Thoughts on the Cuban Air Disaster and the Tragedy of Managing Accountability Within Global Service Chains: Is it Time for an OECD Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Supply Chains in Air Leasing and Chartering?

(Pix from "Cuba plane crash leaves more than 100 dead" BBC News (19 May 2018))

"Three women were pulled alive from the wreckage, but are said to be in a critical condition. The plane, which was nearly 40 years old, was carrying 105 passengers and six crew members. Urban authorities have launched an investigation, and two days of national mourning have been declared. The Boeing 737-201 crashed at 12:08 (16:08 GMT) on Friday, shortly after taking off from Havana on an internal flight to Holguin on the east of the island." ("Cuba plane crash leaves more than 100 dead" BBC News (19 May 2018)).

So begins the usual coverage of this recent tragedy in Cuba. The focus is on the dead and their suffering, their number, and other statistics, prominent among these are the age of the aircraft.  In the case of Cuba from the perspective of a segment of the U.S. media, it also touches on the political situation that sets the context for blame.  That blame, in the case of the New York Times coverage (not unexpected of course) echoes the political line of an important sector of global society that has seen in the pullback of normalization of relations between the United States and Cuba a larger tragedy of which the air disaster can only be a symptom.

A Cuban state airliner crashed and burned moments after takeoff from Havana on Friday, killing nearly all 114 people aboard the nearly 40-year-old plane. It was one of the worst airline crashes in Cuba, which has been struggling to operate with a decrepit fleet of planes that it has blamed partly on the longstanding economic embargo imposed by the United States. (Rick Gladstone and Frances Robles, "More Than 100 Die as Aging Cuban Airliner Crashes," The New York Times (18 May 2018)).

All that may well be true--or not. And both the tragedy and its causes are important stories.  Yet that obsession (as worthy as it might be) also distracts from an equally important element of the story that will receive scarce attention.  That element centers on the way that the diffusion of authority in the global production of goods and services makes it much more difficult to assess and apportion liability (and to trace responsibility) under law across the domestic legal orders within which this diffusion is distributed.  This is particularly the case where liability and responsibility chains may not align across nations or where they may not be coordinated between, for example, financial liability to convictions versus responsibility for supervision under corporate responsibility frameworks.

This essay briefly turns to a consideration of some of those issues in the context of this tragedy. It suggests that it may be time for an OECD Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Supply Chains in Air Leasing and Chartering.

Call for Papers: European China Law Studies Association 欧洲中国法研究协会 Conference; Turin Italy September 2018

The 13th annual conference of the European China Law Studies Association (ECLS) will take place in Turin (Italy) on 13 – 14 September 2018, with the support of the University of Turin, its Department of Law, and its Department of Humanities. In the past these Conferences have  pushed the envelope on research and brought together a very nice mix of academics from all over the world. This year will likely be particularly stimulating in light of the fast pace of recent changes in Chinese law, politics, economics, and society.

I am pleased to pass along the Call for Papers, which follows.

Arturo Lopez-Levy & Rolf Otto Niederstrasser: "Five Keys to Presidential Change in Cuba"

The recent transition of leadership in Cuba, through which Raúl Castro ceded the Presidency of the Republic to Miguel Diaz-Canel (while retaining the position of 1st Secretary of the Cuban Communist Party (PCC)), has elicited at least some interest outside of Cuba. At a minimum, the transition spoke to the inevitable passage of time and pointed to the shape of Cuban leadership once the generation of "los históricos" pass from the scene through death or old age. 

While I agree that history does at  times produce historical events that serve as markers of transitions, I was less eager than others to see in this change in the Cuban presidency some sort of transcendent change pointing to something like fundamental regime change--either within the meaning of those terms in Cuba's governance structures, or as it has come to be understood in places like the United States. Seeing much more continuity than transition, I thought it was an interesting change that merited some attention. (More here: Transitions to Entertain and Distract the West).

