I. THE INTERNATIONAL PEOPLES TRIBUNAL ON
HUMAN RIGHTS AND THE ENVIRONMENT
II. THE GLOBALIZATION OF UNSUSTAINABILITY
III. GLOBALIZATION AND THE SPREAD OF
GLOBAL LAWLESSNESS
IV. FROM GLOBAL LAWLESSNESS TO
A GLOBAL RULE OF LAW
V. A CALL TO ACTION
Interim Comments on Cases Presented:

This Tribunal was convened by the NGO Human Rights Caucus and the Peace Caucus at the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development (UN CSD.) NGOs participating in the first session of the UN CSD were alarmed by the lack of progress in the implementation of Agenda 21 by its signatories. They were also struck by the unwillingness of governments to address crucial issues that had arisen during the five years since the Earth Summit (the UN Conference on Environment and Development) in Rio, 1992. The Tribunal was convened for three compelling reasons.

In diverse parts of the world, many people find themselves bereft of any forum&emdash; local, national, regional or international&emdash; in which their voices are heard, the wrongs and harms they have suffered recognized, their claims validated and their ongoing struggles for justice legitimated. As a result, we have witnessed in many parts of the world the spontaneous or planned convening of peoples' tribunals. This International Peoples Tribunal on Human Rights and the Environment (IPT) constitutes one such example of civil society's response.

A second reason for convening this session of the IPT is provided by the UN General Assembly Special Session (popularly termed Earth Summit II or Rio+5) held from June 23-27, 1997 at the UN Headquarters. At Earth Summit II, an unprecedented number of some 90 Heads of State or Governments met to review the progress in implementing Agenda 21, the plan of action that emerged from the original Earth Summit. The UN's Earth Summit II is a summit of governments. There is little room in it for "we the peoples of the United Nations," to use the brave words of the UN Charter. The IPT, held across the street from the UN just as the UN's Earth Summit II was commencing, assembles some of "the peoples of the United Nations" and seeks to provide an alternative forum for voices that would otherwise remain unheard.

A third reason for convening the IPT is manifest in a decision taken this year at the UN Commission on Human Rights (UNCHR). Recognizing vital linkages often viewed discretely, the Commission urged the Secretary-General of the UN to underscore existing UN Reports (including the Commission's own Reports) "on the question of human rights and the environment" at Earth Summit II. The Secretary-General was also invited to bring such reports to the attention of the CSD, the UN Environment Programme, the UN Development Programme and other relevant international organizations. Furthermore, the Commission requested the Secretary-General "to prepare a consolidated report based on the deliberations at the General Assembly and said international bodies and organizations for its consideration of the question of Human Rights and the Environment at its 55th session" next year. This session of the IPT is concerned with human rights and environment and thereby hopes to provide a modest contribution to the work that lies ahead for the Secretary-General, in complying with the request of the UNHCR.

Earth Summit II is being convened at a time of unprecedented globalization, a process that is the context for the pursuit of sustainable development today. Hence, this session of the IPT synthesizes the themes of human rights and environment while recognizing the present condition of globalization and uneven development. By doing so, the IPT seeks to offer experiences drawn from the lives of "the peoples of the UN" to that body as it reviews the implementation of sustainable development at Earth Summit II.

The IPT realizes that those able to appear before it at this session are but a minority of those who need to be heard. The IPT also realizes that it cannot, and indeed no peoples' tribunal could, aspire to provide redress and true justice for those who present grievances. Instead, the IPT seeks to provide a forum for voices that are otherwise denied avenues of remedy and restitution. The IPT hopes that enabling these voices to be heard will facilitate heightened public awareness, concern, solidarity and support for peoples' continuing struggles for justice. By calling attention to recurrent patterns and practices of unsustainable development, the IPT hopes it can mobilize political will within the UN system to adopt preventive measures that ensure social justice and ecological balance. Failure to do so will constitute a betrayal of the spirit of Rio and the virtual abandonment of Agenda 21.

II. THE GLOBALIZATION OF UNSUSTAINABILITY

The Tribunal carried on its deliberations within the context of globalization - a set of multiple processes which many perceive as a recolonization of the planet. This wave of recolonization stems from a global political economy where corporate, financial and communication organizations are increasingly less accountable to any responsible authority. They are not held accountable even for ecologically devastating economic activities which are destroying the survival options of people and resulting in glaring human rights violations.

Twelve groups presented cases before the Tribunal. Their representatives stated the following:

• The Gwich'in (People of the Caribou), Alaska, affected by development of oil by multinational companies on caribou calving grounds, with the approval of Federal and State governments. Oil exploration and development in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge will change the natural environment of the wilderness area forever.

   

• The People of the Sovereign Dineh Nation, Arizona, are being evicted and displaced to implement coal mining activities. Corporate unaccountability has created pollution, environmental degradation and unsustainable overuse of a pristine sole source aquifer.

• National Youth Council of Ogoni People, Nigeria. Royal Dutch Shell has created an alliance with military dictators to protect the company's oil and gas exploitation causing confiscation of lands, forced evictions and coercion, reckless discharge of petro-chemical pollutants, heat-pollution from flaring activities and dumping of refinery wastes.

• The Innu People of Nitassinan, Canada. This is an ecologically sensitive and diverse region subjected to increasing development and industrialization. Large-scale forestry, hydroelectric projects, extensive mining and minerals exploration are being undertaken by national and multinational corporations. The area is also being used for low-level military flight training by a number of NATO states with up to 18,000 sorties per year.

• Farmers of the Tenasserim Region, Burma face violence, intimidation, forced labor, women and girls being forced into sexual slavery and confiscation of property in the implementation of a gas pipeline project, a joint venture of the Burmese military government and multinational corporations. Victims have no redress given the absence of a functioning judiciary in Burma.

• Citizens of Tabasco, Mexico. The Mexican citizens of Tabasco suffer from severe ecological degradation caused by intense exploitation of the State's petroleum reserves by PEMEX, (Mexico's national oil company), occupying lands without permission from affected parties, and using threats of judicial or police action to drive peasants off their land. Their operations result in floods, salination of lakes, contamination of drinking water and poisoning of the food chain

• The People of the Essequibo Riverian Area of Guyana are affected by a gold mining joint venture between two multinational corporations in North America and the government of Guyana. Environmentally unsound management practices have resulted in uncontrolled discharges. In August, 1995 a disaster occurred when a wall of the tailing dam ruptured, releasing a large quantity of cyanide-laced wastes into the Essequibo river. The Essequibo sustains the livelihood and well-being of some 23,000 people.

• The National Youth Association of Quinoa Growers of Bolivia and the Rural Advancement Foundation International, (RAFI.) The Quinoa growers of Bolivia are victims of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and new patent regulations being drafted by all countries, and by the European Union. Patents on life, including human life, are treated as essential for promoting trade and commerce. Ethics, ecology and human rights are being systematically externalized in "intellectual property rights" legislation.

• The International Coalition for Justice in Bhopal, India. Every community is a potential victim of environmental disaster and human rights abuse similar to what took place in Bhopal, India. Because Union Carbide ignored warnings of a 1982 safety audit, hundreds of thousands of Indians were tragically exposed to Methyl Isocyanate, resulting in widespread injury and death.

• Garifuna Grassroots Movement-Iseri Lidawamari (New Dawn), Honduras. Tourism development by the federal government of Honduras, its municipalities and private developers is causing Garifuna lands to be expropriated and reallocated "without any dialogue, relocation arrangements or indemnification agreements". The tourism development projects produce not only land loss and evictions but also poverty, marginalization, and rapid depletion of resources.

• The International Campaign for Tibet. Since its occupation of Tibet in 1950, the government of China has conducted unsustainable development resulting in land loss, marginalization of the rights of Tibetans to their land and its resources, impoverishment, displacement and serious environmental degradation.

• International Mothers of Liberia Incorporated. Liberia remains heavily infested with antipersonnel land mines, standing as a tragic reminder of the utter failure of the UN and the Organization of African States in their peacekeeping and reconstruction roles. Antipersonnel land mines are bringing death and disablement to innocent victims and severely ravage the environment.

All twelve cases have certain issues in common &emdash; namely, human rights violations and environmental devastation justified in the name of development, economic growth and investment. Entire ecosystems are being devastated, leading to damage at the global scale. Glaring human rights violations often involve the arrests and assassinations of leading environmental defenders. Peoples, homes, communities and livelihoods are being destroyed by environmental pollution and degradation.

Globalization of Unsustainable Production and Consumption

The cases before us indicate that vast patches of healthy ecosystems are being destroyed and that unsustainable patterns of production and consumption are being spread as a result of globalization.

The first wave of colonization inflicted dehumanizing poverty and degrading conditions on millions in the developing regions of the world. The second wave of colonization is doing the same, but at a planetary level, destroying people and the very globe we live on.

This is happening despite the fact that the Rio Principles were adopted by consensus five years ago. These Principles affirmed that "States shall cooperate in a spirit of global partnership to conserve, protect and restore the health and integrity of the Earth's ecosystem." It also stated that, "to achieve sustainable development and a higher quality of life for all people, States shall reduce and eliminate unsustainable patterns of production and consumption." (Rio Principles 7 and 8)

Two legally binding conventions were signed at Rio: the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which aims to reduce the production of carbon dioxide through limiting the use of fossil fuels; and the Convention on Biological Diversity, which aims to conserve biodiversity and protect the knowledge and lifestyles of indigenous communities dependent upon biodiversity.

