Tobacco Control

HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS REGISTER
[Advanced]

Tobacco Control 2005;14(Supplement 2 ):ii14-ii18; doi:10.1136/tc.2004.009027
Copyright © 2005 by the BMJ Publishing Group Ltd.

This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this link to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Add article to my folders
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Crow, M E
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Crow, M E
Related Collections
Right arrow Economics of tobacco use and control

RESEARCH PAPER

The human rights responsibilities of multinational tobacco companies

M E Crow

Correspondence to:
Melissa E Crow
Brooklyn Law School, One Boerum Place, Brooklyn, NY 11201, USA; mcrow65{at}aol.com

This article explores various strategies which could be used to hold the tobacco industry accountable for human rights violations precipitated by its conduct. First, a brief overview of the international human rights regime and the tobacco related jurisprudence issued by human rights treaty bodies is provided. The article then explains how tobacco control advocates could promote more systematic consideration of governments’ tobacco related human rights violations by reconceptualising the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control in the language of rights. The feasibility of using the existing human rights framework to target the tobacco industry directly is analysed with the conclusion that this approach has serious limitations. Emerging human rights norms, which have greater potential to affect the industry’s conduct, are presented. Finally, given the questionable authoritativeness of these norms, alternative ways that they could be employed to hold tobacco companies accountable for the rights related consequences of their activities are proposed.


Abbreviations: ATS, Alien Tort Statute; BAT, British American Tobacco; CEDAW, Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women; CESCR, Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights; CRC, Convention on the Rights of the Child; FCTC, Framework Convention on Tobacco Control; ICCPR, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; ICESCR, International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights; NGOs, non-governmental organisations; UDHR, Universal Declaration of Human Rights; UN, United Nations; WHO, World Health Organization

Keywords: human rights; corporate responsibility; accountability; consumer; Framework Convention on Tobacco Control; Norms on the Responsibilities of Transnational Corporations







HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS REGISTER
Terms and conditions relating to subscriptions purchased online  ¦  Website terms and conditions  ¦  Privacy policy
Copyright © 2005 by the BMJ Publishing Group Ltd.