Recently, Arturo Lopez-Levy & Rolf Otto Niederstrasser produced their own analysis of the transition in an essay well worth reading, even if one takes a different view.  In  "Five Keys to Presidential Change in Cuba"They quite correctly note that "Few transitions of leadership in the history of Latin America and the communist countries have been so carefully designed. From now until the eighth congress of the Communist Party of Cuba (PCC) in 2021 it will be necessary to observe how skilled and unified the Cuban elite is to execute it." They discuss the importance of the transition in five aspects: "1) the generational transition, 2) the first rise of a civilian to the presidency since 1976, 3) the separation of the heads of the Communist Party (CCP) and the government in the post-revolutionary political system, 4) the circulation of networks of influence and patronage within the Cuban elites as a result of the arrival of a new executive chief, and 5) the challenges of the new administration in foreign policy." These are each worthy of some consideration.

The essay follows.

Think Piece: "And an Algorithm to Bind them All? Social Credit, Data Driven Governance, and the Emergence of an Operating System for Global Normative Orders" for Workshop: Entangled Legalities

(Pix © Larry Catá Backer 2006)

I am delighted to be part of the upcoming workshop entitled Entangled Legalities hosted by  the Graduate Institute of Geneva and its Global Governance Center (more HERE). Over the course of two days a group of participants from a variety of fields will consider the conceptual framing of what has emerged as the in-between spaces of law – the interfaces between bodies of norms – and the challenge to traditional legal orders that comes with the resulting governance polycentricity.

This post includes the "think piece" that is my contribution to the event. It is entitled And an Algorithm to Bind them All? Social Credit, Data Driven Governance, and the Emergence of an Operating System for Global Normative Orders. The essay considers the emergence of data driven analytics, and machine driven (artificial intelligence (AI) based) algorithmic techniques as defining not just new modalities of governance but reshaping the conception of spatiality within which governance happens. Its thesis is simple: that AI and big data management suggests the fundamental reshaping of law and law systems, one in which it may be possible to cobble together traditional spatial and inter-spatial of law toward a comprehensive management of behavior neither dependent on the forms and techniques of law nor on the bureaucratic apparatus of state.

The abstract and Introduction follow.  The preliminary draft may be accessed HERE.This paper is at it very earliest stages and is part of a broader project on social credit and data driven governance, so comments and reactions, etc. most welcome.

Upcoming Workshop: "Entangled Legalities," Geneva Switzerland May 2018

On Thursday 24 May 2018, 09:00 - Friday 25 May 2018, 17:00, the Graduate Institute of Geneva and its Global Governance Center will host what is shaping up to be a quite pathbreaking conceptual workshop entitled Entangled Legalities. Over the course of two days a group of participants from a variety of fields will consider the conceptual framing of what has emerged as the in-between spaces of law – the interfaces between bodies of norms – and the challenge to traditional legal orders that comes with the resulting governance polycentricity. The object is to move closer to an understanding of how legal practice is changing in these circumstances, how the interfaces between orders are constructed, and what consequences we need to draw in theoretical terms for our understanding of law.

The workshop is part of a larger project directed by Nico Krisch with the assistance of Lucy Lu Reimers, and Francesco Corradini, under a grant from the Swiss National Science Foundation and entitled: "Interface Law: Legal Interactions between Spheres of Authority in Global Economic Governance". The object of Interface Law is quite bold and vitally important

The growing density of interactions between spheres of authority in global governance – the focus of the proposed research unit – puts pressure also on traditional legal structures. It challenges the traditional separation of domestic and international legal orders in favour of greater linkages and routine interaction, but it also drives strategies of distancing where greater integration had been the norm, as in the field of public international law. These dual pressures are likely to produce new configurations on both the formal and the substantive side of the interfaces between normative orders and they may drive relations between layers of law in the direction of greater enmeshment rather than formal separation or simple unity.

This project seeks to analyze these new configurations both empirically and from a theoretical angle. It aims at illuminating how the interactions between (formal and informal, public and private) spheres of authority in the global order are reflected in the theory and practice of law, using the issue area of global economic governance as an example and focusing on six jurisdictions – Germany, the UK, the US, Brazil, India and China – to inquire into the ways in which conflicts between different layers of law (and informal norms) are processed in judicial, quasi-judicial and regulatory settings.

The Workshop Concept Note and Program follow. More reports to come. 

Malaysia Under Anwar Ibrahim and Mahatir Mohamad. . . Again: Sex, the Serpent and the Phoenix.

