REPORT OF THE

5TH

CONFERENCE OF THE

ETO-CONSORTIUM Geneva, March 6-7, 2012

FIAN INTERNATIONAL

Willy-Brandt-Platz 5

69115 Heidelberg, Germany

Tel: +4906221-6530030

Fax: +49-6221-86530033

fian@fian.org

http://fian.org

This report was compiled by FIAN International for the ETO Consortium.

The ETO Consortium would like to express its gratitude and appreciation to Brot für die Welt and Misereor

for funding the 5th ETO-Conference.

Cover Photo:

The panel during the presentation of the Maastricht ETO Principles in a side event to the Human Rights Council,

March 5, 2012: Fons Coomans, Margot E. Salomon, Olivier de Schutter, Ian Seiderman, Gabriela Kletzel, Chris-

topher Mbazira (from left to right).

Photo: Rolf Künnemann

Printed on recycled paper

Published July 2012

REPORT OF THE

5TH

CONFERENCE OF THE

ETO-CONSORTIUM GENEVA, MARCH 6-7, 2012

Table of Contents

1. Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………………………….4

2. Programme……………………………………………………………………………………………………...7

3. Discussion and Decision on Rules of Procedures…………………………………………….....9

4. Focal strategies, clustering of topics, focal groups…………………………………………....11

5. General strategy and plan of action………………………………………………………………....13

6. Open session with Swiss and Geneva-based CSOs……………………………………………13

7. List of Participants…………………………………………………………………………………………15

8. Annex…………………………………………………………………………………………………………....17

Rules of Procedures……………………………………………………………………………..18

Focal Groups…………………………………………………………………………………….....22

4

1. Introduction The ETO Consortium is a network of some 75 human rights related NGOs, univer-sities and institution-based individuals including Abo Akademi University, Am-nesty International, Brot für die Welt, CapeTown University, CIEL, COHRE, De-Justicia, Greenpeace, HIC, Icco, FIAN In-ternational, Maastricht University, the International Commission of Jurists, Misereor, Lancaster University, Oxfam UK, Rights and Democracy, SERAC, University of Antwerp, University of North Carolina and many others. The Consortium was founded in 2007. ETOs is short for extra-territorial obligations, the human rights obligations of states towards persons out-side their territories. Why an ETO-Consortium?

States hold certain obligations to observe the human rights of persons outside of their territorial scope. These extra-territorial obligations (ETOs) have often gone unrecognized either in law, policy and/or practice of many states. States have tended to limit obligations to their own territory, which does justice neither to the regulatory needs of the interna-tional community nor to upholding the principle of universality of human rights. The problem is not merely academic: a state’s actions or omissions can and fre-quently do have substantial and often ad-verse impact on persons abroad. This reductionism to territorial obliga-tions has led to a vacuum of human rights protection in a number of international political processes and a paucity of regu-lations based on human rights in order to promote their protection. The situation is particularly challenging in the field of economic, social and cultural rights (ESCR).

Human rights proponents, including from intergovernmental and non-governmental organisations, independent experts and academia have identified gaps in human rights protection which have become more severe in the context of globalisa-tion during the past 20 years, including: - HR regulation and accountability of transnational corporations (TNCs); - HR accountability of Intergovernmental Organizations (IGOs), in particular inter-national financial institutions (IFIs); - ineffectiveness in application of human rights law in the face of investment and trade law which has developed over the past 20 years; - implementation of corresponding duties to protect and fulfil ESCR abroad [inter alia through international co-operation and assistance]; - clarity on the nature and scope of ETOs. The purpose of the ETO Consortium is to address these shortcomings and main-stream extraterritorial obligations in the human rights community, at the UN and its human rights bodies, but also in policy fields such as investment, trade, develop-ment cooperation, the regulation of transnational corporations and the ac-countability of intergovernmental orga-nizations. The Purpose of the 5th ETO-Con-

sortium Conference

The Maastricht ETO Principles, issued in Maastricht on September 28, 2011, by some 40 experts in international law and human rights, opened up new horizons for the Consortium: For the first time the different scattered references to ETOs in international human rights law are avail-able in a consolidated form, ready for use. On the eve of the 5th ETO Conference, the Principles were launched in a side event at the Human Rights Council in Geneva.

