This article examines the complexities surrounding corporate criminal liability for human rights violations, focusing on the failings of existing legal frameworks and the repercussions of corporate conduct in conflicts. It highlights notable cases involving corporate complicity in war crimes and discusses how Indonesia’s revised Criminal Code could enhance accountability for gross human rights violations by corporations.
The discourse surrounding corporate criminal liability has evolved considerably, yet significant ambiguities persist concerning the accountability of corporations for gross human rights violations. While various States have adopted different methodologies, two notable approaches are the ‘identification approach’ and the ‘organizational approach.’ These frameworks, designed to address general criminal liability, struggle with holding corporations accountable for severe human rights abuses that typically implicate individual actors. For instance, the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court predominantly delineates individual, rather than corporate, culpability for such grave offenses, despite evidence indicating that corporations are often complicit in systematic and egregious violations for profit. The rise of multinational enterprises has exacerbated these issues, especially as corporations, seeking to safeguard their operations abroad, engage in lobbying with governments and armed groups. Reports from the International Commission of Jurists have highlighted that companies often provide essential support to state and non-state actors, enhancing their capability to perpetrate human rights abuses. Cases exemplifying corporate complicity in crimes against humanity further illustrate the complexities of corporate accountability. Lundin Energy is currently facing scrutiny for their alleged involvement in war crimes in Sudan, linked to agreements facilitating oil exploration amid ongoing civil conflict. Similarly, corporate actions within the Palestine-Israel conflict raise profound questions regarding corporate complicity, as entities such as Lima Holding BV have come under legal pressure for their roles in aiding military operations against civilians. Within Indonesia, the specter of corporate complicity in human rights violations has become increasingly pronounced, evidenced by ExxonMobil’s historical engagement with the Indonesian military amidst severe human rights abuses. More recently, allegations against state-owned arms manufacturers for supplying military equipment to the Myanmar junta, implicated in genocidal acts, spotlight corporate responsibilities under international law. While corporations frequently mask their complicity as mere aiding and abetting, legal frameworks must evolve. The notion of corporate culture posits that companies can be held liable for fostering environments that either support criminality or fail to prevent infractions. Notably, the recent amendments in Indonesia’s Criminal Code, Law No. 1 of 2023, pivotal for asserting corporate criminal liability, recognize corporations as actionable subjects under the law. The revisions to provisions addressing genocide and crimes against humanity within this new code signal a potentially robust framework for addressing corporate complicity in severe human rights violations. This research endeavors to scrutinize how Indonesian criminal law grapples with corporate accountability for such grave offenses, focusing on aiding and abetting principles and corporate culture while assessing the applicability of the updated legal framework to ensure effective punitive measures.
The issue of corporate criminal liability for human rights violations has ignited extensive debate, particularly as globalization has expanded the operating spaces of multinational corporations. These corporations often engage in behaviors that implicate them in human rights abuses either directly or indirectly. Legal systems worldwide are faced with challenges in addressing corporate complicity, especially given that existing international statutes like the Rome Statute primarily focus on individual liability, often overlooking the corporate dimension. Consequently, the legal landscape must adapt to comprehensively tackle the implications of corporate misconduct within the context of systemic human rights violations.
The evolving legal framework surrounding corporate criminal liability for gross human rights violations is crucial for holding corporations accountable for their actions. As demonstrated in the case analysis and through the lens of international and Indonesian law, the integration of concepts such as aiding and abetting and corporate culture into law signifies a critical step forward. Indonesia’s revised Criminal Code presents an opportunity for a more rigorous approach in addressing corporate complicity, emphasizing the need for a strong legal structure to confront human rights violations effectively.
Original Source: unair.ac.id