The political cycles in Malaysia run astonishingly fast.  And yet they appear, during the lives of its greatest protagonists, to merely replay patterns of alliance, rebellion, denunciation, delegitimization, incarceration, exile, and return to power that has marked the tempestuous relations between Anwar Ibrahim and Mahatir Mohamad.  

In the last few days, Anwar Ibrahim, at the head of a coalition likely to take power in Malaysia was freed form prison where he was serving time for the second conviction on sodomy charges.  The release follows a pardon granted by the country’s King Muhammad V at the invitation of Mahatir Mohamad.

“In the past it was said that I put him in prison. Now I have freed him,” Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad said in a press conference on Wednesday afternoon, after Anwar’s release. Anwar was Mahathir’s deputy premier during his first stint as prime minister, before he was sacked in 1998 and later imprisoned for sodomy and corruption. (Bhavan Jaipragas, "‘Now I have freed him,’ says Malaysia’s Mahathir as Anwar walks," South China Morning Post 16 May 2018

The relationship between Mahatir Mohamad and Anwar Ibrahim is interesting not just for the repeating drama of the past  20 years, but for how clearly the relationship of these two men, the most powerful of their generation in Malaysia (and both loved and reviled by their respective factions among influential groups of Western elites who are embedded in government and media), evidence the interrelations of legitimacy, religion, sex and politics.

I considered the more general implications of this conflation a number of years ago during the course of Anwar Ibrahim's initial fall from grace and imprisonment. That focused on a consideration of the power of these ideologies to discipline people commonly gendered male, and through that disciplining deepen the disciplining of individuals gendered female. I argued then that

Ideologies of gender remain ascendant throughout the world. For my purposes here ideology might best be understood from the perspective of a community as its "articulated forms of social self-consciousness.". . .  An ideology of gender might, then, be reduced to a cluster of norms, expectations, understandings and the like, derived from the meaning of sex, where sex is used in its multiple and ambiguous senses.These ideologies are imprinted in the law of all states-modem and ancient, religious and secular.5 These ideologies become increasingly less visible as societies substitute the language of corruption, psychosis, and ethno-national chauvinism for that of gender.6 Corruption, especially in the political discourse of religion, has reinvigorated gender discipline in some countries. (Larry Catá Backer, Emasculated Men, Effeminate Law in the United States, Zimbabwe and Malaysia,  Yale Journal of Law & Feminism 17(1):1-63 (2005, pp. )1-2).

Further thoughts followed here, here, here, here, here, and here.

A little context from my prior work and the contemporary reporting byBhavan Jaipragas, "‘Now I have freed him,’ says Malaysia’s Mahathir as Anwar walks," follows below, for those who want to stay current.  My own analysis of the sex, gender, religion and legitimacy implicaitons for modern states can be accessed HERE: Emasculated Men, Effeminate Law in the United States, Zimbabwe and Malaysia,  Yale Journal of Law & Feminism 17(1):1-63 (2005)

Workshop Presentation: "The Protection of the Rights of Corporations Under U.S. Constitutional Law"

I was delighted to have been invited by Professors Zhiwei Tong and Sun Ping of East China University of Political Science and Law to conduct a workshop for faculty and students on “The Protection of the Rights of Corporations Under U.S: Constitutional Law.” The workshop took place on the campus of the ECUPL in Shanghai, PRC on April 27, 2018.

As Chinese companies have begun to expand their operations and ownership structures well beyond the borders of the People’s Republic, the issues of rights protections for their enterprises has become a subject of greater interest to academics, students and policymakers both within and outside government. The interest is not purely academic. The recent legal difficulties of ZTE and Huawei in the United States have served to remind Chinese enterprises of the need to better understand and protect their rights when operating within the United States, as well as the need to consider the benefits and challenges of domesticating their enterprises within the United States. In the context of ZTE and Huawei in particular, it also evidences the dangers of failing to understand the rights and obligations of corporations that come within the purview of U.S. sanctions and secrets law. More generally, a working knowledge of the relationship of corporations to the law, and especially to cluster of fundamental law protections afforded enterprise in the U.S. would be essential for better managing domestic operations as well as those that might “touch and concern” the United States.