5

The Consortium is led by a steering group consisting of persons from Åbo Akademi University, Amnesty International, Brot für die Welt, FIAN International, Human Rights Watch, ICJ, Lancaster University, Maastricht University, University of North Carolina. The secretariat of the steering group is at FIAN International (kuenne-mann@fian.org). The Consortium had been a very informal platform. It was clear that for the Consortium to meet the challenges provided by these “new hori-zons” it would have to get more struc-tured and increase its capacity. The pur-pose of the 5th Consortium conference was to achieve this transition. The steps in Geneva included the adoption of new rules of procedures and of a well-planned structure of focal and regional groups for the promotion and application of ETOs. The 4th ETO Conference in Antwerp had served two purposes: (1) to provide the opportunity to interested Consortium members to meet the drafters of the Maastricht ETO Principles and to com-ment on the first draft, and (2) to start a strategy discussion on the mainstreaming of the upcoming Principles and their ap-plication and on the future structure of the ETO Consortium. With the Maastricht ETO Principles in place, the 5th Conference was devoted to completing the second process that had started in Antwerp: Agreeing on a strat-egy for mainstreaming the Principles - and on the future structure of the ETO Consortium. This agreement was reached in Geneva. Basic documents reflecting this new structure can be found in the annex to this report.

Activities since the 4th Conference in

Antwerp, May 17-18, 2011

In Antwerp the Steering Group had been tasked to develop a questionnaire to be sent around to all Consortium members in order to solicit their interest, vision and expertise concerning the future develop-ment of the Consortium. The 8-page Ques-tionnaire was drafted by the Steering Group in June/July and sent to the mem-bers in August – with feedback expected before September 15. The questionnaires were sent both to CSO-members and to individual members and were evaluated separately. Both evaluations together comprised 84 pages with very detailed information and suggestions for the fu-ture course of the Consortium. This evaluation provided the basis for the preparation of the 5th Conference. The Maastricht Conference on September 26-28, 2012 was hosted by Maastricht University. Many Consortium members were involved. At the same time many other experts joined. After completion of the Maastricht ETO Principles document, translations were provided by FIAN (German, Spanish) and ICJ (Arabic, French). ICJ started preparing the side event in Geneva foreseen for March 2012 – and coordinated the drafting of the Commentary to the Maastricht Principles. This Commentary was available as an ad-vance unedited version during the side event The 330-page book “Cases and Concepts on Extraterritorial Obligations” that con-tains some of the case work of the Consor-tium was completed between October and February by Fons Coomans and Rolf Kün-nemann with the help of Nadeeka Raja-ratnam and Ute Reisinger. It was pub-lished by Intersentia in May 2012. On the basis of the prior evaluation, the Strategy Group set up a rather elaborate strategizing process in December with 18

6

strategists to prepare the work around the focal groups at the 5th Conference. The results were extremely helpful both in terms of content and process – as a num-ber of strategists cooperated with “peers” in the Consortium sharing the same ex-pertise - or even with strategist of related focal topics. This process prepared the basic material for the strategizing process and the formation of focal groups and re-gional groups during the 5th Conference. At the same time draft rules of procedures were prepared jointly by the Strategy and Steering Groups as a basis for discussion, amendments and resolution at the 5th Conference. The day before the 5th Conference, March 5, ICJ together with FIAN, FIDH, ESCR-net, Amnesty and CELS hosted a parallel event to the 19th Session of the Human Rights Council at the UN in Geneva with the title

“Human Rights Responsibilities Beyond National Borders – the New Maastricht Principles on Extraterritorial Obligations in the Area of Economic, Social and Cul-tural Rights.” The panel consisted of Oliv-ier de Schutter, Special Rapporteur on the right to food, Margot E. Salomon, London School of Economics, Christopher Mbazira, Makerere University, Uganda; Gabriela Kletzel, CELS, Argentina, Fons Coomans, University of Maastricht, chaired by Ian Seiderman, ICJ. The event was very well attended with more than 70 participants, including some members of states’ dele-gations. The panel pointed out the nature of ETOs and of the Maastricht Principles and explained (in the context of two cases) their significance. The Principles are drawn from international law – and are applicable in typical cases, such as those presented at the end of this side event. Heidelberg, May 22, 2012 Rolf Künnemann

7

2. Programme: ETO Consortium, 5th Conference

Geneva, March 6-7, 2012

VENUE: JOHN KNOX CENTRE, GENEVA

On March 5, 3PM - 5PM, ICJ and co-sponsors held a side event at the Human Rights Council on “Extraterritorial Obligations” with Olivier de Schutter, Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, Margot E. Salomon, London School of Economics, Christopher Mbazira, Makerere University, Uganda; Gabriela Kletzel, CELS, Argentina, Fons Coomans, Univer-sity of Maastricht, chaired by Ian Seiderman, ICJ. Many Consortium members partici-pated.

MARCH 6

9:00 Welcome, presentation of purpose and agenda

9:15 Presentation of the draft rules of procedures, discussion on Rules of Proce-

dures: Objectives, Structure, Opinions

10:45 Coffee break

11:00 Working groups on focal topics, procedure of mutual consultation to discuss

action plans – in terms of

- Cases and campaigns

- Mainstreaming platforms and events

- New partners to involve in the topic

11:15 3 minutes each for presentation of focal group strategies.