The cases before us show that the globalization of unsustainable development particularly involves the exploration and extraction of fossil fuels, mineral extraction and logging, all of which threaten biodiversity. These activities have spread to new, pristine ecosystems threatening diverse habitat and the very subsistence of the Gwich'in of Alaska, the Dineh Nation in the U.S., the Ogoni of Nigeria, the Innu of Canada, indigenous communities in Burma, Guyana, Honduras, Mexico and the people of Tibet.

Further, instead of protection of indigenous knowledge in accordance with the biodiversity convention, the patenting of indigenous knowledge and living material by scientists and corporations of the industrialized countries is advancing rapidly. There has been a significant and dramatic growth of this "biopiracy." This constitutes a gradual transfer of control over the world's knowledge, resources and markets from indigenous peoples of the South to the private scientists and corporations of the North.

All people and life forms are potential commodities under the new intellectual property rights regimes. Patents on clones, including humans, raise divisive ethical issues for society. In Europe and the U.S., even governments have expressed this ethical concern. However, under GATT, the World Trade Organization (WTO), and other multilateral institutions, patents on life, including human life, are considered essential for bolstering trade and commerce. Ethics, ecology and human rights are thus being systematically externalized in "intellectual property rights" legislation.

The cases on patents on life and biopiracy submitted by RAFI highlight the far-reaching consequences of these trends to which citizens, governments, scientists and corporations need to respond urgently&emdash; keeping the public and integrity of life as the highest concerns.

The Earth Summit resulted in a global commitment to protect the Earth's ecosystems and the communities dependent on them for subsistence and sustenance. That commitment must not be brushed aside in the headlong rush to globalization.

Globalization as Genocide of Indigenous Peoples

The linkage between human rights and the environment can be easily appreciated if one sees the predicament of most indigenous peoples, whether from the North or South. Most of the cases presented in the Tribunal vividly illustrated this connection.

The last frontier lands, which contain the world's remaining resources, are found on indigenous peoples' territories. Most of these resources are metallic and non-metallic minerals, oil, terrestrial and aquatic species, forests and hydrological resources. Indigenous peoples have been fighting for more than 500 years to preserve the earth's wealth for the generations to come. However, what was preserved, at the cost of many lives, is now being ravaged by unscrupulous corporations, whose rights are given protection over and above that of indigenous peoples. Globalization is fast removing all borders and barriers to the operations of those corporations. The non-recognition of the rights of indigenous peoples, such as their rights to their ancestral territories and the resources found therein, to intellectual and cultural property, and to self-determination, is reinforced by the globalization process.

It is in this light that we say that globalization perpetuates ethnocide and genocide against indigenous peoples. The distinct identity of a particular indigenous clan, tribe, or nation, is crucially linked to the lands they have occupied since time immemorial. Displacement from such territories means the destruction of the identity, cultures, and lifeways&emdash; this is ethnocide. Militarization and neocolonial aggression that leads to the disappearance not only of indigenous cultures, but of whole peoples or nations is genocide.

The cases presented in the Tribunal demonstrate how indigenous peoples are constantly under the threat of ethnocide and genocide.

Globalization and the Imposition of Hazards

The Earth Summit recognized problems of the dumping of hazardous products and wastes by the industrialized countries in the developing countries. Two of the cases before us &emdash; Bhopal and Guyana &emdash; indicate that these problems have increased as a result of globalization. What we witness in the these two cases is the global imposition of hazards through the exercise of corporate power and in pursuit of corporate profits at any cost, human or environmental. Globalization; the liberalization of trade and investment; the creation of the right to do business within an economic region such as NAFTA and APEC; agreements such as the OECD Multilateral Agreement on Investments currently under negotiation &emdash; all combine to virtually permit global corporations the right to impose hazards, injury and even death upon communities and workers who have no rights or representation. Thousands of inhabitants of Bhopal, India were killed and hundreds of thousands disabled as a result of the release of Methyl Iso-Cynate while they were sleeping. In Guyana, a disastrous cyanide spill in the Essequibo River has affected the health of the nearby community. Children who go for a swim in the river return home crying because of the burning pain on their skin and their eyes. No longer can one assume it is safe to simply go to sleep at night or to swim in a river.

Globalization and the Destruction of Humane and Planetary Values

The impact of globalization on values, culture and diversity is also evident in the cases before us. Business, in its unbridled drive for limitless profits, asserts its right to operate in a world without borders. What concerns us about this pattern of globalization is that it is spreading the values of the marketplace &emdash; commodification, profits without limit, unsustainable growth and self-centered consumption. This carries with it a dominant, homogenizing culture which is dismantling indigenous and traditional cultural practices based upon humane and planetary values and replacing them with materialistic and selfish values. Such values are unsustainable in both human and environmental terms. People are being treated as renewable resources to be consumed and disposed of in support of unsustainable production patterns that maximize corporate short-term interests and profits. Inhumane wrongs constituting grave human rights violations and environmental devastation are justified in terms of expediency and necessity for development and the need for "business as usual". Life itself is devalued and even more so is the future of our globe.

III. GLOBALIZATION AND THE SPREAD OF
GLOBAL LAWLESSNESS

A dire consequence of the recolonization of the planet has been the dramatic increase in the spread of global lawlessness. Three reinforcing processes create this spread of global lawlessness: the voluntary surrender of state sovereignty, the elimination of justice and accountability systems and the creation of systems of immunity and impunity.

The rise of global corporate power has been achieved at the cost of the voluntary surrender of state sovereignty. While a few exceptional companies try to operate on principles of social and environmental responsibility, the vast number of corporations continue to maximize profits and market shares, externalizing their costs to the environment and communities.

Five years ago at the Earth Summit, negotiations for a proposed Code of Conduct for Transnational Corporations (TNCs) were abandoned. Today, we need to carefully examine the report card on the promises that were made: corporations could be trusted to regulate themselves without public oversight, that they would voluntarily move towards just and sustainable practices if left alone. Five years later, during the General Assembly Special Session, we see neither the report card nor evidence that TNCs have done much more than fine-tune their equipment and public relations. Corporations continue to strip mine the land and contaminate fresh water with mine tailings and cyanide. Indigenous people are being forced off their land by corporations who are feeding the industrialized society's fossil-fuel addiction. As a rule, profits are being placed above human rights or environmental integrity.

As for governments which should hold these corporations accountable for their actions, we discover a deadly silence. Behind this silence lies a tragic fact: while corporations refuse to voluntarily give up unsustainable practices, governments are in effect surrendering their national sovereignty to corporations. Often, governments are willing accomplices in order to share the profits from unsustainability, with corruption entering into the picture as well. This surrender by government of responsibility to people and planet can be heard in the chorus of calls for more deregulation and free trade, in more corporate rights and less interference by communities.

The sovereign well-being of the global corporation is given precedence over our environment and the peoples that inhabit it. While individual citizens remain accountable to the laws of their national governments, transnational corporations are allowed to operate in a largely lawless global realm. It should not be surprising that there has been little discussion of corporate accountability at the UN in the preparatory process leading to Earth Summit II. Instead of accountability, the trend is toward corporate immunity. Governments should realize that this trend of giving up their responsibility also means giving up their legitimacy.

Current processes of globalization are resulting in the elimination of justice and accountability systems. Globalization of trade and investment has been achieved through deregulation and the creation of new international law governing trade and investment. This has required the removal of all barriers to trade and investment and the non-enforcement of laws protecting workers and the environment. Victims of environmental devastation and unsustainable development find themselves deprived of effective remedies and redress. Justice and legal systems are being eroded and slowly eliminated at all levels æ local, national, regional, and international. So too are systems of accountability. Hitherto, at national levels, it was possible to hold governments accountable. Today, an increasing number of vital decisions affecting people are made not by their governments but by transnational corporations and international organizations of trade, finance and development. These actors cannot be held to accountability in national fora or indeed anywhere. The two trends exacerbate one another. There is no accountability of wrongdoers. Correspondingly, it is very hard for victims to establish a factual basis to their claims to justice if wrongdoers are beyond the reach of accountability mechanisms and are allowed to operate in virtual secrecy.

As a consequence of this, we are witnessing the creation of systems of immunity and impunity. Governments and their officials have long enjoyed sovereign immunity. But over the past fifty years, citizens in many states throughout the globe have been successful in challenging the doctrine of sovereign immunity which shields them from arbitrary and lawless behavior. The Tribunal notes however that deposed heads of State or governments have negotiated impunity from prosecution for gross violations of human rights as a pre-condition for stepping down from office. Ironically, the Guyana and Bhopal cases indicate a disturbing trend towards allowing transnational corporations to assert de facto immunity and impunity. So far as the victims of the Bhopal and Guyana disasters are concerned, imposing civil or criminal liability upon the transnational corporations involved remains a Herculean, almost impossible task in both the host country and the home country of such corporations.

