able to refuse to give in to corruption pressure elsewhere, and they saw their public images
and profit margins improve.
This model could provide a viable avenue forward for the area of filtering. In particular, it
offers hope that states can cooperate in developing international standards for private actors
in the area of freedom of expression, especially as private actors feel pressured to submit to
host-country government demands to carry out filtering programs.
Might states cooperate in this way to hold private actors accountable for operations affecting freedom of expression?
The Promise of International Standards
This chapter suggests that international legal instruments designed to protect human rights by
holding states accountable have been norm-setting but toothless. The prospects for change
in these instruments are not strong because it is difficult for states acting collectively through
the international system to establish effective remedies for violations by states. Given this
lack of enforceability, the cause of international human rights suffers from a chronic legal
deficiency.
Because international law generally does not directly bind private actors, companies today
can violate international human rights standards with relative assurance that they will not face
charges in an international tribunal. Nonetheless, this apparent impunity may work against
those that wish to comply with international human rights standards when governments try to
compel companies to restrict freedom of expression through techniques like filtering.
Companies complain they are stuck between Scylla and Charybdis in cases where a hostcountry government requires a breach of international law by imposing broad filtering mandates that contradict international standards for freedom of expression. Naturally, a company
must comply with the laws of the different jurisdictions where it operates, and it is not for the
company to decide what the law should be or to straighten out the failures of international law.
Rather, the decision for the company to make is whether or not to do business in a given market. However, given the competitive economic pressures brought by globalization, a company
may in fact need to do business in certain markets if it is to survive.
Guiding a company’s decisions on whether to do business in a market are factors such as
the company’s charter or management and the potential for profits, though these factors are
not rigid. If the company’s charter or management calls for certain ethical conduct, and if the
jurisdiction where it would like to operate has lower standards, the company might nevertheless choose to do business there in hopes of making a positive difference. If the company’s
charter or management does not itself call for certain ethical conduct, the company might
nonetheless choose to follow higher standards in response to loud calls issued by groups trying to affect company behavior, even if those calls hail from another market altogether. (For
example, outcries by loud individuals in the west in 2006 affected the course of western
96
Mary Rundle and Malcolm Birdling
and profit margins improve.
This model could provide a viable avenue forward for the area of filtering. In particular, it
offers hope that states can cooperate in developing international standards for private actors
in the area of freedom of expression, especially as private actors feel pressured to submit to
host-country government demands to carry out filtering programs.
Might states cooperate in this way to hold private actors accountable for operations affecting freedom of expression?
The Promise of International Standards
This chapter suggests that international legal instruments designed to protect human rights by
holding states accountable have been norm-setting but toothless. The prospects for change
in these instruments are not strong because it is difficult for states acting collectively through
the international system to establish effective remedies for violations by states. Given this
lack of enforceability, the cause of international human rights suffers from a chronic legal
deficiency.
Because international law generally does not directly bind private actors, companies today
can violate international human rights standards with relative assurance that they will not face
charges in an international tribunal. Nonetheless, this apparent impunity may work against
those that wish to comply with international human rights standards when governments try to
compel companies to restrict freedom of expression through techniques like filtering.
Companies complain they are stuck between Scylla and Charybdis in cases where a hostcountry government requires a breach of international law by imposing broad filtering mandates that contradict international standards for freedom of expression. Naturally, a company
must comply with the laws of the different jurisdictions where it operates, and it is not for the
company to decide what the law should be or to straighten out the failures of international law.
Rather, the decision for the company to make is whether or not to do business in a given market. However, given the competitive economic pressures brought by globalization, a company
may in fact need to do business in certain markets if it is to survive.
Guiding a company’s decisions on whether to do business in a market are factors such as
the company’s charter or management and the potential for profits, though these factors are
not rigid. If the company’s charter or management calls for certain ethical conduct, and if the
jurisdiction where it would like to operate has lower standards, the company might nevertheless choose to do business there in hopes of making a positive difference. If the company’s
charter or management does not itself call for certain ethical conduct, the company might
nonetheless choose to follow higher standards in response to loud calls issued by groups trying to affect company behavior, even if those calls hail from another market altogether. (For
example, outcries by loud individuals in the west in 2006 affected the course of western
96
Mary Rundle and Malcolm Birdling