12:00 lunch

13:00 WG Rounds A-E, 30 minutes each

15:45 Coffee break

16:00 Action plans for capacity building: Target groups? Tools? Pool of consult-

ants? Who does what, where, when?

Strategies on UN mainstreaming, approaching governments.

Next regional and global ETO conferences.

Presentation of candidates for election commission.

18:00 End of day 1

MARCH 7

9:00 Reports from working groups in plenary, 3 minutes each of the 18 topics,

discussion

8

10:30 Decisions on Rules of Procedures and focal groups (priorities, members,

coordinators, next steps)

11:30 Election of election commission, conclusion of internal part

12:00 lunch

MARCH 7

(open session with Swiss CSOs and with Geneva based CSOs) The ETO Consortium wants to conclude its 5th International Conference with an open session on the afternoon of March 7 about “Mainstreaming ETOs in the area of ESCR”. This session will have the form of a workshop that aims at a dialogue with Swiss (or Swiss-based) CSOs about mainstreaming ETOs, about the Maastricht ETO Principles and about possible future cooperation. Participants provide input on their ETO related work, share their views and visions and discover synergies. Programme

13:00 Introducing the Maastricht ETO Principles, and the work of the ETO

Consortium.

14:00 Swiss CSOs present their work and views on ETOs and on possibilities to

mainstream the Maastricht Principles

15:00 Dialogue on Mainstreaming and applying ETOs in different policy fields:

Discussion on mainstreaming ETOs in Switzerland and in other countries. Next

steps.

16:00 end

9

3. Discussion and Decision on

Rules of Procedures

Draft Rules of Procedures had been de-veloped by the ETO Consortium’s Strategy Group since December. They were largely based on the results of the 4th Conference at Antwerp in May 2011 and on the out-come of the membership questionnaire circulated in summer 2011. The Strategy Group in consultation with the Steering Group had expanded the draft in repeated telephone conferences. The 8th version was sent to the Steering Group on February 16 for clearance. Sub-sequently a 9th version was produced and circulated to all Consortium members for comment on February 28. A 10th version then served as the starting point for dis-cussion on March 6. The first morning session of March 6 was chaired by Fons Coomans. Several points were raised but not resolved in this ses-sion. For this matter a working group was established that came up with amend-ments for decision in the morning session of March 7, chaired by Thorsten Göbel. At that occasion the amended document (with track changes) was projected dur-ing the session and changes decided one by one. The major points of discussion and amendment (in the order of the para-graphs in the Rules) were the following:

1. Role of CPR: It was agreed that the consortium is committed to the indivisi-bility of human rights. While its work fo-cuses on ESCR it will address violations of civil and political rights as they arise as relevant to its work.

2. Membership fee: A membership fee (to be established by the Steering

Group) was included after some discus-sion, but as voluntary. 3. FIAN was asked to continue its work as secretariat until decided other-wise by the Steering Group – with prior notice of one year. In general: The steer-ing group and the organization chosen by the steering group to serve as secretariat will agree on a member of the latter or-ganization to be a member of the steering group. That organization will not run for an additional position on the Steering Group. 4. The Steering Group is the place of all major decisions, whereas the global conference provides recommendations only, since the Steering Group has a rep-resentative structure (being electro-nically elected by all members), whereas the presence of members in the global conference depends on funds available to participants and on geographical location. 5. “Middle East and North Africa” (MENA) was taken as one of the regions for representation in the Steering Com-mittee. This was seen as affirmative action in light of current struggles for human rights in the area. In order to keep the regions to 5, Central/South Asia and East Asia/Australia/Oceania were combined into one region, with certain balance re-quirements similar to the ones in place for the combined region Europe / North America. 6. Three new gender-related pro-visions were introduced (in addition to the one already formulated in the draft in the case of ties): If the first elected mem-ber from the region is male, the second elected member should be female (if can-didates are available). For elections of the two global CSO members, the female can-didate with the most votes is elected (even if they are not placed first or second) so as to ensure gender balance. Moreover, the election committee should take proac-

10

tive measures to invite and solicit candi-dates of both genders on the lists of can-didates. 7. A question arose on the regional nature of academic members. It was re-solved that for determining the regional affiliation of the academic members, the principle of self-identification is applied. 8. The rules of procedure will be re-viewed and revised after two years. Further discussion and decisions not re-flected in the amended Rules of Proce-dures included: a. The election for CSO-members is both for persons linked to CSOs and for the CSO they are linked to. In case the person elected changes organizations dur-ing his/her term in the Steering Group, the Steering Group and the respective CSO have to agree on a new person taking his/her place.

b. A national section of a global CSO cannot be a separate regional member of the Consortium, if the global CSO or an-other national section is already a mem-ber. The question remained unresolved whether rather informal national or in-ternational networks could be members of the Consortium and how this relates to their members’ membership in the Con-sortium. c. It was debated who qualifies as an academic. Some agreement was reached that an academic is a person having aca-demic functions at an academic institution. It remained open whether doctoral stu-dents may qualify. It was clear, however, that students in general are not academics. The amended Rules of Procedures were put to a vote: The Rules were accepted with one vote against and with no absten-tion.

