{"id":42457,"date":"2021-05-25T10:00:00","date_gmt":"2021-05-25T09:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/cupblog.bluefusesystems.com\/?p=42457"},"modified":"2021-05-24T14:03:14","modified_gmt":"2021-05-24T13:03:14","slug":"business-and-human-rights-conflict-and-the-converging-legacies-of-colonialism-in-the-palestinian-present","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.cambridge.org\/core\/blog\/2021\/05\/25\/business-and-human-rights-conflict-and-the-converging-legacies-of-colonialism-in-the-palestinian-present\/","title":{"rendered":"Business and Human Rights, Conflict and the Converging Legacies of Colonialism in the Palestinian Present"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/div>\n

We cannot solve problems with the same mindset that created them. -Albert Einstein<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

As I sit to write this post on business and human rights in relation to conflict, the Palestinian people face yet another cycle of violence in their struggle for the right to self-determination, bringing forward the academic challenge that comes with trying to detach one\u2019s self from a personal connection to a topic. This is very much connected to another challenge raised by scholars in the field of business and human rights (BHR<\/a>) on overcoming the constraints of the \u2018silo\u2019 mentality in relation to the research methods employed to engage with and conceptualise the field.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

There is a common expression in Arabic (\u0645\u0646 \u0647\u0645 \u062a\u062d\u062a \u0627\u0644\u0639\u0635\u064a \u064a\u062e\u062a\u0644\u0641\u0648\u0646 \u0639\u0646 \u0645\u0646 \u064a\u062d\u0633\u0628\u0648\u0646 \u0627\u0644\u0639\u0635\u064a), which generally means that those directly enduring the pain will perceive problems and solutions differently from those trying to objectively describe and analyze them.  This expression is a simple yet concise reflection of Gramsci\u2019s view of the organic intellectual<\/a>, and the value it offers in addressing the challenges that arise in such cases. Drawing on the stoic philosophy of the obstacle becoming the path<\/a>, my goal in this post is to reconstruct the conceptualisation of the connection between the BHR governance gaps and role of business enterprises in the continuing colonisation of Palestine. In so doing, I hope to show how embracing the historical connection between the two issues can contribute to addressing the intractability and persistence of both.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

First, a very brief reflection on the recent escalation of hostilities and renewed cycle of violence throughout historic Palestine. Although the plight of the Palestinian families facing eviction from their homes in the Sheikh Jarrah<\/a> neighborhood of occupied East Jerusalem can be given different starting points, as can the role of religion<\/a> and imperialism<\/a> in relation to the history of the conflict<\/a> as a whole, that is beyond the scope of this post. However, the role of a Delaware-registered company<\/a> in bringing the recent situation to a head provides an important point of departure, as does the attempt to portray the situation as merely being a real-estate dispute<\/a> between private parties. The initiation of legal proceedings against the families through the Israeli judicial system and its reliance on application of Israeli law to occupied territory, were the precursors to yet another cycle of violence. The connection between a company registered in Delaware and the Israeli colonial policy in violation of international humanitarian law<\/a>, is just a microcosm of the role that business enterprises have played in the historic colonisation of Palestine along business lines<\/a>,[i]<\/a> . The victims of the present are not only victims of another cycle of violence; they are also victims of the broader injustice of colonialism and the same imperial mindset, which created it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Professor John Ruggie has connected the BHR governance gaps to an evolutionary process that began in the 1970s. Although the hegemony of neoliberalism and the capitalist economic system has undoubtedly played an important role in the creation of these \u2018gaps\u2019, a more historic dive is needed to understand why they create a chasm for contemporary colonialism within the Palestinian context. The emerging discourse around the intertwined genealogies of colonialism, commerce and international law, which aim to provide a historical framing for BHR scholarship, is an important development. However, the current state of the Question of Palestine<\/a> and the global movement to tame corporate activity highlight how these areas converge as legacies of colonialism in the Palestinian present.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