Criminal liability also remains largely illusory. For the Bhopal victims, the criminal courts of the home country of the offending corporation remain firmly shut. Even though criminal actions are pending against Union Carbide in the home country, the corporation and its officials refuse to appear and are in fact absconding and fail to comply with the orders of the Indian criminal court to appear before them. Thus, the corporations involved enjoy de facto impunity and cannot be punished even for acts of criminal negligence. Globalization of the world's economy has created global lawlessness of epidemic proportions.

IV. FROM GLOBAL LAWLESSNESS TO
A GLOBAL RULE OF LAW

One of the proud achievements of the United Nations has been the body of international law it has helped bring into existence during the half century of its existence. This body of international law spans virtually every field of human endeavor. Yet despite its range, it is far from comprehensive in addressing all of the issues presented before this Tribunal. In particular, international environmental law needs further development to deal with the many problems facing us. There are however, other fields of law which address the problems and issues presented before this Tribunal. International human rights law is well-developed. It contains some 97 international legal instruments, a significant number of which relate to matters that concern us. It includes law relating to development; self-determination and the collective rights of communities; economic, social and cultural rights; the rights of women, children, migrant workers and others exposed to severe vulnerabilities by globalization; and rights to science and technology. A summary of the salient features of this law follows.

The Human Right to Development

On December 4, 1986 the United Nation General Assembly adopted, not without some discord, the Declaration on the Rights to Development. Since then, in successive UN World Conferences at Vienna, Cairo, Copenhagen and Beijing, the governments of the world have reiterated that "the right to development is a universal and inalienable right and an integral part of fundamental human rights" with total unanimity.

The Declaration on the right to development states that the right to development is an "inalienable" "human right" of "all peoples" to exercise "full and complete sovereignty over all their natural wealth and resources." Development is defined by the Declaration as "a complete economic, social, cultural, and political process which aims at the constant improvement of the well-being of the entire population and of all individuals." Every person and all peoples are entitled to "active, free and meaningful participation in development," to "fair distribution" of the benefits from development and to nondiscrimination in development," "without distinction of any kind, such as race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status." The Declaration also makes it the duty of all States to cooperate "in ensuring development and eliminating obstacles to development." It must be remembered that the Declaration makes it clear that the realization of the right to development requires "full respect" for "human rights and fundamental freedoms."

The Tribunal takes note that the human right to development has been denied or violated in many situations throughout the globe. Yet the norms, principles and obligations are already in place to ensure against unsustainable development practices. What is needed is the enforcement of such law&emdash;we urge that the law be enforced in the cases before us.

The Right of Self-Determination and Collective Rights

Common Article 1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights enshrines the right of self-determination. This crucial human right is a collective right and has political, economic, social and cultural dimensions. For over a decade, the United Nations made this right a priority in its work as it pursued its agenda of decolonization. Despite misunderstandings that some governments entertain, self-determination is not synonymous with secession and the right does not apply solely to situations of colonization. Common Article 1 elaborates, "All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right, they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development". Article 1 also states, "All peoples may, for their own ends, freely dispose of their national wealth and resources" and goes on to require that all State Parties to the Covenant "shall promote the realization of the right to self-determination and shall respect that right". The right of self-determination has been reaffirmed in the UN Declaration on the Right to Development which states that, "The human right to development also implies the full realization of the right of peoples to self-determination which includes....their inalienable right to full sovereignty over all their natural wealth and resources". The right to self-determination is at the heart of most of the cases before us and it should be stressed that all governments within the UN have, in succeeding global conferences and summits, repeatedly reaffirmed the right to development and, therefore, the right of self-determination as defined above.

The Right to Environment

The right to environment is not contained as such in the international human rights instruments but most of the acts causing environmental degradation would also violate and interfere with universal human rights, such as the right to life and security of person, the right to health and the right to livelihood for example. Moreover, the right to environment is contained in regional human rights instruments such as the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights (Article 24, "All peoples shall have the right to a general satisfactory environment favourable to their development"), the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam (Article 17, "Everyone shall have the right to live in a clean environment") and in an Additional Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights in the Area of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Moreover, constitutional and legislative texts in approximately forty countries also proclaim a "right to environment," which usually includes the right to conservation, protection and improvement of the environment.

International environmental law also elaborates this universal right. Principle 1 of the Stockholm Declaration of the UN Conference on the Human Environment (1972) states, "Man has the fundamental right to freedom, equality and adequate condition of life, in an environment of a quality that permits a life of dignity and well-being". Principle 23 of the World Charter for Nature (1982) states, "All persons, in accordance with their national legislation, shall have the opportunity to participate, individually or with others, in the formulation of decisions of direct concern to their environment, and shall have access to means of redress when their environment has suffered damage or degradation". In similar vein, the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development (1992) has adopted 27 Principles elaborating the right to environment including Principle 1 which states, "Human beings are at the centre of concerns for sustainable development. They are entitled to a healthy and productive life with nature". Principle 3 safeguards the "developmental and environmental needs of present and future generations". Principle 4 requires that "environmental protection shall constitute an integral part of the development process". Principle 10 guarantees "appropriate access to information concerning the environment" and "the opportunity to participate in decision-making processes". Principle 15 enunciates the "precautionary approach" and Principle 25 states, "Peace, development and environmental protection are interdependent and indivisible".

All of the above aspects of the right to environment have been key in the cases before us. We urge strict enforcement of the right to environment in these cases.

Economic, Social and Cultural Rights

Most of the cases presented before this Tribunal reflect the denial or violation of a range of economic, social and cultural rights contained in the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and a number of other international human rights instruments. These rights include the right to work; the right to health; the right to food; the right to housing; protection from forced evictions; the right to education; the right to preserve and develop one's culture; the right to life; the right to not be arbitrarily deprived of property; the right to an adequate standard of living; and the right to equality and non-discrimination.

It must be stressed that all of the above are internationally recognized human rights and all States are duty-bound to respect and protect such rights. The need of the hour is to ensure that all non-state entities as well are similarly duty-bound.

Rights to Science and Technology

Most of the cases presented before the Tribunal involve either the negative impacts of science and technology upon human rights or the denial of access to science and technology needed to fulfill human rights or to protect the environment. In an era where intellectual property law regimes are increasingly restricting access to scientific and technological advances, it is important to recall that as far back as November 10, 1975, the UN General Assembly proclaimed the Declaration on the Use of Scientific and Technological Progress in the Interests of Peace and for the Benefit of Mankind. That Declaration asserts:

Recognizing that scientific and technological progress is of great importance in accelerating the social and economic development of developing countries,

Reaffirming the right of peoples to self-determination and the need to respect human rights and freedoms and the dignity of the human person in the conditions of scientific and technological progress.

Solemnly proclaims that:

All States shall co-operate in the establishment, strengthening and development of the scientific and technological capacity of developing countries with a view to accelerating the realization of the social and economic rights of the peoples of those countries.

All States shall take measures to extend the benefits of science and technology to all strata of the population and to protect them, both socially and materially, from possible harmful effects of the misuse of scientific and technological developments, including their misuse to infringe upon the rights of the individual or of the group, particularly with regard to respect for privacy and the protection of the human personality and its physical and intellectual integrity.

The Declaration makes clear that the measures required to be taken by states include enactment of legislation and ensuring compliance with such legislation.

We have quoted at length from the above Declaration in hope of jogging the UN system, and the international community of Member States, out of its apparent state of amnesia in respect of the norms, principles and obligations contained in the Declaration. Those norms, principles and obligations are vital in halting the current slide towards global lawlessness.

Rights of those Vulnerable to and Victims of Globalization

The cases presented before this Tribunal indicate patterns and practices of unsustainable development in the context of globalization, which we have identified earlier in this Statement. They also indicate categories and groups of people who are rendered vulnerable or become victims of processes of globalization. These include, prominently, indigenous people, women, children and minorities, especially when they are migrant workers.

A. Indigenous Peoples

We have detailed above, situations in which globalization produces ethnocide of indigenous peoples. Unfortunately, indigenous peoples have minimal protection afforded to them in the realm of national and international law. The only international legally binding instrument which exists is ILO Convention 168, which up to now is signed by just 8 out of the 185 member-states of the United Nations. The Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which is a product of 12 years work by the UN-Working Group on Indigenous Populations, is still being discussed at the Commission on Human Rights. Chapter 26 and other provisions of Agenda 21 which concern to indigenous peoples are blatantly violated by States and corporations. Mechanisms within the UN where indigenous peoples can turn for redress of the violation of their rights barely exist. This Tribunal calls upon the UN system to urgently address the situation before it is too late.

B. Women

The Convention on Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) is the second-most widely ratified international human rights instrument. Women, both in their own right and as mothers and heads of households, have borne the heaviest burden of policies of structural adjustment, economic liberalization and globalization. The feminization of poverty, the exploitation of women workers in export processing zones and garment factories, the abuse of women migrant workers, the commodification and trafficking in women are but a few of the results of such policies. Women have also suffered from unsustainable development, so much so that a Peoples' Tribunal was convened in Bangkok a few years ago on "Developmental Violence Against Women". At the UN World Conference on Human Rights in Vienna, women finally gained unequivocal recognition that women's rights are human rights. The Beijing Platform of Action of the UN Conference on Women and Development sets out an agenda to make those rights a reality. Both CEDAW and the Beijing Declaration are crucial if women in the cases before us are to reverse the conditions they face as a result of unsustainable development practices.