The global conference elected unani-mously the following two persons to the Election Committee: Lilian Chenwi of (South Africa) and Cornelieke Keizer (Netherlands).

11

4. Focal strategies, clustering of

topics, focal groups

In the questionnaire circulated in summer 2011 members had also identified their policy fields of interest and competence. On the basis of this feedback the Strategy Group (in particular: Julia Duchrow, Ash-faq Khalfan, Rolf Künnemann, Niko Lu-siani, Sandra Ratjen, since January, Re-becca Brown) established a list of 17 top-ics and identified in December a focal strategist and peer strategists for each of these topics (investment, finance, tax, landgrab, food, water, extractive indus-tries, IPR, trade, climate, development, military occupation, TNCs, IFIs, criminali-sation, gender, world court). The focal strategists were asked to come up with a two page outline strategy or the 5th Con-ference according to a joint format pro-vided by the Strategy Group. It turned out that strategizing on four of these topics (criminalisation, gender, water, world court) did not take off and that one topic (corruption) was added. By mid February, 14 topical strategy papers were com-pleted by the different focal strategists – a few of them after discussions with peers. (investment – Carole Samdup, finance – Radhika Balakrishna, tax – Niko Lusiani, landgrab – Sofia Monsalve, food – Rolf Künnemann, extractive industries – San-dra Ratjen, IPR – Geoff Tansey, trade – Armin Pasch, climate – Jasper Teul-ings/Kristin Casper, development – Wouter Vandenhole, military occupation – Joseph Schechla, TNCs – Sandra Rat-jen/Carlos Lopez, IFIs – Bret Thiele, cor-ruption – Joseph Schechla. Similarly, strategy papers were developed by key strategists for the regions Africa (Sisay Yeshanew), East/SouthEast Asia (Jocelito Calivoso), North America (Niko Lusiani), and Europe (Wouter Vanden-hole). These 18 strategy papers were cir-

culated prior to the Conference to all par-ticipants. The second morning session on March 6 was chaired by Niko Lusiani. Each focal strategist gave a very brief summary of the key points in his or her strategy. Niko also introduced the methodology for the afternoon session on working groups. The purpose of this working group session was to allow each focal strategist to dis-cuss with each other and to allow all par-ticipants to contribute in finding syner-gies, interfaces and suggestions for a pos-sible clustering of focal topics into focal groups.

Despite the rather challenging methodol-ogy necessary to meet the purpose, the working groups operated well and on time and produced the requested results. They prepared the ground for the cluster-ing of topics into focal groups. After the conference the focal strategy documents – amended by the working group process - were consolidated into a 66-page docu-ment “ETO Consortium Structures and Strategies.” The clustering of focal groups was one of the issues completed in the morning ses-sion on March 7, chaired by Thorsten Göbel. The clustering led to a consolida-tion of the 14 topics into 8 thematic focal groups: 1. Finance Regulation, Tax 2. Corruption 3. Trade, Investment, IPR 4. EI, Landgrab, TNC 5. Eco Destruction, Climate Change 6. IFIs, Development Cooperation 7. Rights to Food, Health 8. COW – Conflict, Occupation, War For each thematic focal group, a leader-ship team was set up and the membership was set up – at least as far as those or-ganizations and persons present were concerned. The annexed document on focal groups provides information on

12

members, leadership teams and contact emails for the focal groups. The leadership for the regional focal groups was also set up for Africa, Asia, Europe, North America and MENA. The contact addresses can also be found in the mentioned focal group document.

5. General strategy and plan of

action.

The second afternoon session on March 6 was chaired by Ashfaq Khalfan. It dealt with general strategies towards different target groups and with a plan of action. The discussion used as input relevant points and the objectives listed in the ‘ETO Consortium Discussion Paper-Toward a Strategic Plan 2012-2013’ by Niko Lusiani, and which Niko had summa-rised at the meeting as well as points from the note by Rolf Künnemann on ‘General Mainstreaming Strategy, UN, governments, some thoughts’ which had been circulated in advance. During the meeting, Ashfaq took notes of the main points emanating from the dis-cussion and projected them so that every-body could see. After the meeting he con-solidated this document with elements from Niko’s and Rolf’s papers and added some further thoughts. He submitted the strategy document to the Steering Group on April 10. The Steering Group finalized this document, which reflects the discus-sion in Geneva as far as possible, in its meeting on May 8. This procedure was suggested by the global conference, as it was impossible during the short time period available to agree on more than bullet points and structure. The finalized general strategy document can be found in the annex. If it was impossible to finalize the general strategy during the meeting, the limita-tions were even worse for the plan of ac-tion 2012-13. The plan of action did not proceed further in the meeting than to a few highlights for the next two years. Ash-faq consolidated these after the meeting and submitted them to the outgoing Steer-ing Group which came up on May 8 with a list of recommendations for the incoming