One such legacy of European colonial expansion is the fragmentation of the concept of sovereignty<\/a> where the control of, and responsibilities towards, property and people was increasingly divided between states and corporations. Likewise, the divergence of international law into more specialised public and private fields as well as the emergence of international economic law, have all contributed to a less holistic understanding of society and its challenges. State and private actors have continued to thrive within the resulting gaps and ambiguity created.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Israel as an occupying power has continued to exploit these gaps, whether they be in law or in practice and enforcement. Through a refinement of the art of colonisation<\/a> as a theory for incentivised settlement, within the context of globalisation and the free market, Israel has developed a \u2018best business practices of colonialism\u2019<\/em>. Coupling state policy with foreign direct investment has incentivised both state and multinational corporate actors<\/a> to benefit from Israel\u2019s contemporary colonial enterprise while enhancing the economic absorptive capacity<\/a> of additional settlers under the guise of legality<\/a>. From the use of tax havens<\/a> and charitable organisations<\/a>, to exporting its \u2018field tested\u2019 technology, weapons<\/a>, settlement products<\/a> while attracting tourists<\/a> from around the world<\/a>, the Israeli colonial enterprise has developed an economic incentive structure making the international community complicit in its continued colonisation of Palestine along business lines.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The insulation from accountability for corporate actors is yet another legacy of colonialism. Manifestations of this can be seen in the lack of an international legally binding instrument to regulate business activities, despite the clear historical and continuing role of corporations in conflicts and their impact on human rights especially through the extraction of natural resources. Nearly fifty years after the famed speech of Salvador Allende before the UN General Assembly<\/a> that outlined how corporate power and unaccountability perpetuated systems of imperialism the goal to create clear international legal obligations on commercial actors remains elusive. Within the context of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs) and the binding treaty process, the incorporation of international humanitarian law and conflict-affected areas has met its own separate challenges and justifications<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Although colonialism takes a more contemporary form under the umbrella of the law of armed conflict and occupation in Palestine today, one must not lose sight of the fact that the precursors to many colonial endeavors were conflict and occupation in one form or another. As the legacies of colonialism converge in the Palestinian present, it is important to remember that the injustices within the Palestinian context are just a microcosm of global injustices where different means and methods of colonialism have been used and refined over time. The transition to justice from colonialism must first ensure an eradication of colonialism<\/a> of the past and clearly prohibit the practice in the future.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

To make a success of the next decade of the UNGPs, the UN Working Group on Business and Human Rights (UNWG) must address the various dimensions of the international political economy. This includes corporate actors, their activities and impact on international law within the broader process of decolonisation and the history of colonialism more generally. The BHR governance gaps are not accidental, but rather a byproduct of a concerted effort to continue the exploitation of the people of the world through new means and methods of detaching them from their resources while extracting new sources of profit from the people themselves in a more \u2018acceptable\u2019 manner.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The UNWG and its individual members should serve as a counterforce to this effort by pushing the bounds of principled pragmatism<\/a> and work in parallel towards a strategy of convergence with the binding treaty initiative. This will, however, require thinking about BHR beyond the lens of corporate accountability and address the systemic and structural issues that have created the problems. Second, within the context of the BHR annual forum, the UNWG must make a conscious effort to develop a space for discussing the legacies of colonialism and the field of BHR within the broader process of decolonisation. Finally, it should enhance cooperation with other experts and initiatives on issues such as tax havens, foreign direct investment, international trade, finance and development.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Addressing the contemporary manifestation of colonialism today requires a reconstruction in our understanding of the relationship between business and human rights within the broader context of geopolitics and the international political economy. This will not be easy, considering the hegemony of neoliberal capitalism and its development in the postmodern era has continued to deconstruct, or more accurately, divide and conquer. The problems addressed in this post will not be solved by using the same mindset used to create them. It will require a concerted effort by academics, advocates and activists working together in a complex social system<\/a> with politicians and entrepreneurs, to find innovative ways to overcome them. After all, adversity is the source of innovation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Wesam Ahmad – BA, JD, and LLM – A human rights advocate and entrepreneur, pursuing a PhD with the Irish Centre for Human Rights and currently living in Al-Bireh, Palestine while serving as the Business and Human Rights Coordinator for the Palestinian human rights organization, Al-Haq in Ramallah. Email contact: wesam.bhrpalestine@gmail.com<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

[i]<\/a> A copy of the original document \u201cThe Colonization of Palestine, Means and Methods\u201d by Levontin from 1925, found in the archives of the New York Public Library<\/a> is on file with the author and has been shared with the editors for verification purposes.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

We cannot solve problems with the same mindset that created them. -Albert Einstein As I sit to write this post on business and human rights in relation to conflict, the Palestinian people face yet another cycle of violence in their struggle for the right to self-determination, bringing forward the academic challenge that comes with trying […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":583,"featured_media":42177,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":true,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,7],"tags":[8897,1740,5808,5103,2087,1262],"coauthors":[8964],"class_list":["post-42457","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-law","category-social-sciences","tag-bhr-and-conflict","tag-bhrj","tag-bhrj-symposium","tag-business-and-human-rights","tag-business-and-human-rights-journal","tag-human-rights"],"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cambridge.org\/core\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/42457","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cambridge.org\/core\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cambridge.org\/core\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cambridge.org\/core\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/583"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cambridge.org\/core\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=42457"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.cambridge.org\/core\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/42457\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":42459,"href":"https:\/\/www.cambridge.org\/core\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/42457\/revisions\/42459"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cambridge.org\/core\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/42177"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cambridge.org\/core\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=42457"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cambridge.org\/core\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=42457"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cambridge.org\/core\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=42457"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cambridge.org\/core\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/coauthors?post=42457"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}