Author: Sharon Hartles (2017)
The validity and creditability of traditional dominant western notions of crime and justice within local and global levels are paradoxically highly contested because they are traditional dominant western notions. These notions are constructed by the preserve of the powerful and underpinned by power relations between states and corporate representatives who share ideology such as globalisation, capitalism, neo-liberalism and visions such as a unified market. Gobalisation and state sovereignty are interwoven concepts which created the origins of global cooperation because in order to maintain state independence, states are interdependent on each other which can be traced back to the Westphalia system which was established post 1648.
In the pursuit of capitalism European states implemented a treaty and in doing so, concepts of internationally agreed laws, diplomacy and crime control evolved (ibid, and Andreas and Nadelmann). International, transnational and supranational cooperation and coordination have advanced into global policing, global crime control: regulation and law enforcement and global justice defined as the pursuit of objective ethical standards which apply to all humans regardless of gender, culture, race, religion or nationality. A global crime and global justice approach is underpinned and maintained by states who transfer and translate global policy/initiatives into local domains because sovereign states concurrently form part of global governing entities such as the European Union and the United Nations.
The deconstruction from it conception of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) a document proclaiming a common standard of achievements setting out fundamental human rights to be universally protected will illuminate who, how, and why global notions of crime and justice which are assimilated into local notions are exploited to facilitate the harms committed by corporations (United Nations, 2017). As cited by United Nations (2017) the UDHR was drafted by representatives with different cultural and legal backgrounds from all regions of the world. However, this point is contested because the UDHR was constructed to serve the best interests of the fifty member countries/states (members in 1948) who enacted it (United Nations, 2017). Therefore the policy at its conception was manipulated because the thirty articles which make up the UDHR policy reflect traditional western ideology, evidencing how dominant constructions of global justice belong to the preserve of the powerful such as states and corporations, and their representatives as illustrated through the concepts of power relations and state-corporate crime. Moreover African voices, and the voices of other colonies went unheard because their voices were represented by their colonial masters (the practice of acquiring full or partial political control over another country, occupying it, and exploiting its economically) (Meredith, 2005).
This makes visible the preserve of European powers and their commitment to their cultural imperialism (imposing one’s culture on to another) (Steiner and Alston, 2000). This makes clear that the UDHR declaration is a European and Inter-American approach to human rights and therefore raises issues about the universality of rights (an ethos which is shared by all people in the world). The Organisation of African Unity (OAU) have adopted the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights in 1981, which emphasises on groups and duties, (South African History, 2017) withdrawing from dominant, notions derived from western supremacy constituted in policy such as UDHR and contesting the universality of human rights.
Traditional local and global systems of crime and justice have been exploited by the entrenched and interwoven concepts of imperialism, colonialism and the preserve of the powerful such as states and corporate representatives (who work overtly and covertly to influence policy (Barker et al., 1999). The human rights listed within the thirty articles of the UDHR are separated into two distinct types these being: civil and political rights (CPR) and economic, social and cultural rights (ESCR). In 1960 these were adopted to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) respectively, for the purpose of giving legal force to the UDHR (Equality and Human Rights Commission, 2017). ICCPR protect and respect the civil and political rights of individuals and the ICCPR protects the fundamental rights enabling people to enjoy a broad range of human rights. However, it both categories of rights are not treated equally because the ESCR/ ICESCR are counterproductive to the principles of free-market capitalist economies.
The World Trade Organization (WTO) (2017) who are the only global international organization dealing with the rules of trade between nations negotiates global agreements which are agreed to by the world’s trading states and these agreements are ratified within the local by state representatives and corporate representatives who have a vested interest. Human rights violations are necessary for a states trade which stabilises the economy and society maintaining peace. What this reveals is social security/stability, democracy, and industrial advancement, these being examples of the greater good are deemed to be legitimate reasons for the exploitation of the UDHR document 'certain occasions or circumstances require that human rights be compromised for a greater good' (Mehigan et al., 2010, p. 230).
The concept of state-corporate crime (Kramer et al, 2002) challenge the notion of greater good revealing how states and corporations exploit criminal justice practice and policy such as UDHR within both global and local levels for the purpose of aiding corporate activity which conceals and aids the harms perpetrated by corporations. The concept of state-corporate crime challenge the notion of greater good and in doing so reveals how states and corporations exploit criminal justice practice and policy such as UDHR within both global and local levels for the purpose of aiding corporate activity which conceals and aids the harms perpetrated by corporations (Kramer et al, 2002).
References
Equality and Human Rights Commission (2017) [Online] Available at
https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/our-human-rights-work/monitoring-and-promoting-un-treaties/international-covenant-civil-and (Accessed 21st April 2017)
Kramer., R. Michalowski., D and Kauzlarich., D (2002) 'The Origins and Development of the Concept and Theory of State-Corporate Crime' [Online] Available at
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.515.7792&rep=rep1&type=pdf (Accessed 9th April 2017)
Meredith, M. (2005) 'The State of Africa: A History of Fifty Years of Independence', London, Free Press.
South African History Online (SAHO). (2017) [Online] Available at
http://www.sahistory.org.za/topic/organisation-african-unity-oau (Accessed 20th April 2017)
Steiner, H. and Alston, P. (2000) 'International Human Rights in Context: Law, Politics, Morals' (2nd edn), New York, Oxford University Press.
United Nations. (2017) Universal Declaration of Human Rights [Online] Available at
http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/ (Accessed 19th April 2017)
World Trade Organization (2017) [Online] Available at https://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/thewto_e.htm (Accessed 20th April 2017)
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Please cite this article as:
Hartles, S (2017) Are local and global crime and justice systems exploited to aid the harms committed by corporations? [Online] Available at https://sharonhartles.weebly.com/are-local-and-global-crime-and-justice-systems-exploited-to-aid-the-harms-committed-by-corporations.html (Accessed)
ATTRIBUTION
All works are Open Access articles distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original works are properly cited.
© Sharon Hartles 2022.