13

Steering Group. The recommendations during the meeting included an option to hold the 6th ETO Conference next year at the occasion of a Vienna+20 conference, presentations at the UN and a booklet of frequently asked questions. A suggestion that also found its way into the recommendations was to set up “pools of experts” that could help Consor-tium members in specific circum-stances. Strategic litigation was chosen as one such topic. Trust law and corruption law would provide other such fields. Shira Stanton indicated that she could screen the networks of ASF to find suitable ex-perts.

6. Open session with Swiss and

Geneva-based CSOs.

The final session of the Conference was an open session – following the precedent set by the 3rd ETO Conference in Lancaster 2009 – inviting local CSOs and interested persons to join and share their views on ETOs from the national or personal per-spectives. The following 12 persons par-ticipated from Swiss or Geneva-based CSOs: • Thomas Braunschweig, Urs Rybi;

Erklärung von Bern • Alex Sutter, Daniel Stadelmann;

humanrights.ch • Nikolai Fuchs; Nexus Foundation • Margot Brogniart, Larissa Dietrich,

Laurie Reymond, Michael Nanz; FIAN Suisse

• Ester Wolf; Brot für Alle • Christoph Baumann; Solidar Suisse • Melik Özden; CETIM • Matthes Buhbe, Felix Kirchmeier

(Friedrich Ebert Foundation-Geneva office)

• Lida Lhotska; Ina Verzivolli, Ge-neva Infant Feeding Association (GIFA)

The session was chaired by Sandra Ratjen. In the first part, the concept of ETOs was introduced and some highlights of the Maastricht Principles on ETOs in the area of ESCR were set. The process that led to this document was explained. Afterwards, the ETO Consortium and its work were described and recent results of the con-ference and the emerging focal groups were pointed out as possible points of interests for Swiss CSOs. In the second part the participants from Switzerland described their own activities in fields related to ETOs. A major new na-tionwide campaign involving many CSOs is the Swiss Campaign for Corporate Jus-tice. It aims to deal with the necessity of binding legal regulations – both for Swiss TNCs and for “corporate immigrants” –

14

foreign corporations which changed their seat to Switzerland. Many among them operate in extractive industries including oil mining. The campaign will deal with the limits of voluntary commitments (Global Compact etc.) and also refer to the discussions around business and human rights in Switzerland and in the Human Rights Council. The focus of the campaign is not on individual firms but on the need for legal reform for better accountability of Swiss firms for abuses of human rights abroad, as well as on the incoherence of Swiss policies covering all relevant fields of foreign policies. Finally, the campaign is one of the main current initiatives of a group of CSOs active within “MultiWatch” that is in turn serving as the national Swiss platform in the broader European network ECCJ (European Coalition for Corporate Justice).

Participants felt in general that there is still a lot of work to be done in terms of making many Swiss authorities conscious of economic, social and cultural rights, in general, and abroad in particular, and how they entail direct Swiss states’ obli-gations. The ETO Principles were seen as a welcome clarification and working tool. From among the Swiss participants the suggestion was made to build a Swiss na-tional ETO Consortium or at least some type of network to advance ETOs and keep in touch with the international ETO Consortium.

15

7. List of Participants

Last Name

First Name e-mail

Aubry Sylvain aubry.sylvain1@gmail.com Brennan Brid bridbrennan@tni.org Brown Rebecca RBROWN@ESCR-NET.ORG Calivoso Joselito tolitzsc@yahoo.com Casper Kristin kristin.casper@greenpeace.org Chenwi Lilian lchenwi@uwc.ac.za Coomans Fons fons.coomans@maastrichtuniversity.nl de la Vega Pablo regional@pidhdd.org Duchrow Julia J.Duchrow@brot-fuer-die-welt.org Eggen Manuel manu@fian.be Francq Evie evie.francq@ipisresearch.be Göbel Thorsten T.Goebel@brot-fuer-die-welt.de Hammonds Rachel rachelhammonds@yahoo.com Hausmann Ute u.hausmann@fian.de Kämpf Andrea kaempf@institut-fuer-menschenrechte.de Keizer Cornelieke keizer@equalinrights.org Khalfan Ashfaq Ashfaq.Khalfan@amnesty.org Kot Jean-Philippe jpkot@asf.be Künnemann Rolf kuennemann@fian.org Lhotska Lida lida.lhotska@gifa.org Lusiani Niko nlusiani@cesr.org Mavungu Phebe phemac2002@yahoo.fr Mbazira Chris bazzira@yahoo.co.uk Mthombeni Africa africamauhayisi@yahoo.com Orellana Marcos morellana@ciel.org Paasch Armin armin.paasch@misereor.de Paul Geneviève gpaul@fidh.org Ratjen Sandra sandra.ratjen@icj.org Salomon Margot M.E.Salomon@lse.ac.uk Saunders Joss jsaunders@Oxfam.org.uk Schechla Joseph jschechla@hlrn.org Seiderman Ian ian.seiderman@icj.org Skogly Sigrun s.skogly@lancaster.ac.uk Stanton Shira sstanton@asf.be Suarez-Franco Ana Maria suarez-franco@fian.org Tansey Geoff geoff@tansey.org.uk Teulings Jasper jasper.teulings@greenpeace.org Thiele Bret bret.thiele@cohre.org Vandenbogaerde Arne Arne.Vandenbogaerde@ua.ac.be Vandenhole Wouter wouter.vandenhole@ua.ac.be Verzivolli Ina ina.verzivolli@gifa.org Wrzoncki Elin ewrzoncki@fidh.org Yeshanew Sisay Alemahu sisis2002et@gmail.com

