View previous stories
	Legislation contravenes principles enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by Koïchiro Matsuura UNESCO Afghanistan   April 2009   A new law that could be adopted by Afghanistan’s Parliament on the status of Shiites in the South Asian nation undermines the right to education, the principle of gender equality and the rights of the child, the head of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) said today.   In a letter to Afghan President Hamid Karzai today, UNESCO Director-General Koïchiro Matsuura expressed concern that the draft legislation contravenes principles enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, calling on the country’s leader to prevent the law from entering into force.   UNESCO’s constitution promotes universal respect for rights and fundamental freedoms “without distinction of race, sex, language or religion,” and calls for education for all “without regard to race, sex or any distinctions, economic or social.”   Further, the agency ensures that the rights and specific needs of women are taken into consideration in all of its programmes, stressing the importance of unrestricted access to education by girls and women as a precondition to social and economic development, Mr. Matsuura said.   In his letter, Mr. Matsuura welcomed the strides Afghanistan’s Government has made in many areas, including education, which is recognized as a right in the country’s constitution.   Earlier this month, the top UN human rights official called for the repeal of another new law in the country which she said seriously curtails women’s rights, even explicitly permitting marital rape, and is a “huge step in the wrong direction.”   The law regulates the personal status of the country’s minority Shi’a community members, including relations between men and women, divorce and property rights.   It denies Afghan Shi’a women the right to leave their homes except for ‘legitimate’ purposes; forbids them from working or receiving education without their husbands’ express permission; weakens mothers’ rights in the event of a divorce; and makes it impossible for wives to inherit houses and land from their husbands, even if husbands can inherit property from their wives.   “This is another clear indication that the human rights situation in Afghanistan is getting worse, not better,” said Navi Pillay, High Commissioner for Human Rights. “Respect for women’s rights – and human rights in general – is of paramount importance to Afghanistan’s future security and development.”   April 14, 2009   A leading female Afghan politician was shot dead after leaving a provincial council meeting in Kandahar, southern Afghanistan, that her colleagues had begged her not to attend.   Sitara Achakzai a women"s rights activist had lived in Germany for many years when the Taliban were in power in Afghanistan. Officials said she returned in 2004 to her home in Kandahar.   Mrs Achakzai had put herself at the forefront of the women"s rights struggle in Kandahar, and last year organised a "prayer for peace" demonstration in one of the city"s biggest mosques on International Women"s Day.   About 1500 women attended, although this year the women were banned from entering the building and instead held a meeting elsewhere.
	Business and Human Rights by John G. Ruggie United Nations European Parliament   April 2009   John G. Ruggie, the Special Representative of the United Nations Secretary-General for business and human rights, summarizes where his UN work stands.   "At its June 2008 session, the United Nations Human Rights Council unanimously "welcomed" a policy framework for business and human rights that I proposed. This marked the first time the Council or its predecessor, the Commission, had taken an actual policy position on this subject. The Council also extended my mandate until 2011, with the task of "operationalizing" the framework—providing "practical recommendations" and "concrete guidance" to states, businesses and other social actors on its implementation.   The framework rests on three pillars: the state duty to protect against human rights abuses by third parties, including business, through appropriate policies, regulation, and adjudication; the corporate responsibility to respect human rights, which in essence means to act with due diligence to avoid infringing on the rights of others; and greater access for victims to effective remedy, judicial and non-judicial.   The state duty to protect is grounded in international human rights law. States have long known what is required of them in relation to abuse by state agents. And most states have adopted measures and established institutions in certain core areas of business and human rights, such as labor standards and workplace non-discrimination. But beyond that, the business and human rights domain exhibits considerable legal and policy incoherence, as elaborated in my 2008 Report to the Human Rights Council.   There is "vertical" incoherence, where governments sign on to human rights obligations but then fail to adopt policies, laws, and processes to implement them. Even more widespread is "horizontal" incoherence, where economic or business-focused departments and agencies that directly shape business practices—including trade, investment, export credit and insurance, corporate law and securities regulation—conduct their work in isolation from, and largely uninformed by, their government"s human rights agencies and obligations. Domestic policy incoherence inevitably is reproduced at the international level.   Therefore, a major objective of the new mandate is to assist governments in recognizing these connections, driving the business and human rights agenda into policy and legal domains that most directly shape business practices, and fostering corporate cultures respectful of human rights.   Policy and legal innovation are especially important for conflict affected areas: the current international human rights regime cannot possibly be expected to function as intended where societies are torn apart by civil war or other major strife, yet this is where the most egregious corporate-related human rights abuses typically occur. This is a mandate priority under the state duty to protect.   The framework"s second pillar is the corporate responsibility to respect human rights. Companies know they must comply with all applicable laws to obtain and sustain their legal license to operate. However, over time companies have found that legal compliance alone may not ensure their social license to operate, particularly where the law is weak. The social license to operate is based in prevailing social norms that can be as important to a business success as legal norms. Of course, social norms may vary by region and industry. But one has acquired near-universal recognition by all stakeholders, including business: the corporate responsibility to respect human rights—or, put simply, to not infringe on the rights of others. The responsibility to respect is the baseline norm for all companies in all situations.   Company claims that they respect human rights are all well and good, but do they have systems in place enabling them to demonstrate the claim with any degree of confidence? In fact, relatively few do. What is required, therefore, is an ongoing human rights due diligence process, whereby companies become aware of, prevent, and mitigate adverse human rights impacts.."   * Visit the link below to access the complete speech. Visit the related web page
	View more stories