C. Children and Youth

The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) is the most-widely ratified of all UN human rights instruments. The Convention recognizes several crucial rights, including rights of survival, rights to protection, rights to development and rights of participation. Moreover, in the implementation of the Convention, priority attention is paid to "children in especially difficult circumstances". The Convention is of crucial importance to children and youth victimized by the globalization of unsustainability through practices such as trafficking in children, child pornography, child prostitution, and exploitation of child labor.

D. Minorities and Migrant Workers

The globalization of labor markets has led to the ruthless exploitation and abuse of migrant workers. Moreover, migrant workers are inevitably minorities as well, and face a new wave of racism, hate crimes and xenophobia. The UN Convention on Migrant Workers and Their Families remains subscribed to by only a handful of countries even though seven years have passed since it was adopted by the UN General Assembly. Although the UN has adopted a Declaration on the Rights of Minorities, it is still a long way from adopting a Convention on the Rights of Minorities. Hence, the minority migrant worker remains protected only under the UN Convention on Elimination of Racial Discrimination. The Tribunal urges the UN system to address the protection of the rights of migrant workers as an urgent priority.

As detailed above, a large number of international human rights standards do exist that address the issues and problems before this Tribunal. However, much more needs to be done to secure the enforcement of such standards.

V. A CALL TO ACTION

The law enunciated under GATT, WTO, NAFTA, APEC and the draft Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI) breeds covertness, corruption, lack of accountability, bypass of national constitutional legal orders and violation of international law. Too many multinational corporations and international organizations of trade, finance and investment abuse enormous power with impunity for the human and environmental impacts they cause, and do so totally insulated from accountability.

When governments abdicate their responsibility to protect people from destructive acts as witnessed in the current MAI, they create a political and moral vacuum. This is a process by which governments, in the name of free trade and economic growth, surrender their responsibility to hold corporations accountable for their actions. In this transfer of rights and responsibilities to the corporate realm, the State essentially bows to corporate lawlessness.

The MAI now being discussed by the OECD governments and WTO partners currently promotes corporate rights over human rights and the well-being of local communities. Receiving extremely little coverage by the media, the MAI has been described as a plan to systematically turn the global economy over to a handful of dominant corporations. If allowed to continue on its current course, the MAI will overrule the protests of the Gwich'in, the Dineh, the Ogoni, the Innu, the people of Bhopal and Guyana as barriers to investment and trade. Communities will have no legal standing before the law of the market. As corporate protectionism in the name of "free trade" is made law, the laws protecting human freedoms are traded away.

This abdication of responsibility by government is a silent admission of governments' willing role to diminish their own legitimacy and right to govern. The people must not allow their citizenship to be reduced to passive consumerism. When government refuses to lead, leadership must then come from below. The voice of civil society must be clear and strong: people must take priority over corporations.

Citizens can respond to this trend of growing corporate lawlessness, as institutionalized through the MAI and WTO, through various types of actions and strategies. Communities can unite in a common global struggle to reinstate integrity in government and economy. The discussion over the MAI provides a strategic point of focus for this struggle. We strongly urge citizens groups around the world to engage in actions at various levels suggested below:

• Individual corporations: Organize or support public pressure on individual corporations known for socially irresponsible practices. Actions can include shareholder initiatives, consumer boycotts, media campaigns and litigation. Highlight how these specific corporations will gain from MAI rulings, in contrast to the losses to communities and environment. Support public campaigns now in progress addressing the abuses of specific corporations.

• Industry lobbies: Help publicize the ways in which industries such as mining, oil, chemical, agribusiness, and others are corrupting the democratic process through inappropriate financial influence of political institutions. Support public initiatives calling for the elimination of destructive subsidies, industry tax breaks and other forms of "corporate welfare." Draw special attention to politicians who have allowed themselves to be corrupted by corporate influences and applaud those with the courage to resist.

• National and local government representatives: Continually question government spokespersons, local and national, as to where their priorities lie, specifically with regard to protecting the public interest in the MAI and WTO proceedings. At every public hearing and gathering, challenge these presumed representatives of the people to define and act on their responsibilities to protect the health and well-being of citizens, their communities and environment -- or publicly admit that they put corporations before people.

• The United Nations: In particular, the CSD, in its annual meetings to assess progress on the Earth Summit agenda, should be one of the main places where the governments of the world should discuss and avow their responsibility to ensure corporate accountability. One way to institutionalize this discussion is through setting up a Subcommission on Corporate Accountability. This Subcommission, proposed by the NGO Taskforce on Business and Industry at CSD-5, should provide an ongoing process through which governments define and act on their responsibility to make sure that corporations are accountable to society. This process of defining the appropriate roles and responsibilities of government and business should include the active participation of NGOs and other members of civil society.

Towards a Global Rule of Law: Asserting Environmental and Human Rights

The cases before us reflect the negative impacts of globalization on human rights and the environment. But some of the processes set in motion by globalization, notably the global communications revolution, have had a positive and progressive side helping to create a transnational civil society, with a human face. A significant moment in the emergence of this global civil society was the first UN Environmental Conference in 1972 where the Counter-Conference was organized by a loose network of citizens groups from all regions of the world. That conference had a significant impact on the procedures and substantive product of the formal Conference. In the intervening 25 years there have been some 30 UN Conferences concerned with a range of issues - human rights, feminism, technology, habitat, food security, disarmament - where civil society in the form of an "NGO forum" was recognized as a major actor. While the conferences have focused on a major theme, civil society has constantly reminded government officials that the issues and problems are organically related so that, for example, militarism and environmental matters were discussed and acted upon in the major conferences on women and human rights.

Transnational civil society is the result of a people-to-people globalization that has been taking place and it is indeed transnational civil society that must be the key actor in a strategy of asserting human rights in order to achieve a global rule of law. The UN Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the two Covenants (on Economic, Social and Cultural and on Civil and Political Rights respectively) and a number of international human rights instruments provide formal authority for the rights of individuals and groups throughout the globe. These rights transcend territorial boundaries and, if respected and realized, will ensure that development will remain sustainable. As detailed above, the world's heads of states and governments have created entire bodies of international laws, dealing with worker's rights, women's rights, human rights, and indeed, the very right to be human. Moreover, at a series of UN world conferences over the past five years, they have also created programmes of action, made commitments and undertaken obligations. However, the international mechanisms for enforcing these rights, commitments and obligations remain weak.

There does exist over 50 human rights mechanisms within the UN system and one of the decisions of this Tribunal is to create a Working Group which will direct its expertise to encouraging those who have presented cases before us to approach as many of those mechanisms as are appropriate for the case.

The enforcement of human rights involves a global mobilization of shame. The protection and promotion of human rights involves collective self-assertion, and collective defense of rights and standards. Once established, the facts presented to us in the cases clearly implicate the international human rights standards elaborated above and clearly call for the enforcement of such standards. The IPT plans to disseminate this Tribunal Statement as widely as possible, in an effort to raise global public awareness of the unsustainable development practices involved, the inhumane and environmental harms resulting from such practices and the human rights that need to be defended and reasserted. We thus hope to initiate the process of global mobilization of shame, of collective self-assertion and self-defense of international human rights and the collective monitoring and enforcement of human rights standards.

We need to work together to ensure enforcement of human rights, supplementing the efforts of UN mechanisms with the efforts of people linked in effective global solidarity. We must join together in pressing a common set of demands that will provide a basis for enforcement and must persist until the governments in the United Nations:

• enforce existing obligations and commitments and apply sanctions for their breach or non fulfillment.
• halt the erosion of existing international standards.
• acknowledge the need for and establish effective accountability mechanisms.
• establish mechanisms to monitor the violations of these rights and standards and recognize the monitoring by communities and peoples..
• ensure public access to information and ensure transparency of decision-making.

The Vienna Declaration of the UN World Conference on Human Rights invokes "the spirit of our age and the realities of our time" to "call upon the peoples of the world and all State Members of the United Nations to rededicate themselves to the global task of promoting and protecting all human rights and fundamental freedoms so as to secure full and universal enjoyment of these rights".

This Tribunal maintains the view that sustainable development in the context of globalization cannot be achieved without the universal enjoyment of the right to environment and of the right to be human. The Tribunal therefore calls upon global civil society-- upon "we the peoples of the United Nations"-- to join together and ensure that "the spirit our age" is not betrayed by "the realities of our time."

TOWARDS HUMANE GLOBAL GOVERNANCE

The cases before us demonstrate that many of the problems in the world today - war (including internal strife), poverty and maldevelopment, social injustice and oppression, ecological devastation - are beyond the capacity of the existing State system to deal with. This is most evident in a process of globalization in which corporate profits are dominating the political order. There has been a steady erosion of the centrality of statist forms of world order. The State remains focal for many purposes, but overall, non-State actors, non-territorial , and socio-economic forces, and globally organized media and communications networks are exerting a defining influence on large-scale social behavior. The interplay of complexity and fragility, combined with the elusiveness of transnational capital and with environmental challenges to the health and survival of the peoples of the earth, is pushing world order in cooperative and integrative directions. We are witnessing the emergence of a global civil society. The individuals and groups who participated in this Tribunal - the claimants, those who attended the sessions of the Tribunal, and ourselves - are members of a growing number of groups and individuals throughout the world who are participating in and creating a movement for a just world order and humane global governance. This movement encompasses human rights and the environment, but it is even more comprehensive in its vision.