16

8. Annex

ETO Consortium, Rules of Procedures

Adopted by the 5th ETO Consortium

Conference, Geneva, March 7, 2012

States hold certain obligations to observe

the human rights of persons outside of

their territorial scope. These extraterrito-

rial obligations (ETOs) have often gone

unrecognized either in law, policy and

practice of many states. States have tended

to limit obligations to their own territory

which does justice neither to the regulatory

needs of the international community nor

to upholding the principle of universality of

human rights. A state’s actions or omis-

sions can and frequently do have substan-

tial and often adverse impact on persons

abroad.

This reductionism to territorial obligations

has led to a vacuum of human rights pro-

tection in a number of international politi-

cal processes and a paucity of regulations

based on human rights in order to promote

their protection. The situation is particu-

larly challenging in the field of economic,

social and cultural rights (ESCR). The iden-

tified gaps in human rights protection

which have become more severe in the con-

text of globalisation during the past 20

years include:

- the HR regulation and account-

ability of transnational corpora-

tions (TNCs)

- the HR accountability of Inter-

governmental Organizations (IGOs)

in particular international financial

institutions (IFIs)

- the ineffectiveness in application of

human rights law in the face of in-

vestment and trade law which has

developed over the past 20 years

- the implementation of correspond-

ing duties to protect and fulfil ESCR

abroad inter alia through interna-

tional cooperation and assistance

- clarity on the nature and scope of

ETOs.

The ETO Consortium is a member-led net-

work of CSOs, academia, social movements

and experts. The purpose of the ETO Con-

sortium is to address the short-comings

mentioned and to main-stream extraterri-

torial obligations with academia, commu-

nity based organisations and other CSOs, at

the UN, at international, regional and na-

tional human rights bodies and with the

States. It includes members from a wide

range of policy fields, such as environment

and development and other social justice

movements.

The main reference point for the Con-

sortium is provided by the Maastricht Prin-

ciples on extraterritorial obligations in the

area of ESCR. These 44 Principles were is-

sued in September 2011 by a conference of

experts from universities and organizations

located in all regions of the world. The ex-

perts included current and former mem-

bers of international human rights treaty

bodies, regional human rights bodies, and

former and current Special Rapporteurs of

the United Nations Human Rights Council.

The Principles provide international expert

opinion and can serve as a source of inter-

national law according to art.38 of the

Statutes on the International Court of Jus-

tice.

The ETO-Consortium will provide advice to

the various entities mentioned so that they

can advance the ETO Principles and use

them in their day-to-day work seeking new

avenues to address some of the most press-

ing problems in the field of ESCR. The con-

sortium is committed to the indivisibility of

human rights. While its work focuses on

ESCR it will address violations of civil and

political rights as they arise as relevant to

its work. Moreover the ETO Consortium

will directly (and in form of its members)

take action to mainstream and advocate

ETOs and to apply these in their conceptual

work and case-work.

17

1. Structure:

1. The ETO-Consortium is a member-led network aimed at information-exchange, monitoring, compilation, coordination and capacity–building supporting lobby work and standard setting. The Consor-tium has a limited political personal-ity/identity tailored only to specific, member-defined processes/ activities, but its main role is to provide assistance to groups aiming to utilize/ implement ETOs in their work. It has a small secretariat, its own logo and website profiling member organizations and monitoring new ETO-related develop-ments in theory and prac-tice. The ETO Consortium will also inform about the members’ activities in the field. The focal groups will be member-led and decentralized, yet linked to the Steering Group and secretariat.

2. Members of the Consortium are CSOs and academic individuals. Members have the right to elect the Steering Group. Moreover, there is a category of “corre-sponding experts”. These are individuals who are not academic members nor are they representing a member-CSO. They can be nominated by the Steering Group for example for responsibilities in focal groups, but cannot stand for election to the Steering Group.

