Legal Framework: An International Human Rights Approach to Addressing Hate Speech and Protecting Free Expression in Myanmar report on how human rights impacts have been addressed, “particularly when concerns are raised by or on behalf of affected stakeholders.”707 edy, The Guiding Principles lastly stress that victims of human rights violations have a right to rem- 708 and they note that no matter the context, companies should “treat the risk of causing or con- tributing to gross human rights abuses as a legal compliance issue wherever they operate.”709 The Guiding Principles note that national jurisdictions are creating an “expanding web” of potential civil liability,710 as well as potential criminal prosecution as countries incorporate provisions of the Rome Statute that may “provide for corporate criminal responsibility.”711 Of note to the situation of hate speech in Myanmar, the Guiding Principles also stress that in “complex contexts . . . business enter- prises should ensure that they do not exacerbate the situation.”712 Given the severity of the effects of hate speech in Myanmar, these principles are particularly relevant. The Guiding Principles also provide helpful some guidance on what contributions are prohib- ited, including aiding and abetting abuses by “knowingly providing practical assistance or encouragement that has a substantial effect on the commission of a crime.”713 Indeed, companies that were alleged to have contributed grave human rights abuses in Myanmar have already faced legal action in the past. Villagers from Tanintharyi, Myanmar sued U.S. oil company Unocal in a United States court for its role in “aiding and abetting” the Myanmar army’s forced labor, forced relocation, murder, and rape of villagers in the area of Unocal’s work constructing a pipeline;714 cases were also pursued against Total in France and Belgium on similar grounds.715 In short, the absence of a binding international treaty716 to adjudicate the human rights responsibilities of corporate entities does not mean 707 708 709 710 711 712 713 714 715 716 Ibid., principle 21. Ibid., principles 25-31. Ibid., principle 23 (stating in part “[s]ome operating environments, such as conflict-affected areas, may increase the risks of enterprises being complicit in gross human rights abuses committed by other actors (security forces, for example). Business enterprises should treat this risk as a legal compliance issue, given the expanding web of potential corporate legal liability arising from extraterritorial civil claims, and from the incorporation of the provisions of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court in jurisdictions that provide for corporate criminal responsibility. In addition, corporate directors, officers and employees may be subject to individual liability for acts that amount to gross human rights abuses. In complex contexts such as these, business enterprises should ensure that they do not exacerbate the situation.”). Ibid., principle 23. Corporations have been sued in countries where they are headquartered for complicity in war crimes or human rights abuses abroad; for example, such suits have brought in the Netherlands, Switzerland, France, Canada, and the United States. See also Business & Human Rights Resource Centre, “Lawsuits against Companies,” https://www.business-humanrights.org/en/corporate-legal-accountability/case-profiles/complete-list-of-casesprofiled. Ibid., principle 23. States like Switzerland, Germany, and the Netherlands have incorporated parts of the ICC Rome Statute into their domestic law, the domestic jurisdictions in which corporations may be held accountable for international crimes have increased. See “Report of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises,” A/HRC/4/035., para. 24. Ibid., principle 23. Guiding Principles. See Earth Rights International, “Doe v. Unocal,” https://earthrights.org/case/doe-v-unocal/. “Burma: Pressure mounts on Western oil companies profiting under repression,” Daily Mail, October 3, 2007, https:// www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-485374/Burma-Pressure-mounts-Western-oil-companies-profiting-repression. html. In line with United Nations Human Rights Council [HRC], HRC Resolution 26/9, A/HRC/RES/26/9 (June 26, 2014), “Elaboration of an international legally binding instrument on transnational corporations and other business enterprises with respect to human rights,” the Human Rights Council recently released a “Zero Draft” of the “Legally Binding Instrument to Regulate, in International Human Rights Law, the Activities of Transnational Corporations and Business Enterprises.” This draft is a step toward what the HRC aims to develop into a Business and Human Rights treaty that will impose binding legal obligations on businesses. See HRC, Zero Draft: Legally Binding Instrument 101