Humane governance is governance that is people, environment and human rights-oriented, rather than statist and market-oriented. Humane governance meets the basic needs of each individual as well as the planet. Demilitarization is a central objective of humane governance. On an analytical level, this perspective recognizes that power analysis is essential to understanding the organization of human society. At the same time, humane governance uses human security as a frame of reference in which the values of peace, social justice, economic well-being, ecological balance and cultural identity are the analytical frame as well as the normative processes. Humane global governance seeks to promote these values for all peoples throughout the globe. It seeks to create a demilitarized, just, equitable, sustainable and participatory governance.

We call on like-minded citizens throughout the globe to join in the movement for humane global governance.

Gwich'in (People of the Caribou), Alaska

This case has been submitted by the Gwich'in Renewable Resources Board on behalf of some 7,000 Gwich'in people who live in northeast Alaska and northern Canada. For thousands of years, the Gwich'in have depended upon Porcupine caribou for their culture, nutrition and survival. Any development activity that threatens the caribou, they claim, threatens the Gwich'in way of life and the traditions that have been a part of their culture from time immemorial. Although the U.S. Congress has declared some 19 million acres of land to be a protected Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, it has been under pressure to issue oil and gas leases within a 1.5 million acre coastal plain beneath which the oil industry believes significant oil and gas resources lie. The Gwich'in come before this Tribunal after unsuccessful attempts to get the U.S. Congress to declare permanent protection against oil exploration and development for this coastal plain region. The coastal plain is used by the Porcupine caribou for calving in significant numbers for at least half of the year. The Gwich'in seek to prevent development activities on the calving grounds that disturb or displace caribou and reduce the chance of calf survival, since the caribou would have to move to areas with more predators and insects. The Gwich'in also stressed that high levels of fossil fuel consumption have led to global warming and global climate change and that, therefore, we need to look at ways to reduce our dependence on and high use of fossil fuels.

A written response to the Gwich'in presentation has been presented to this Tribunal by Arctic Power, which describes itself as a "not for profit" citizens' organization "funded by its more than 10,000 individual members, mainly Alaskans, by Alaskan businesses, including oil companies and native corporations, and by the State of Alaska". Arctic Power has been established "for the sole purpose of persuading the U.S. Congress to pass legislation to open the coastal plain to responsible oil and gas leasing". Arctic Power calls attention to the fact that Alaskan oil, produced from the North Slope, currently accounts for 25% of domestic oil production in the U.S., supplies more than 80% of the revenue of the State of Alaska, and benefits all Alaskans (including Gwich'in) who each receive an annual "dividend check" in excess of $1000 directly from oil revenue.

The Tribunal takes note of these facts but an annual "dividend check" cannot provide compensation for environmental damage suffered by specific individuals and communities and cannot substitute the taking of preventive measures or the setting up of protected areas in which no oil or gas leases will be issued. The Arctic Power submission provides examples of Inupiat Eskimos and those in the village of Kaktovic who support careful development of the coastal plain. Respect for their wishes must surely be reciprocated by respecting the wishes of the Gwich'in (and others) who are against such development in their lands and communities.

The Tribunal rejects the contention of Arctic Power that "It is premature to argue that climate change is occurring as a result of high fossil fuel consumption". The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change surely seeks to address real and not imagined issues concerning the global environment. Moreover, Agenda 21 and the Rio Principles call for adherence to the precautionary principle. According to that international norm, established by consensus at Rio, it is no longer enough to report the 23,000 oil spills since 1972 and to note that they have been cleaned up "to the satisfaction of state and federal agencies".

"Prevention," not "clean up," must be the dominant concept and if prevention cannot be assured, then the development must not go ahead. The onus lies on groups like Arctic Power and those seeking to promote oil and gas leasing to demonstrate that they have paid adequate attention to the "precautionary principle".

Oil and gas development activities undertaken anywhere in the world involve drilling, access roads, pumping and processing stations, generator stations, pipelines, all of which inevitably interfere with environment. It is indeed a specious argument that "the oil era has already been sustained for 135 years" and so oil and gas cannot be "perceived to be unsustainable resources". By definition, any nonrenewable resource cannot be sustainable in the way that renewable resources are. Sustainability in respect of nonrenewable resources (such as oil and gas) necessitates conservation, sustainable consumption and sustainable production practices. The Gwich'in are supportive of measures such as increased auto fuel efficiency standards, which could save enough oil to make drilling in the Arctic and other environmentally special or sensitive areas unnecessary. We welcome hearing further from Arctic Power and other proponents of drilling in the Arctic about how they propose to ensure the ecological sustainability of production and consumption. This must go beyond the mere assertion by Arctic Power that "we should encourage oil development in Alaska because it is done more responsibly there than anywhere else in the world".

The People of the Sovereign Dineh Nation

This case has been submitted by the people of the Sovereign Dineh Nation in the Black Mesa region of Arizona. They live in the vicinity of the Peabody Coal Company's Black Mesa/Kayenta mine, an area for which a mining permit was issued to Peabody by the U.S. government. Here, the Dineh struggle to survive and continue their traditional way of life on lands where their families have lived for over a thousand years. These lands were deemed worthless, until the discovery this century that perhaps the richest low-sulfur coal vein in North America lay in the Black Mesa region.

Works of respected scholars and historians, cited before this Tribunal, document a shabby tale of greed, lobbying and abuse of legislative power and authority at the end of which the Peabody Coal Company held the mining permit for the Black Mesa region. Those living in the area, some 12,000 traditional Dineh, were forced to relocate through actions of the Federal government in what has been described as "one of the more cynical and convoluted processes of legalized expropriation in its long and sordid history of Indian affairs". This enabled Peabody to launch one of the largest strip mining and fossil-fuel burning extravaganzas in North American history.

Testimony was presented to the Tribunal that the coal burned in the Four Corners power plants creates the largest point source of greenhouse gases in North America. The resulting air pollution is so great that it is one of only two man-made effects visible to the Apollo astronauts as they circled the Earth. To save money on shipping the coal, the only slurry line in the U.S. has been constructed which devours 1.4 billion gallons of pristine water each year. As a result, all but the deepest wells in the region have gone dry and it is estimated that several Hopi villages will run dry three years from now if present rates of usage are maintained.

The case presenters' complaints against Black Mesa Pipeline Inc. resulted in a written response from the company to the Tribunal. Their response self-servingly asserts, "Black Mesa has never been involved in the relocation of the tribal personnel and is not, and never has been, involved in the mining of coal on Black Mesa". Their response fails to make any reference, however, to the environmental impacts resulting from their own slurry operations.

Testimony was presented to the Tribunal that the process of forced relocation of some 12,000 Dineh was accomplished through a process that denied legitimate participation and redress to those affected. The mining operations have resulted in the violation and destruction of sacred burial and ceremonial sites and of over 4,000 ancient Anasazi cliff houses. The few hundred traditional Dineh families that still live around the mine complain of severe environmental degradation, serious health hazards and damage to their houses due to blasting.

In their written response to the Tribunal, Peabody Coal Company dismisses the allegations against them as "false, libelous and preposterous". However, they have yet to rebut or explain the published documentation of independent researchers and scholars regarding their roles in lobbying the Federal government to secure the mining permit, to get Federal relocation legislation enacted and to pick up the tab of over $350 million tax payer dollars to fund relocation needed for the creation of the Peabody Coal Company's Black Mesa/Kayenta mine.

Instead, the Peabody response to the Tribunal takes pains to assert that they have "an outstanding environmental program that has been internationally recognized by the scientific community" and that their two surface coal mines in northeastern Arizona "employ approximately 700 American Indians who produce, annually, approximately 12 million tons of coal .... Mining activities provide the two tribes with more than $40 million, annually, in royalties and taxes, and employees earn an average of $55,000 in annual wages and benefits". What the Tribunal finds more pertinent is what percentage of the total number of mine workers employed in the two mines are American Indian and what the average annual wages and benefits figure is for these 700 American Indian mine workers. The Tribunal looks forward to receiving this information.

The Tribunal also finds perplexing the details presented before it regarding Public Law 93-531, through which the forced relocation of the Dineh was accomplished. We would welcome clarifications from any appropriate Federal authority on the subject.

In the concluding section of their written Case Summary Submission to this Tribunal, the people of the Sovereign Dineh Nation make several specific appeals for justice to this Tribunal. We welcome responses from any of those named as alleged violators in the last page of that Case Summary Submission before we respond specifically to the appeal for justice from the people of the Sovereign Dineh Nation.

The Ogoni People

This case has been submitted by the National Youth Council of Ogoni People. The Ogoni live in an area of just 404 square miles endowed with huge reserves of crude oil and natural gas. Forty-two years of oil industry operations have left the area in a state of environmental devastation, clearly visible in the video-taped materials presented to the Tribunal. Failure to adopt basic environmental management practices has resulted in blowouts, pipe leaks, failure of storage tanks, release of effluents and pollutants from refinery operation, air, noise and water pollution, heat pollution from flaring activities and pollutive discharges of petrochemical pollutants and dumping of refinery wastes.