3. New members should go through an adoption procedure by the Steering Group. The members should actively contribute to the work of the Consortium, including finances and/or services. They are re-quired to respect the confidentiality of internal documents. The Steering Group will establish a voluntary membership fee that member organizations/individuals may choose according to their financial capacity.

2. The Steering Group

4. For a person or organization to become a member, it has to be proposed by a member. Before approaching this person or organisation, the proposing member contacts the Steering Group (with some background information) and asks its consent. The member then approaches the person/organisation and asks if they would be interested in a Consortium membership. If so, they can apply to the Steering Group.

5. The Steering Group meets monthly via Skype/telephone.

6. FIAN continues to provide a secretariat to the Steering Group until decided oth-erwise by the Steering Group, with rea-sonable notice (at least one year) in ad-vance.

7. Global conferences, workshops are planned by the Steering Group.

8. Regional conferences/workshops are planned by the regional focal points in coordination with the Steering Group.

9. Academic members are elected in their personal capacity. CSO members repre-sent their organization. Not two persons from the same CSO, university should be in the Steering Group.

10. The Steering Group remains in office until the next Steering Group was elected.

11. To sum up: The Steering Group - admits the new members, termi-

nates membership, - nominates members for focal

groups (and their leadership teams),

- guides the secretariat, - takes all important decisions.

Global ETO conferences can make recommendations to the Steering Group on decision-making (on the

18

basis that the global conference is usually less representative of membership than the Steering Group),

- prepares the global ETO Confer-ence.

12. The Steering Group consists of up to 15 persons: - 4 representatives of global CSOs. A

global CSO is a CSO that cannot be characterized as regional or na-tional.

- One academic and one representa-tive of a CSO of each of the follow-ing 5 regions: 1. Latin America and the Caribbean, 2. Sub-Saharan Af-rica, 3. Central and South Asia and East and South-East Asia including Australia, New Zealand, Oceania, 4. Europe and North America. 5. Mid-dle East and North Africa.

13. The Steering Group and the organiza-tion chosen by the Steering Group to serve as secretariat will agree on a mem-ber of the latter organization to be a member of the Steering Group. That or-ganization will not run for an additional position on the Steering Group.

Members of the Steering Group are elected for two years. Reelection is possi-ble, but not more than twice in a row.

14. Elections for the Steering Group take place separately for CSOs and academics, as institutional and academic votes can-not be mixed: It is impossible to add the votes of institutions to the votes of indi-viduals and then compare results.

15. CSOs elect representatives of CSOs and academics elect academics. The rep-resentative of the CSO has to be specified prior to election. If in the course of a term the person specified can no longer repre-sent the CSO, the Steering Group agrees a follow up person for the rest of the term that is agreeable to both the Steering Group and the CSO.

16. The global conference meets once a year. The global conference elects two persons as an election commission that instructs the Secretariat in the election process. Should there not be candidates for a particular regional slot, the election commission should invite and solicit can-didates from that region. The persons must be representatives of member CSOs or academic members. The election com-mission does not contain persons that are currently on the Steering Group or will run for the next steering committee. An academic member of the Steering Group is elected by academic members, the CSO member by CSOs. Members have to come from different universities and different member-CSOs. Gender balance should be taken into consideration.

17. Votes for the Steering Group are taken electronically (6 to 4 weeks before the next global conference). In each region the group with fewer members in the re-spective region (i.e. academics or CSOs) will go first in the elections.

18. Candidates for the regional represen-tation should consider ensuring balance within the regions at least in North Amer-ica/Europe and Asia. If the academic for Asia is from Central or South Asia, the CSO should be from East/South-east Asia, Aus-tralia, New Zealand or Oceania, and vice versa, unless no candidates are available for that sub-region. If the academic for 'Europe and North America' is from Europe, the CSO should be from North America and vice versa, unless no candi-dates are available for that sub-region. In addition, if the first elected member from the region is male, the second elected member should be female (if candidates are available).

19. The mandate of the Steering Group members is two years. Elections take place every year in shifts: In an even year 2 representatives of global CSOs together with members from Asia and Africa are

19

elected. In an odd year the remaining members are elected. For elections of the two global CSO members, the female can-didate with the most votes is elected (even if they are not placed first or second) so as to ensure gender balance.

3. Rules of elections to the Steering Group:

20. Elections are managed by the election committee of two that was determined by a vote in the previous global conference. The election committee shall not discard candidates that have been nominated by others of signaled interest. It provides lists of candidates per region and per category. The election committee should take proactive measures to invite and so-licit candidates of both genders on the lists of candidates.