For Chinese companies, in particular, the cluster of constitutional protections afforded enterprises also highlights the challenges of an area of law that is both dynamic and redolent with interpretive ambiguity. To that end, recent cases about the extent of U.S. jurisdiction for claims against foreign companies under the “Law of Nations” and cases touching on the legalization of societal expectations in business conduct are especially important—two areas of law that are themselves the subjects of Supreme Court decisions in the coming weeks. One of them, Jesner v. Arab Bank was decided at the time the of the workshop.  More detail on the Jesner opinion may be accessed here  (downloadable version here).

Corporate constitutionalism, once a relative backwater, has exploded again on the scene, especially as corporations are viewed increasingly as an efficient agent for promoting social change and for disciplining behaviors in markets and among individuals. In that respect both Chinese socialist development and U.S. corporate constitutionalism share some interesting intersections. It was with those ideas in mind that we discussed the nature, extent, philosophies and scope of constitutional protections of corporations under U.S. law.

The PowerPoints follow. They may also be accessed HERE.

"The Arc of Triumph and Transformation of the OECD Guidelines" Thoughts on the Completion of Roel Nieuwenkamp's Leadership at the OECD/WPRBC

From 2010 Professor Roel Nieuwenkamp was Chair of the OECD Working Party on International Investment and in that capacity chaired the negotiations on the 2011 update of the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises. From 2013, he has been the Chair of the OECD Working Party on Responsible Business Conduct in Paris.

The OECD Working Party on Responsible Business Conduct (WPRBC), is an intergovernmental body composed of representatives of all governments adhering to the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises (the Guidelines). Its role is to assist in implementing the Guidelines, support the functioning of the National Contact Points (NCPs), promote policy coherence on responsible business conduct (RBC), pursue the development and implementation of due diligence guidance, and engage with non-adhering countries, partner organisations, and stakeholders.

During his tenure the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises and its NCP institutions have been slowly assuming a quite definitive character as a system within which global consensus on appropriate and legitimate expectations of states and enterprises with respect the organization and conduct of economic activity has begun to emerge. From the scope of conduct that might be regulated, to the development of approaches to the management of key global production chains, the OECD Guidelines systems has seen substantial development. 

That tenure is now coming to an end. This presents an excellent opportunity to reflect on the changes that have taken place since the great revisions to the OECD Guidelines of 2011, as well as what the future may hold for this quite worthy project.  To that end I have prepared some thoughts on the evolving arc of the OECD Guidelines development under the guidance of WPRBC during Roel's leadership.  Those thoughts follow.

"Where Neither Corporate Nor International Law Converge: The Multinational Enterprise and Societal Frameworks" -- Presentation at ASIL International Legal Theory Interest Group (ILTIG) Symposium, 11 May 2018

I was thrilled to have been able to participate in the recently concluded ASIL International Legal Theory Interest Group (ILTIG) Symposium,  When Corporate and International Law Meet: Corporate Agency in a Global Context. It was co-organized by Durham University's Institute of Commercial and Corporate Law (ICCL) and by the Jilin University School of Law.ASIL  More about that here. 

This post includes the PowerPoints of my contribution to that event, "Where Neither Corporate Nor International Law Converge: The Multinational Enterprise and Societal Frameworks."

Much of what is going on in the regulation of CSR and its related aspects (duties, responsibilities and rights) is not happening within the conventional structures of the corporation (enterprise) or law. The regulatory focus instead is on two constructs, neither of which is recognized fully in law: (1) Multinational corporations (MNCs); and (2) Societal rule making. But the regulation of both of these constructs is made more difficult by the conventional centrality of the corporation and of state based law (domestic and international) with all of its baggage. That presents a regulatory conundrum explored in the presentation. With a focus on the MNC as an object of legal/societal regulation, and on the legalization of societal space, and the emerging governance characteristics of accountability and assessment as the form of regulation, the presentation considered two questions. (1) has the legalization of societal space come to its end in the face of data driven governance?; (2) If not the MNC, are regulatory efforts targeting the right object?

The PowerPoints may also be accessed here.

ASIL International Legal Theory Interest Group Symposium: "When Corporate and International Law Meet: Corporate Agency in a Global Context"

(Pix © Larry Catá Backer 2018)

It was my great delight to attend a recently concluded ASIL International Legal Theory Interest Group (ILTIG) Symposium,  When Corporate and International Law Meet: Corporate Agency in a Global Context. It was co-organized by Durham University's Institute of Commercial and Corporate Law (ICCL) and by the Jilin University School of Law.

