It’s time to address corporate complicity in Gaza’s war crimes | Opinion

From one year Hamasheinous killings and hostage-taking and the start of Israel’s atrocious war in Gaza, the extent of civilian suffering in the occupied Palestinian territories – and now in Lebanon – is intensifying. The Israel Defense Forces’ onslaught shows no signs of slowing down, even months after the International Court of Justice’s (ICJ) warning about the plausible risk of genocide made headlines. In response, scrutiny is rightly intensifying on the issue of business complicity in crimes against humanity, as companies in various sectors – from arms exporters to tech giants – continue to profit against the backdrop of unfathomable violence against civilians.

We must be clear: these companies are at a fork in the road.

Will they renounce war profiteering, abide by international business standards and abide by humanitarian and human rights law? Will the arms exports that every day facilitate indiscriminate crimes stop? Will they end their role of creating a fog of misinformation and hate speech? Or will they continue to fuel crimes against humanity and war crimes with no real end in sight?

International law and standards provide a well-defined way to answer these questions. The process is simple and widely accepted around the world, at least in corporate mission statements. The UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights tell us that in circumstances of conflict, companies and investors have a responsibility to undertake enhanced human rights due diligence. In armed conflict, companies must redouble their efforts to identify and address their effects on the human rights of civilians to ensure that they do not contribute to the triggers of conflict, nor to the triggers that escalate violence.

After the ICJ found “real and imminent risk” of irreparable harm to rights under the Genocide Convention, a legal expert stated that “corporations and their managers could be held responsible for committing acts of genocide…. International criminal law suggests that direct complicity requires intentional participation, but not necessarily an intent to do harm, only knowledge of foreseeable harmful effects.” Arms and technology exports are essential to the ongoing operations of the Israel Defense Forces and therefore instrumental. to the number of civilian deaths and violations of international humanitarian law in Gaza. These legal risks are great even for business leaders who have lost any moral compass.

But for many of the companies and investors linked to human rights abuses, even the most basic cornerstones of responsible business action are missing.

Research by the Business & Human Rights Resource Center has found that these firms are opaque and failing to meet their human rights responsibilities. From 104 technology companies The Resource Center asked about the measures they are taking to avoid contributing to further damage in the region, only four bothered to answer. In August, the Resource Center, too asked 15 arms exporters and 21 of their investors for their plans for increased human rights due diligence — once again, only four companies responded, with only three investors at least sharing credible efforts, including consideration of divestment.

The opacity of these firms in the face of human suffering and the clear risk of violating international law indicates an unacceptable sense of impunity.

And so, what’s next?

What if companies cannot conduct human rights due diligence in the chaos of conflict or create any business model that avoids their contribution to “foreseeable adverse effects” on civilians?

Here, there is no fork in the road. Consideration of divestment and responsible exit from conflict are the only possible next steps to comply with international law and business standards.

As the death toll mounts in the occupied Palestinian territories and Lebanon, a growing number of governments and investors appear to be coming to this conclusion. It is increasingly difficult for them to turn a blind eye to the growing scale of violence and the risk that these companies do not provide sufficient assurance that they are not contributing to it.

KLP, Norway’s largest pension provider, now has excluding Caterpillar from its investment portfolio due to concerns the company could be contributing to abuse by using its products to demolish Palestinian homes and infrastructure in the West Bank. In mid-October, the UK government sanctioned Amana, a construction company involved in setting up illegal settlements in the West Bank. Other governments should consider emulating these moves to ensure adherence to international law.

When it comes to arms companies, there is little room for uncertainty: UN experts have called for a full arms embargo and an end to the sale and transfer of surveillance technology and dual-use items, while the UK government recently suspended 30 licenses arms export to Israel. because of a “clear risk” they may be used to commit or facilitate serious violations of international humanitarian law.

History and future courts will be the judge of the technology, arms, and other companies that have continued their involvement and remained silent on the steps they take to avoid being used by the military and propagandists who kill civilians and aggravate hate speech. in Gaza and Lebanon.

But leadership is now being demanded on all fronts by more responsible businesses and investors to express collective responsibility and strong government action; by governments to apply their domestic laws and international human rights standards to businesses; and by the courts, to hear early legal challenges to corporate complicity in war crimes for those executives who remain committed to profiting in the face of atrocities and seeking punishment. Civilians in the region facing untold suffering and destruction need this action now.

Mary Robinson is a former UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and former President of Ireland. Phil Bloomer is executive director of the Business and Human Rights Resource Center.

The opinions expressed in this article are those of the writers.