21. The elections proceed in stages via emails to the election committee. The academic regional representatives from the 5 regions are elected by the academic members of each of these regions. For determining the regional affiliation of the academic members, the principle of self-identification is applied. The CSO mem-bers from the 5 regions are elected by the member-CSO from this region. The four international/global CSO-members are elected by all member-CSOs.

22. For each seat on the list of seats (structured as described in paragraph 12), the persons are ranked according to votes received. If several persons get the same number of votes for the last slot available, those of them from the gender in the Steering Group that has more representa-tion so far will be discarded. If all of them happen to be of the greater represented gender, or if several persons remain after discarding the greater represented gen-der, a second round of votes among these candidates will be carried out.

4. Focal points

23. Focal points are groups of individual or organizational members, one of them providing the coordination (focal coordi-nator). There two types of focal points: - Regional focal points. - Thematic focal points (on policy

fields),

24. Both types of groups work in capacity building, outreach, advocacy. The first type is region-based. The second type is issue focused (including cases).

25. Focal points are determined by the Steering Group. The regional focal points should organize the regional conferences in cooperation with the Steering Group.

5. Functional Profile of the ETO Con-sortium

26. Functions carried out in the name of the Consortium by secretariat - Promotion of the Extraterritorial Obliga-

tions of States - Website, documentation of important

cases, papers, books (archive), commu-nication, dissemination

- Membership administration - ETO Conferences / workshops - Encourage exchange between members - Capacity building

27. Functions carried out in the name of the Consortium by members - Capacity building - Communication, dissemination

28. Coordinated functions carried out by members in their individual names only -Intervention in cases - Advocacy/lobby - Capacity building - Outreach to new potential members,

after checking with the Steering Group (cf. rule 2.2)

29. The rules of procedure will be re-viewed and revised after two years.

20

FOCAL GROUPS

a. THEMATIC FOCAL GROUPS

1. Finance Regulation, Tax

Center for ESR, New York City

Niko Lusiani, Radhika Balakrishna

nlusiani@cesr.org rbalakra@rci.rutgers.edu;

Members: CESR, ESCR-Net

2. Corruption

Housing and Land Rights Network, Habitat Interna-tional Coalition

Joseph Schechla jschechla@hlrn.org

3. Trade, Investment, IPR

Misereor Armin Paasch armin.paasch@misereor.de FIAN international Rolf Künnemann kuennemann@fian.org Carole Samdup Carole Samdup sukyinima@hotmail.com

Other members: ESCR-net, FIDH, TNI

4. EI, Landgrab, TNC

ICJ Sandra Ratjen Sandra.Ratjen@icj.org FIAN international Sofia Monsalve Monsalve@fian.org Transnational Institute Brid Brennan bridbrennan@tni.org FIDH Elin Wrzoncki ewrzoncki@fidh.org; Members: AI, ASF, Brot, ESCR-N, FIAN, FIDH, GI-ESCR, IAHRPF, ICJ, IPIS, Saligan, Corne-lieke Keizer, Sylvain Aubry, Sigrun Skogly

5. Eco Destruction, Climate Change:

Greenpeace International Jasper Teulings Kristin Casper

jasper.teulings@greenpeace.org kristin.casper@greenpeace.org

Centre for International En-vironmental Law CIEL

Marcos Orellana Morellana@ciel.org

Members: Greenpeace, Saligan, CIEL

6. IFIs, Development Cooperation

Global Initiative on ESCR Bret Thiele bret@globalinitiative-escr.org Members: AI, CESR, GI-ESCR, Brot für die Welt

21

7. Rights to Food, Health

FIAN international Rolf Künnemann kuennemann@fian.org IBFAN/GIFA Lida Lhotska Lida.lhotska@gifa.org Plataforma Pablo de la Vega regional@pidhdd.org Members: Brot die Welt, FIAN, IBFAN, Plataforma, Saligan

8. Conflict, Occupation, War

Housing and Land Rights Network, Habitat Interna-tional Coalition

Joseph Schechla jschechla@hlrn.org

Other members: HIC, ICJ, ASF

b. REGIONAL FOCAL GROUPS

Africa

Abo Academy University (Turku, Finland)

Sisay Alemahu Ye-shanew

salemahu@abo.fi

University of Witwatersrand Lilian Chenwi Lilian.chenwi@wits.ac.za Asia

SALIGAN Jocelito Calivoso tolitzsc@yahoo.com Latin America

Perú Equidad Javier Mujica javiermujica@hotmail.com Europe

FIAN international Ute Hausmann u.hausmann@fian.de University of Maastricht Fons Coomans fons.coomans@maastrichtuniversity.nl AI EU Mission Sylvain Aubry Aubry.sylvain1@gmail.com

North America

Center for ESR, New York City

Niko Lusiani nlusiani@cesr.org

MENA

Housing and Land Rights Network, Habitat Interna-tional Coalition

Joseph Schechla jschechla@hlrn.org