Conference participants considered aspects of the following problem:  "Among the most significant challenges for governments and international organisations is to develop institutions for economic globalisation to promote economic growth but which also comply with moral demands that we can reasonably agree apply to these institutions. This symposium brings together legal scholars, social scientists, and philosophers to address these challenges."

The Symposium statement and a partially annotated Symposium Program follow below. 

"Asia and International Law in Challenging Times"--Annual Conference of the Japan Chapter of the Asian Society of International Law (1 July 2018; Waseda University)

The Japan Chapter of the Asian Society of International Law has just announced the Program for its Annual Conference to be held at Waseda Uniersity 1 July 2018.  The theme for the conference is Asia and International Law in Challenging Times. Its Conference Program provides:

Asia is currently confronted with unprecedented challenges in all areas of international law. While some of them are repercussions of developments on a global scale, others reflect the diversity of Asia, which fuels growth but also creates complexity. As political and economic relations expand and social and cultural exchanges grow in the region, local interests and concerns become more intricately intertwined with international, transnational, and regional interests and concerns, which deepens the complexity in Asia. As the driving force of the world economy amid the advancement of information networks and the globalization of business in a new era, Asia requires the evolution of international rules and institutions. This conference seeks to explore how international law can address these challenges in relation to regional frameworks and initiatives in Asia. 

The Conference Program and links to registration materials follows.

Action and Reaction: President Trump Withdraws the U.S. From the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action -- The Presidential Memorandum, Key Statements, and Other Sources

Today President Trump announced that he was taking steps to "terminating the United States’ participation in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) with Iran and re-imposing sanctions lifted under the deal." (Office of the President, "Fact Sheet: President Donald J. Trump is Ending United States Participation in an Unacceptable Iran Deal," 8 May 2018). This represents the culmination of a process of withdrawal in the face of resistance to renegotiation that started in earnest in October 2017 (see Thoughts on the Iran Nuclear Deal (the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA)) and the Recent U.S. Decision Not to Certify Iranian Compliance With Its Terms). The Presidential Memorandum (May 8, 2018) Ceasing U.S. Participation in the JCPOA and Taking Additional Action to Counter Iran’s Malign Influence and Deny Iran All Paths to a Nuclear Weapon first announced the new policy (section 1) that appears to operationalize the earlier "National Security Strategy of the United States" (4 Dec 2017) (discussed here). It then included directions to various administrative officials; Section 2 directed the Secretaries of State, Treasury and Energy to "take all appropriate steps to cease the participation of the United States in the JCPOA;" Section 3 directs the "Secretary of State and the Secretary of the Treasury [to] immediately begin taking steps to re-impose all United States sanctions lifted or waived in connection with the JCPOA;"  Section 4 directs the "Secretary of Defense and heads of any other relevant agencies shall prepare to meet, swiftly and decisively, all possible modes of Iranian aggression against the United States, our allies, and our partners;" and Section 5 directs U.S. agencies to "take appropriate steps to enable the United States to continue to monitor Iran’s nuclear conduct." 

Ayatollah Khamenei reacted in a not unexpected way (Ayatollah Khamenei to Trump: ‘You cannot do a damn thing’) (and here). Ironically, it appears that the reason for U.S. withdrawal, a need to renegotiate the "deal" might well come as a result of the withdrawal itself: "Rouhani, who spoke following President Donald Trump's speech announcing the U.S. withdrawal, said he has directed Iranian diplomats to negotiate with the deal's remaining signatories, including European countries, Russia and China."(Iran to negotiate with Europeans, Russia and China about remaining in nuclear deal). This even as  "Iranian state television said U.S. President Donald Trump’s decision to withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal was “illegal, illegitimate and undermines international agreements.” (here). It is not clear what the relationship is between the Iranian response and the discussion that Iranian officials entertained with the former U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry (Kerry is quietly seeking to salvage Iran deal he helped craft), a set of discussions criticized by the current administration (Trump castigates Kerry for ‘Shadow Diplomacy’ to save Iran nuclear deal). It would be ironic indeed if the United States and its elites were involved in both sides of these events, though that would not be unprecedented ("“It is unusual for a former secretary of state to engage in foreign policy like this, as an actual diplomat and quasi-negotiator,” said Michael O’Hanlon, a foreign policy expert at the Brookings Institution. “Of course, former secretaries of state often remain quite engaged with foreign leaders, as they should, but it’s rarely so issue-specific, especially when they have just left office.”" here).