The Royal Dutch Shell Company (SPDC), which is in charge of these operations in Ogoni, has a dismal environmental record in many of its other transnational operations and therefore must be viewed by this Tribunal as being a recidivist. They have refused to conduct environmental impact assessments in Ogoni in violation of international standards. Therefore, this Tribunal calls upon both Shell and the Nigerian government to conduct fair and participatory environmental impact assessments in Ogoni as a precondition for any future operations.

The Tribunal has seen videotaped evidence of the use of coercion, forced evictions and violence. Presenters also been furnished proof that Shell equips and maintains a police force to protect its operations in Ogoni and our attention has been drawn to a document dated December 1, 1993 of the Shell Managing Director, P.B. Watts, in which the company has committed "to provide complete logistics accouterment and welfare support to the Opapco Police Force which will be assigned to protect SPDC's Operations. Three-hundred men dedicated to our Eastern (Ogoni) Division based in Port Harcourt. Two-hundred fifty men for the Western Division based in Warri. SPDC will fully support the cost of setting up and maintaining the contingents". SPDC must be held fully accountable for the acts of the Opapco Police Force and so, too, must the Nigerian authorities.

The Tribunal takes note of the determination by the UN Human Rights Committee that the execution of the Ogoni 9 (involved in a nonviolent Movement for the Survival of Ogoni People) was an extra-judicial killing. This Tribunal joins the UN Human Rights Committee in its condemnation of such executions and its demand that the military decrees which create the Tribunals that carried out these sentences be immediately repealed, since their very existence constitutes clear breach of Nigeria's obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The Tribunal also finds the 1978 Land Use Act, enacted by Nigeria as a martial law to declare Ogoni farmlands and fishing posts as government property, violates Nigeria's obligations under the same International Covenant since they constitute an arbitrary and illegal confiscation of property.

The Tribunal also wishes to place on record the failure of both the Nigerian government and the Shell Company to make any response to the written case submission presented by the Ogoni people. We are providing them further opportunity to respond and will be entitled to draw adverse inferences should they continue to fail to respond.

The Innu Nation

This case was brought to the Tribunal by the people of the Innu nation who are alarmed by the increasing development and industrialization of their territory--an ecologically sensitive and diverse region called "Nitassinan" which stretches across northern Quebec and Labrador. The presentation stressed that large-scale forestry projects, extensive mining and mineral exploration projects, massive hydroelectric projects and infrastructure construction projects continue to threaten the Innu people, their culture and their lands. Flora and fauna have been affected. In addition, the area is being used for low-level military flight training by a number of NATO states with up to 18,000 sorties per year. All of this without any proper consultation and without Innu consent.

The Tribunal supports the Innu Nation's request for recognition of their rights and their demand that there must be no interference with their lands or exploitation of their resources without their consent. Energy-intensive and resource consumptive industrialization must not be given priority over Innu subsistence and culture.

The Tribunal has received a communication from the government of Newfoundland and Labrador, rightly complaining that they had not received adequate notice and therefore were declining to make a response at the time. The Tribunal is giving the government additional time to make its response.

Burmese Farmers of the Tenasserim Region

This case was presented by a representative of Project MAJE for the Burmese farmers of the Tenasserim region.

The State Law and Order Restoration Council (SLORC, the Burmese military regime) and its petroleum company, the Myanmar Oil and Gas Enterprise (MOGE) are engaged in a joint venture: the Yadana gas pipeline project. Offshore drilling platforms are being built to extract natural gas from the Andaman Sea, and construction of a port and pipeline for transport of the gas through the Tenasserim region of Burma to Thailand has commenced. There is no functioning judiciary in Burma and any lawsuit in the country concerning this issue would be futile and result in serious reprisals.

Many toxic wastes are produced during exploration for and extraction of gas. When they are discharged into the sea, they rob the water and bottom sediment of oxygen, thereby destroying marine life. Toxic brine that is generated in the process and is often disposed of on shore affects wetlands, fish and wildlife. Gas emissions are another environmental hazard. Forced evacuation of villages necessitates the clearing of more forested land for habitation and refugee camps. Deforestation, in turn, causes erosion, flooding, siltation of rivers and disruption of animals' habitat.

It is alleged that SLORC has carried out a program of violence and intimidation against area villagers which include the relocation of villages, confiscating property and forcing the inhabitants to work on the preparation of the area for the construction of the pipeline. As a result, villagers have lost their homes and are deprived of their crops and livestock. Women and girls have been forced into sexual slavery. Refugees who escaped to Thailand sometimes were not accepted at the camps there and were sent back to Burma, where they were once again forced into labor.

There is a total lack of information about the environmental impact of the pipeline from the oil companies involved. There is no access to the pipeline areas. This, in consequence, prohibits independent environmental impact assessments from being conducted on issues such as toxicity of gas and the impact of drilling. There is a lack of effective laws and environmental regulations in Burma. Local citizens and national leaders are prohibited from participating in decision making surrounding the pipeline project. Those in opposition to the pipeline include Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Aung San Suu Kyi, leader of the pro-democracy movement.

This Tribunal has received no response thus far from either the Burmese government or the oil companies involved. Absent full and frank disclosure on their part, the Tribunal will hold the facts presented as being unopposed and thereby verified. We fully support the call from the Burmese farmers for comprehensive, impartial and participatory environmental impact assessments of all aspects of the pipeline project. Given the absence of judicial remedies in Burma, the Tribunal urges that jurisdiction be exercised by courts in the home country of the concerned multinationals and by UN human rights committees and commissions before whom the Burmese farmers are compelled to present their claims for compensation and redress.

The Mexican Citizens of Tabasco, Mexico

This case has been brought by the citizens of Tabasco, Mexico. Petroleum production in Tabasco generates more than 4.6 billion dollars in revenue annually. But, the presenters maintain this production has resulted in severe ecological degradation: floods, salination of lakes, contamination of drinking water, and poisoning of the food chain. It has deprived the people of traditional farming and fishing livelihoods. The situation is exacerbated, we are told, by arbitrary and corrupt acts on the part of local and national government which further divert resources away from sustainable development for the communities in Tabasco. Illegal interference, confiscation of land, and extensive property damage through corrosion are alleged. There have been deaths caused by explosions and leaks, both of gas and from pipelines. An epidemic of child leukemia is said to have occurred in the petroleum-producing areas. The case submission states that peaceful demonstrations have been put down with violence by the police and army and that coercion and illegal arrests are imposed on leaders of the protest movement in Tabasco.

The problems presented are linked to the globalization of unsustainability. Stagnant oil prices and pressures to raise revenues for debt service (including a U.S. loan of $21 billion to meet Mexico's 1995 currency crisis) are driving such unsustainable overexploitation.

The Tribunal has thus far received no response from Mexico's national oil company, PEMEX, or any of the Mexican authorities implicated.

Those appearing before the International Peoples' Tribunal on Human Rights and the Environment have been unable to obtain justice from the Mexican legal system despite the recommendation of Mexico's National Human Rights Commission that damages should be paid. The Mexican citizens seek restitution and, importantly, corrective and preventive measures. They have received none so far.

Since 1977, PEMEX has obtained the right to occupy lands without permission from affected parties. This constitutes a violation of Mexico's obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights as does the continued lack of remedies and redress. The Tribunal urges the Mexican courts and, if necessary, the Inter-American human rights mechanisms and the UN system to exercise such jurisdiction as is needed to provide the Mexican citizens of Tabasco the damages and preventive measures they are entitled to.

The People of the Essequibo Riverain Area of Guyana

This case was presented before us by two representatives of the people of the Essequibo riverain area of Guyana. They contend that the people of Guyana have been and continue to be victimized by a mining disaster that released huge quantities of cyanide-laced wastes in the Essequibo River, which sustains the livelihood and well-being of some 23,000 of their people. The mine is a joint venture between two North American multinationals and the government of Guyana. The disaster has brought in its wake serious health problems, damage and death of plants, animals and fish. The economy of the region has suffered greatly as well, as exemplified by the case of a woman who appeared before us whose income had been cut 75% since the disaster.

Compensation claims in the courts have become a long drawn-out war of attrition. Multinational corporations can effectively insulate themselves from accountability in both host and home countries. There remains no international forum for securing their accountability. The proposed OECD Multilateral Agreement on Investment currently being negotiated seeks to place such corporations above the law--any law--and grant them an immunity hitherto enjoyed only by sovereign states. Such sovereign states are at least accountable to the United Nations.

The International Peoples' Tribunal on Human Rights and the Environment demands that the UN and its member states work with utmost urgency to devise effective means of holding multinational corporations accountable to at least the same standards that govern member states. Failure to do so will result, over time, in the total abandonment of the Earth Summit's Agenda 21.

No written or oral opposition was submitted to this Tribunal. Comment was entered by one person employed by one of the companies involved in the mining. This individual spoke on his own behalf, and challenged statistics given by the presenters. Such statistical disagreements do not overshadow the personal account given of the children of Guyana returning from a swim in the river, crying because of the burning pain on their skin and in their eyes, or the photographic evidence of children with open sores. From both legal and humanitarian standpoints, it is essential that the multinational corporations involved in the disaster pay full compensation for the harms caused and take all remedial measures possible.

