Iran continued to severely restrict freedom of expression, association and assembly. The authorities blocked social media and imprisoned journalists and online critics, especially in the Kurdish region. Article 19 noted that legal and extra-legal pressures on new technology companies had profound implications for the civic space on the Internet and human rights. Ensuring greater transparency in decisions of such companies was essential. Presse Embleme Campaign underlined the issue of flow of information in conflict zones, namely propaganda, Internet restrictions, censorship, targeted attacks against communications and media. It suggested that the Special Rapporteur devote one of his next studies to that issue. Centro Regional de Derechos Humanos y Justicia de Genero drew attention to local communities in Brazil which were affected by State-led projects in cooperation with corporations and lacked recourse to justice. It shared the concern over the steps taken by the Brazilian Government to remove environmental licences for construction projects. People’s Solidarity for Participatory Democracy, in a joint statement with MINBYUN-Lawyers for a Democratic Society, stated that in the Republic of Korea there was a lack of oversight by external bodies, such as courts, and no reviewing process for the protection of personal information. State law and enforcement agencies used the Telecommunications Business Act arbitrarily.
International Commission of Jurists said that there were many human rights challenges related to the operation of transnational corporations and reiterated serious concern regarding some elements in the guidance on improving accountability and access to remedy for victims of business related human rights abuses as they might have an unintended effect of providing companies with a shield against legal liability. International Bar Association encouraged the Working Group to take into consideration its guidance on the role of bar associations in developing an institutional strategy and technical assistance for the profession, and the Practical Guide on Businesses and Human Rights for Business Lawyers. Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development was gravely concerned by the actions of several Asian governments which were encouraging private companies to take measures which would further restrict freedom of expression online, including in Cambodia, Thailand and Malaysia. Alsalam Foundation called attention to targeting of individuals for expressing their opinions on social media in Bahrain, such as on the state of prisons in the country or the humanitarian situation in Yemen, including harassment, arrests, and prolonged detention. Indian Council of South America asked the Council and Special Procedures to ensure the protection of defenders of human rights in Latin America, particularly those engaged on indigenous and environmental issues in relation to activities on corporations and business enterprises. Aliran Kesedaran Negara National Consciousness Movement feared that the proposed legal amendments in Malaysia would further restrict freedom of expression online by controlling context and proposing harsher punishments.
Concluding Remarks
DANTE PESCE, Chair of the Working Group on human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises, in concluding remarks, said that the principle of leading by example was a model that looked reasonable and had been supported by 30 statements. The Guiding Principles were designed for all enterprises, and Principle 4 referred to State-owned enterprises in particular; such enterprises were one of major themes at the Working Group’s annual forum in November. He thanked delegations for their many references made to the need to incorporate the Working Group’s recommendations on State-owned enterprises in national action plans on human rights and businesses. Looking at the nine plans published so far, some of them referred to State-owned enterprises, but others did not. Many references had been made to legal remedies and greater levels of accountability, and the Working Group’s aim was to strengthen access to justice and legal remedies. The Working Group had underscored the need for greater leadership from governments. References had been made to negotiations on a treaty in the area of human rights and business, and the Working Group had been pleased to hear Cuba and Ecuador’s views.
Mr. Pesce said South Africa had also referred to national action plans. That would help draw up a cohesive public policy framework. What was needed was that the public policy framework respected human rights, whether domestically or transnationally. The Working Group had no objections to developing a treaty, and thus was ready to cooperate with the governments of South Africa and Ecuador that were leading the negotiations on a binding legal instrument. The Working Group had had an intense dialogue with the Brazilian Government which was very constructive, and hoped for a follow-up visit to see how the recommendations had been implemented. Regarding comments made by Venezuela on how the international community should respond to negative impacts on human rights by business activities, it was noted that the Forum could be attended by all who wanted to follow up on the impact of business on human rights. The Annual Forum would focus on State-owned enterprises this year. Some delegations had asked about next steps, and the first task of governments was to identify expectations from State-owned enterprises.
__________
For use of the information media; not an official record