Still, it is too early to tell what will flow from the U.S. action, even as everyone will rush to provide some initial opinion or other, mostly in line with their political views (and here, here, and here). Rather than contribute yet another opinion without the benefit of information or more deliberate analysis, I thought it might be more useful to take a moment to consider more carefully some of the official responses of key players. This post includes the Presidential Memorandum of President Trump (Ceasing U.S. Participation in the JCPOA and Taking Additional Action to Counter Iran’s Malign Influence and Deny Iran All Paths to a Nuclear Weapon) statement made by the U.S. President, former U.S. President Obama, the "Fact Sheet," the statement of European leaders and those of the Iranians.

Flora Sapio: "The Making of Global Norms With Chinese Characteristics"--Presentation at the Conference "China Global" University of Cologne, Germany

On May 4th and 5th, Dr. Flora Sapio was invited to the Conference  “China Global”, held at the University of Cologne (Germany).  Conference Program may be found here.

 Dr. Sapio presented a paper titled The Making of Global Norms With Chinese Characteristics. The paper observed how the understanding of norm-making as a process cannot take place absent an understanding of the constitutional structure of nation-states. 

The summary of the paper, and its research context within the research program of the Coalition for Peace and Ethics (here and here), follows. 

Artificial Intelligence (Machine Learning) Ethics Guidelines for the European Union?

 China has advanced its much heralded approach to the management and direction of artificial intelligence (AI) since the Chinese State Council released the New Generation AI Development Plan (新一代人工智能发展规划的通知) in July 2017 (discussed here), grounded in economic and social development and support for national security.

Artificial intelligence has become a new focus of international competition. Artificial intelligence is a strategic technology that leads the future.  . . . Artificial intelligence has become a new engine for economic development. As the core driving force of the new round of industrial reforms, artificial intelligence will further release the tremendous energy accumulated from previous technological revolutions and industrial changes, and create new powerful engines to reconstruct economic activities such as production, distribution, exchange, and consumption.. . . Artificial intelligence brings new opportunities for social construction. China is now in the final phase of building a well-off society in an all-round way. Challenges such as population aging and resource and environmental constraints are still severe. Artificial intelligence is widely used in education, medical care, pensions, environmental protection, urban operations, and judicial services, which will greatly increase public awareness. (新一代人工智能发展规划的通知 machine translation)

The European Union has sought to put its own stamp on AI management at the governmental level. Its apoproach is, as might be expected, somewhat different.


"In its Communication "Artificial intelligence for Europe", the Commission puts forward a European approach to Artificial Intelligence based on three pillars:

• Being ahead of technological developments and encouraging uptake by the public and private sectors
  
• Prepare for socio-economic changes brought about by AI
  
• Ensure an appropriate ethical and legal framework" (here)
  

The Communication and Fact Sheet follow. The Commission noted its desire to assemble a legitimating congress of stakeholders to focus on issues of AI around the approach it announced and consider relevant questions under the European AI Alliance. This Alliance is scheduled to be set up by July 2018, and there is a hope that an AI ethics guidelines will be published by the end of the year.

Conference Presentation: “The Structures and Ideologies of Social Credit in the U.S. From a Comparative Perspective”

I was honored to have been asked to participate in a recently concluded conference, 欧美国家信用法治经验及对中国的启示 [Experiences of Credit Law Practices From the U.S. and European Countries and its Implications for China] which was hosted by 首都师范大学 信用立法与信用评估研究中心 [Capital Normal University Research Center for Credit Law and Credit Assessment], and held in Beijing, PRC, April 25, 2018. Coverage of the event can be found here from an earlier post: "Creating a New Pattern of Research on China’s Credit Legislation and Credit Rating From an International Perspective" [以国际视野开创中国信用立法与信用评估研究新格局]: Media Coverage of a Recent Seminar on Social Credit Initiatives

Social Credit is the name given to the initiative undertaken by the Chinese government during the present administration that is mean to produce an all around approach to ensuring compliance with law and social responsibility under the guidance of the state. Its overall policy strategy was last developed in the State Council Notice concerning Issuance of the Planning Outline for the Construction of a Social Credit System (2014-2020) 社会信用体系建设规划纲要. It proposed using the technologies of big data and big data management along with the possibilities of artificial and machine learning to develop comprehensive data driven structures for management around algorithms that can produce real time reward-punishment structures for social-legal-economic and other behaviors.