The Victims of the Bhopal Disaster

This case was presented by the International Coalition for Justice in Bhopal, a wide coalition of organizations and individuals working to support the victims of the world' worst industrial disaster in 1985 in Bhopal, India. In that disaster, a leakage of deadly toxic gases from a pesticide manufacturing plant caused some 300,000 people to be injured or killed. Today, twelve years later, over 50,000 people remain permanently disabled as a result of the disaster. The Union Carbide Corporation and its Indian subsidiary operated the plant in Bhopal.

In hearing this case, the Tribunal is able to draw upon the materials submitted in litigation in the U.S. and India and also upon the findings of the International Peoples' Tribunal on Industrial Hazards which held four hearings on Bhopal (including a session in Bhopal). All of the above proceedings have established that the Bhopal disaster was a direct result of unheeded warnings of a 1982 safety audit. The company placed short-term profit and convenience above their responsibility as a member of the community and operated the plant with an excessive amount of MIC in the storage tanks of the plant, an error resulting in death or injury from MIC exposure to hundreds of thousands of Indian citizens.

When the surviving victims initially sought treatment, Union Carbide deliberately withheld critical information about the medical effects of the gas. The company's strategy of delay and denial proved successful, paying out only $470 million in damages (in contrast to the $4 billion paid in the Exxon Valdez case). Today, after 12 years, 50,000 people are still disabled.

Twelve years ago, the community of Bhopal, India was not much different from many other communities dominated by a large multinational corporation. Because the company offered jobs and tax revenue, they maintained a place of privilege and power in the community, allowing them to ignore their responsibilities as a member of the community. Like many multinationals, Union Carbide's priority was not to improve the quality of life of the people of Bhopal but rather to increase profits of its shareholders. Also, like many other multinationals with extensive legal and economic resources, the company was able to evade full accountability for its actions. Furthermore, in an international and governmental climate celebrating deregulation and free trade, the global system is automatically biased in favor of the company over the community.

The International Coalition for Justice in Bhopal highlighted the 11-point list of demands issued by a group of the victims' organizations. Included among these demands are the extradition of Union Carbide's former CEO Warren Anderson, economic rehabilitation, proper medical care, and fair compensation for the victims. This Tribunal is in full support of their demands.

Thus far, the Tribunal has not had response from Union Carbide or its Indian subsidiary.

The Garifuna Grassroots Movement

The Garifuna people are descendants of black slaves of West Africa and the Courtes and Arawak Indians. Their home is Honduras

Appearing before this Tribunal are two presenters, representative of both the female and male population. These presenters currently reside in New York City with approximately twenty thousand other Garifuna. Their residence in New York is predominantly in Bronx County.

The presenters and the Garifuna people have found it necessary to gain strength as a people by focusing on insuring the preservation of their cultural traditions, while establishing roots in the U.S. Their efforts have established grassroots structures to encourage the arts, dancing, language and music. The presenters spoke proudly of their accomplishments.

Having organized strong cultural projects, the Garifuna now turn their focus towards the maintenance of their livelihood, lands and culture in Honduras. The Garifuna presented the dramatic effects of government tourism development projects, including land loss, hunger, homelessness, poverty, marginalization, depletion and degradation of resources, and environmental destruction. Asserted are the rights of the Garifuna to live to preserve their culture and to have a representative government.

Recognition by the government of Honduras that the Garifuna own their land through the issuance of land titles is urgently recommended by this Tribunal. We support the requests for environmental studies which are presently being denied by the government. We call for the retention of ownership and profits from business developed by the Garifuna in Honduras as a basic right of survival.

Over the past five years, repeated protests have been held in Honduras. The protests have been met by various forms of abuse, increasing in both frequency and force. This Tribunal has been presented with a compelling list of the names of protesters recently murdered for their activism.

The Garifuna people are being deprived of their economic, cultural and political self-determination. Living from and with the land is the Garifuna way of sustenance. The system of economic development presented, whereby basic needs-- life-sustaining resources such as food-- are being eliminated is a genocidal pattern being repeated the world over.

Having just recently developed a strong cultural maintenance structure in the U.S., our presenters are without sufficient time to organize representatives among themselves quickly enough to end the political killing and deaths from unsustainable development practices in Honduras.

A passionate plea was made for this Tribunal to represent the Garifuna by presenting the circumstances of their possible extinction to the international community without delay. This Tribunal recognizes such urgent need.

The Tribunal has received a response from the Honduras Ministry of Culture in Spanish. The panel has resquested the Minister of Culture, Art and Sports for an official English language translation of that response in order that all panel members can study it. Thereafter, the Tribunal will take decisions regarding issues raised in such response.

The International Campaign for Tibet

This case has been brought on behalf of the people of Tibet by the International Campaign for Tibet. Their presentation maintains that since its occupation of Tibet in 1950, the government of China has been pursuing unsustainable large-scale economic development, destroying the environment and displacing the people of Tibet.

Extraction of minerals, logging, infrastructure projects to facilitate such resource exploitation and population transfers to change its demographic composition are all too frequent in Tibet. Tibetans are denied the right to participate in decisions that affect them. Profligate exploitation of natural resources produces environmental devastation. Pastures are eaten up by agriculture, farmland is eaten up by sandstorms. Education is used as a device for discrimination and forced integration.

It is further contended that unsustainable development projects have resulted in land loss, infringement of the rights of Tibetans to their land and its resources, impoverishment and serious environmental degradation. Tibetan labor is supplanted by ethnic Han Chinese from outside Tibet. Preferential conditions are granted to attract all sorts of qualified personnel from the hinterland to Tibet. Subsidies promised to boost the economy do not reach Tibetans but are used to support the (largely Chinese) bureaucracy and to resettle Chinese immigrants. Tibetans are denied their culture and their system of education.

This Tribunal condemns the occupation of Tibet as an illegal act of aggression by the Chinese government, violative of the most fundamental principles of the law of civilized nations.

The Tribunal has had no response, thus far, from the government of China. If the facts presented above remain uncontroverted, the contention of the presenters that their basic civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights have been violated will be well-established.

The International Mothers of Liberia

This case has been brought by the International Mothers of Liberia, Inc. Liberia remains heavily infested with antipersonnel land mines. This legacy of Liberia's seven-year war stands as a tragic reminder of the utter failure of the UN and the Organization of African States with respect to their peacekeeping roles. The lack of progress in clearance of land mines indicates a similar failure in terms of their roles regarding reconstruction and development.

Liberian children are the primary victims of the land mines, bringing death and disablement to innocent victims. Areas which are mined constitute an environment totally unsuited for human habitation or development. Moreover, exploding land mines severely ravage the environment. Liberians are being forced to live in conditions that are extremely traumatic and that render development virtually impossible. The continued presence of the land mines constitutes a formidable obstacle to sustainable development. Their very presence constitutes a most extreme form of unsustainable development practice.

The continued presence of land mines in Liberia is also a violation of international human rights law. The rights to life, health, livelihood and habitat are illusory in such a context. They also constitute an insurmountable obstacle to realization of the human right to development. Lack of information about land mines constitutes a negation of the right to know. Human rights are intended to assure freedom from fear and freedom from want. In Liberia, both these freedoms are nonexistent as long as the clearance of land mines remains unachieved.

The Tribunal has been encouraged by a communication it has received from the United Nations recognizing the urgency of the problem. We recommend that the UN take the actions demanded by the urgency of the situation.

The National Association of Quinoa Growers of Bolivia (ANAPQUI) and The Rural Advancement Foundation International (RAFI)

Three specific "cases" have been submitted before this Tribunal by RAFI--an international, nongovernmental organization concerned about the increasingly monopolistic and far-reaching intellectual property rights protection. Such protections now being granted-- internationally, regionally and nationally-- to private, national and multinational corporations over living organisms: plants, animals and even human genetic and cell lines. Each of the three cases raises a distinct set of issues.

The first set of issues involves two patent applications which, if granted, would give to the Roslin Institute in Scotland (the inventors of "Dolly"--a sheep cloned from the cells of an adult ewe) the right to use their technology to clone all mammals including human beings. This raises complex moral and other issues. In his response to the Tribunal, the Director of the Roslin Institute has made it very clear that the "Roslin Institute is wholly opposed to the cloning of human beings and fully supports effective moves to ban such cloning". This is commendable and, in fact, the Institute has explained that the inclusion of humans in its patent applications was intended to ensure that nobody else could lay claims to human cloning. Thus, Roslin would try ensure that humans would not be cloned. The Institute has been adamant that they have no commercial interest in-- and no moral tolerance of-- human cloning. The Director further states that, "Roslin Institute will not be licensing its intellectual property to any individual or organization whose intention is to clone human beings. Any agreements to license our technology for other users will not allow sub-licensing to third parties". In this way, the Roslin Institute seeks to prevent any human cloning. But the Institute itself stresses that the correct way of regulating new technology is through appropriate legislation controlling its use. "We believe that this should be done through legislation in each country and, if possible, by international agreement".

