Internet-related companies operating in China.) In this sense, a company’s commitment
to higher standards might be displayed for public relations purposes with a view to preserving the company’s image (even to stave off negative public relations in other markets),
or it could be shown as a manifestation of that company’s sincere desire to protect human
rights.
67
While international law as agreed among sovereigns may protect human rights by setting
norms only, there may be an additional route to bolstering freedom of expression; that is,
states may be willing to draw up a new treaty to apply standards to private actors, and private
actors meanwhile could proactively pledge themselves through commitments that they take
on voluntarily.
Drawing on the ATCA and antibribery examples, an effective enforcement mechanism could
prompt companies to follow international legal standards for the sake of limiting their own liability and exposure to adverse publicity; companies could cite the threat of liability as an excuse when they wished to refuse to comply with mandates to repress freedom of expression.
If such an approach were applied on a global level (as in the case of the U.N. Convention
against Corruption), it could help avoid the clash of conflicting legal regimes and instead provide companies with a global standard they could say they were obliged to follow.
In this regard, states could begin negotiating a binding treaty complete with domestic harmonization requirements and international cooperation in prevention, investigation, and enforcement. While they do so (a process that will take considerable time), corporations could
develop their own codes of ethical conduct for freedom of expression. Such voluntary commitments would allow companies to align themselves in support of human rights and equip
themselves with a valid response when asked by repressive regimes to suppress communications; the force of a treaty reinforcing these obligations through legal harmonization and international cooperation would send an added signal to those regimes.
In this sense, then, international law could provide a set of internationally recognized minimum standards that would help reconcile tensions. Since international human rights principles
already have been agreed upon and have enjoyed a transnational stamp of legitimacy over
the years, these same principles could provide a minimum standard for corporate responsibility. Because additional commitments to follow these standards would be voluntary, they would
allow companies to choose to bind themselves in taking an even stronger stand against repressive practices.
Given the tendency of the Internet to push global rules, and given the expectation that the
distinction between the real and virtual worlds will fade, a good starting point perhaps would
be to pare down the ambition to Internet-related practices. Efforts are already underway in this
regard. For example, one of the outcomes of the World Summit on the Information Society
was the tasking of the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization
(UNESCO) with facilitating work on ‘‘ethical dimensions of the Information Society.’’ This mandate was spelled out in the Geneva Declaration of Principles and Plan of Action and elaborated
Filtering and the International System
97
to higher standards might be displayed for public relations purposes with a view to preserving the company’s image (even to stave off negative public relations in other markets),
or it could be shown as a manifestation of that company’s sincere desire to protect human
rights.
67
While international law as agreed among sovereigns may protect human rights by setting
norms only, there may be an additional route to bolstering freedom of expression; that is,
states may be willing to draw up a new treaty to apply standards to private actors, and private
actors meanwhile could proactively pledge themselves through commitments that they take
on voluntarily.
Drawing on the ATCA and antibribery examples, an effective enforcement mechanism could
prompt companies to follow international legal standards for the sake of limiting their own liability and exposure to adverse publicity; companies could cite the threat of liability as an excuse when they wished to refuse to comply with mandates to repress freedom of expression.
If such an approach were applied on a global level (as in the case of the U.N. Convention
against Corruption), it could help avoid the clash of conflicting legal regimes and instead provide companies with a global standard they could say they were obliged to follow.
In this regard, states could begin negotiating a binding treaty complete with domestic harmonization requirements and international cooperation in prevention, investigation, and enforcement. While they do so (a process that will take considerable time), corporations could
develop their own codes of ethical conduct for freedom of expression. Such voluntary commitments would allow companies to align themselves in support of human rights and equip
themselves with a valid response when asked by repressive regimes to suppress communications; the force of a treaty reinforcing these obligations through legal harmonization and international cooperation would send an added signal to those regimes.
In this sense, then, international law could provide a set of internationally recognized minimum standards that would help reconcile tensions. Since international human rights principles
already have been agreed upon and have enjoyed a transnational stamp of legitimacy over
the years, these same principles could provide a minimum standard for corporate responsibility. Because additional commitments to follow these standards would be voluntary, they would
allow companies to choose to bind themselves in taking an even stronger stand against repressive practices.
Given the tendency of the Internet to push global rules, and given the expectation that the
distinction between the real and virtual worlds will fade, a good starting point perhaps would
be to pare down the ambition to Internet-related practices. Efforts are already underway in this
regard. For example, one of the outcomes of the World Summit on the Information Society
was the tasking of the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization
(UNESCO) with facilitating work on ‘‘ethical dimensions of the Information Society.’’ This mandate was spelled out in the Geneva Declaration of Principles and Plan of Action and elaborated
Filtering and the International System
97