But Chinese efforts to develop and implement “Social Credit” systems raises a number of important questions not just for those interested in China and Chinese law, but also for Westerners with respect to the evolving character of their own legal-societal orders: Is Social Credit System unique to China? Are “social credit” systems operating in the West? What are the differences and similarities? Do they represent a more universal transformation of the way governments exercise power in the 21st century? What might be their value and their challenges for society?

My contribution to the conference, The Structures and Ideologies of Social Credit in the U.S., considered at some of those questions. It first provided a brief review of China’s Social Credit Initiative. The purpose of that section was to orient and provide perspective for the discussion of Western “social credit” efforts. It was also meant to make explicit the problem of viewpoint. Extracting its systemic qualities and understanding the scope of Chinese Social Credit provides a useful basis for approaching analysis of initiatives outside of China. The principal discussion then focused on a review of (mostly) U.S: initiatives that suggested a social credit flavor. The discussion centered on the question of the systemic qualities of U.S. efforts, its sources and character as private or governmental. Issues of coordination and coherence were also considered. The focus, though, in contradistinction to Chinese efforts, was the centrality of the ordering principles of governance, risk management and compliance in a mostly privatized though complex set of U.S. initiatives and its emphasis was on techniques and operations. The presentation ended with a brief comparison of both approaches and the challenges each presents within the respective logic of their organization.

The presentation PowerPoints follow. They may be accessed HERE.

德黑兰，四月七日（Mehr News Agency）在就近期美国和中国针锋相对的关税争端发表评论时，白轲（Larry Backer）教授表示，两国经济一体化的深层次结构不会因为一系列的重新谈判而付之一炬。

德黑兰，四月七日（Mehr News Agency）在就近期美国和中国针锋相对的关税争端发表评论时，白轲（Larry Backer）教授表示，两国经济一体化的深层次结构不会因为一系列的重新谈判而付之一炬。

随着美国和中国加大针锋相对的关税争端，在过去几周内，人们常常说，没有人会赢得贸易战。

宾夕法尼亚州立大学的法律和国际事务教授白轲就这个问题发表了看法。

以下是对白轲教授采访的全文：

[HERE for the ENGLISH text of my recent interview for the Mehr News Agency of Iran, with Payman Yazdani. It was published today in the Tehran Times as  "No Trade War Likely" (April 7, 2018, pp. 1, 7) and also appears on line on the Mehr News Agency Website under the same title. ]

Invitation to open multi-stakeholder consultation with the UN Working Group on Business and Human Rights.

The UN Working Group on Business and Human Rights has decided to focus its 2018 report to the UN General Assembly on emerging practice and innovations of corporate human rights due diligence across sectors. The Working Group’s vision is that by bringing to light lessons learned, main obstacles and success stories from practical experiences, this can contribute to faster progress overall.

Ongoing consultation process

Starting in February 2018, the Working Group has launched a consultation process to inform its work on this topic. This process conducted during the first of 2018 it will engage with a range of stakeholders (including business, civil society and governments) through in-person consultations and written inputs.

• Background note
• Open multi-stakeholder consultation: 17 May, 15:00-18:00, Palais des Nations, Geneva - Concept note - Registration details will be posted here.  
• Call for inputs: All interested parties are invited to submit relevant material and information to the Working Group, including case studies/good practice examples. Contact: wg-business@ohchr.org. Deadline: 30 May.
• To receive updates via Twitter, please follow @WGBizHRs.

For those of you lucky enough  to merit the special consultations--congratulations; you are the 1% of the business and human rights community with a special responsibility to ensure that all our voices are heard!  For the rest of us, this is the opportunity to try to get, if not a place at the table, then perhaps a small if inconspicuous place in the room. 

This Post includes information (English, Castellano, Français) for the Invitation to open multi-stakeholder consultation with the UN Working Group on Business and Human Rights.