This Tribunal strongly urges the enactment of such legislation and the adoption of an international agreement on the subject, as a matter of most urgent priority. The Roslin Institute does not expect the patents to be granted "for at least another two-three years". Corporate lobbying, notwithstanding, that should provide sufficient time for the international community to adopt a stand against human cloning.

A second case presented by RAFI involves the 1994 grant of a "species-wide" patent on genetically engineered soybeans to Agracetus (a biotechnology company which was acquired in 1996 by Monsanto, one of the world's largest agrochemical and plant biotechnology corporations.) In 1991, RAFI, joined by 18 NGOs worldwide, filed opposition to the patent at the European Patent Office. So, too, did the major seed and biotechnology corporations--including Monsanto. However, when Monsanto bought out Agracetus, it reversed its opposition to the patent which it is now defending! The Tribunal agrees that the soybean "species-wide" patent is totally unacceptable. The patent is a threat to world food security, a deterrent to innovation, and will jeopardize access to and exchange of genetic material on a global scale. The patent is also fundamentally inequitable because it ignores the rights and contributions of informal innovators and fails to compensate them. The Tribunal strongly feels that the patent must be revoked.

The third case brought before the Tribunal by RAFI was presented by ANAPQUI (the National Association of Quinoa Growers of Bolivia). The case involves the granting of a patent to two professors at the Colorado State University. The patent grants the holders a monopoly over varieties of "Apelawa" quinoa which contain a male sterile cytoplasm and its use in creating other hybrid quinoa varieties. The case demonstrates how sensitive and emotive the issues involved are and the vital need for dialogue through mechanisms such as the Tribunal.

In an emotionally charged statement, ANAPQUI (on behalf of Bolivian quinoa producers) maintain:

For the Andean people the U.S. patent on a traditional Bolivian quinoa variety affects our food security because we will not be able to freely produce our quinoa, which is known in the Quechua and Aymara languages as Jupha juira, ch'isiway mama and quinoa. This would result in less food production, causing destabilization of our food supply and resulting in more hunger and malnutrition in our families.

The human rights of the indigenous peoples of the Andes have been seized by the North American researchers at Colorado State University. They have robbed our quinoa, whose genes we have maintained for thousands of years, transferring our knowledge and technology from generation to generation.

RAFI, in closing its written submission to the Tribunal states, "Whether or not the patent has any direct impact on Bolivia's farmers, there is no denying that they have effectively lost control of traditional quinoa seeds that were developed over centuries by indigenous people of the Andes. It is a dangerous and disturbing precedent."

In a meticulous response to the Tribunal, one of the two researchers holding the patent makes several significant clarifications which should go a long way towards allaying fears which invariably result when the specter of "biopiracy" is raised. Biopiracy is admittedly a serious problem in the world today. But the Tribunal is clear that this case does not involve biopiracy. The patent applies to a variety that was found in Colorado not Bolivia. The patent applies to a cytoplasm which has never been present in quinoa grown in the Andes, but which has been acquired by quinoa plants grown in U.S. fields as a result of extended exposure to a U.S. weed species not found in South America. Unlike the "species-wide" soybean patent, this patent is restricted in scope. The patent only covers varieties of "Apelawa" which contain the specific male sterile cytoplasm. It does not cover plants of any other quinoa variety to which this cytoplasm has not been transferred. The patent in no way prevents any grower in Bolivia or anywhere else from producing any quinoa they wish that does not contain this cytoplasm. The patent does not cover any other male sterile cytoplasm occurring in quinoa and the use of such cytoplasm to create hybrids. Moreover, it is accurate as stated in the response to the Tribunal that, "A U.S. utility patent cannot be enforced in Bolivia. There is nothing to prevent ANAPQUI or anyone else using the "Apelawa" male sterile cytoplasm, if they so desire".

The Tribunal commends the researchers holding the patent for their willingness to share their seed samples and other research materials with their colleagues in the Andes and elsewhere. There remains the ethical issue as to whether the very patenting of plant germ plasma and plant genetic resources is objectionable. This is the view of the case presenters and is a view shared by the Tribunal. It is also a view that the holder of the patent in question actually has "some sympathy" with. But the biotechnology multinationals have lobbied the World Industrial Property Organization (WIPO) and their national governments to put in place a legal regime that enables the patenting of living organisms. GATT and WTO have helped make the exercise vastly more profitable to the corporations whatever the cost to environment and people. This Tribunal strongly urges the international community to review the present fait accompli by referring the patentability issue to the International Court of Justice for an Advisory Opinion.

Jeffrey Barber

Helena Brykarz

Linda Docter

Saul Mendlovitz, Tribunal Chair

Atukwei Okai

Vandana Shiva

Victoria Tauli-Corpuz

Members of the Tribunal:

Jeffrey Barber, International Coordinator for NGO Task Force on Business and Industry; Executive Director, Integrated Strategies Forum

Helena Brykarz, Program Executive, Goldman Environmental Foundation

Linda Docter, Dutch National Youth Council for Environment and Development, the Netherlands

Saul Mendlovitz, Tribunal Chair; Dag Hammarsjkold Professor of Peace and World Order Studies, Rutgers Law School; Director, World Order Models Project, USA

Atukwei Okai, Secretary General, Pan African Writers Association, headquarters in Ghana; Poet & Sr. Research Fellow at the Institute of African Studies, University of Ghana, Legon; has published several volumes of poetry and received many honors

Vandana Shiva, Director, Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Ecology; Science & Technology Advisor to the Third World Network; Advisor to the Government of India on Biodiversity and Intellectual Property Rights Issues; Winner of the Alternative Nobel Prize in 1993; from Dhera Dun, India

Victoria Tauli-Corpuz, Director, Tebtebba Foundation; Indigenous Peoples International Center for Policy Research and Education; Convener, Asian Indigenous Women's Network; Chair, UN Voluntary Fund for Indigenous Populations; Igrot from Cordillera region of the Philippines

Honorary Advisors:

Dr. Clarence J. Dias, President, International Center for Law in Development

Ward Morehouse, President, Council on International and Public Affairs, Inc.

Friends of the Tribunal:

Jose "Pepz" Cunanan, World Council of Churches team to the United Nations General Assembly Special Session (UNGASS); NCC Philippines

Shanthi Sachithanandam, World Council of Churches team to the United Nations General Assembly Special Session (UNGASS); Programme Development Consultant, Christian Aid

APPENDIX II

Organizing Committee:

Dr. Delois Blakely, NGO Peace Caucus at the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development (UN-CSD); Harlem Women International; Chairperson, National African American Delegation

Therese Chorun, Burma UN Service office; NY Affiliate, Rainforest Action Network; SDN NY Support Group

Marynancy Clary, NGO Human Rights Caucus at the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development (UN-CSD); SDN NY Support Group

Margaret deCaires, NGO Human Rights Caucus at tthe United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development (UN-CSD); SDN NY Support Group

Goodluck Diigbo, Chair NGO Human Rights Caucus at the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development (UN-CSD); Executive Director, Partnership for Indigenous Peoples Environment (PIPE); Steering Committee member, Movement for the Survival of the Ogoni People (MOSOP); National President, National Youth Council of the Ogoni People (NYCOP)

Priscilla Felia, New York State Greens

Robert Kaplan, NGO Human Rights Caucus at the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development (UN-CSD); International League for Human Rights

Terese Lewin, International Spanish America Media Committee, Inc. (ISAMC Inc.); NGO Committee of the United Nations Decade of the World's Indigenous Peoples; NGO Committee on the Day of the Indigenous People

Marsha Monestersky, Co-Chair (Alternate) NGO Human Rights Caucus and Poverty Eradication Caucus at the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development (UN-CSD); Consultant, Sovereign Dineh Nation (SDN)

Attorney Daniel Newman, Friends of Louis Armstrong House

Anne Zanes, NGO Peace Caucus at the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development (UN-CSD); United Nations Representative, Peace Links; Board of Directors, Communications Coordination Committee for the United Nations

Legal Support to the Tribunal:

Paul M. Gayle-Smith, Esq.

Amelia Grygier, Esq.

Ali Qazilbash, Research Associate, International Center for Law in Development Editorial and Administrative Support to the Tribunal

Robert Hoff, Assistant to the President, World Order Models Project

Marsha Monestersky, Co-Chair, NGO Human Rights Caucus and Poverty Eradication Caucus at the UN-CSD

The International Peoples Tribunal on Human Rights and the Environment Sustainable Development in the Context of Globalization was convened by the NGO Human Rights and Peace Caucus at the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development

Co-Partners were:

Burma U.N. Service Office

Commission of the Churches on International Affairs/World Council of Churches

General Board of Church and Society, United Methodist Church

International League for Human Rights

Mary Knoll Fathers and Brothers

World Order Models Project

Fax: 212/870-2392 Telephone: 212/870-2391 E-mail: 71614.606@compuserve.com
Website: http://www.idc.net/intlpeoplestribunal

Publication and dissemination of this Statement has been made possible by a grant from United Church Board for World Ministries

Go back to Tribunal Main Page

Back to top of Page

---

---

Please contact the Webmaster with comments and suggestions.

---

© Copyright 2000 ngos.net. All rights reserved.

---

To return to the ngos.net Home Page at any time,
just click on the icon at the bottom of each page.

 

//