Content Sample
Twenty-five years ago around a half a million people were exposed to toxic chemicals during a catastrophic gas leak from a pesticide plant in Bhopal, India. More than 7,000 people died within days. A further 15,000 died in the following years. Around 100,000 people are suffering chronic and debilitating illnesses for which treatment is largely ineffective.The disaster shocked the world and raised fundamental questions about corporate and government responsibility for industrial accidents that devastate human life and local environments. Yet a quarter of a century on, survivors still await just compensation, adequate medical assistance and treatment, and comprehensive economic and social rehabilitation. The plant site has still not been cleaned up so toxic wastes continue to pollute the environment and contaminate water that surrounding communities rely on. And, astonishingly, no one has been held to account for the leak and its appalling consequences.
Efforts by survivors organizations to use the US and Indian court systems to see justice done and gain adequate redress have so far been unsuccessful. The transnational corporations involved - Union Carbide Corporation and Dow Chemical which took over UCC in 2001 - have publicly states that they have no responsibility for the leak and its consequences or for the ongoing pollution from the plant. UCC refuses to appear before the court in Bhopal to face trial and the Indian government agreed to a final settlement that left survivors in poverty.
This report looks back over the years since the Bhopal tragedy through a human rights lens. Of the many complex issues that continue to be thrown up by the gas disaster, this report focuses on:
- human rights impact
- corporate accountability
- the responsibility of the State to hold the corporation to account and ensure victims receive adequate compensation and rehabilitation
The report has two aims:
- Expose the failure of UCC/Dow and the Indian government to comply with their respective obligations and responsibilities to:
a) prevent the gas leak and address its consequences and
b) prevent and stop the continuing pollution of the environment and water through the dispersal of toxic and hazardous substances.
- Demonstrate - by showing how companies evade their human rights responsibilities - the need to establish a universal human rights framework that can be applied to companies directly.
Governments have the primary responsibility for protecting human rights of communities endangered by the activities of corporations. However as the influence and reach of companies have grown, there has been a developing consensus that they must be brought within the framework of international human rights standards. There is already a clear trend to extend international obligations beyond states, including to individuals (for international crimes), armed groups, international organizations and private enterprises. Amnesty International supports this trend and believes companies have an inalienable responsibility for the human rights impact of their operations.
This report highlights the UN Norms on the responsibilities of transnational corporations and other business enterprises with regards to the UN Norms that were approved in 2003 - a significant step towards generating international standards for corporate responsibility. The norms can be seen as the basis of a universally recognized, normative framework to identify the responsibilities of companies for human rights impacts of their actions.
The report examines the UCC responsibilities for the Bhopal disaster. The company decided to store quantities of an "ultra-hazardous" methyl isocyanate (MIC) in Bhopal in bulk, and did not equip the plant with a corresponding safety capacity.
UCC has withheld the identity of the reaction products released and related toxicological information critical to the medical treatment of victims. The company tried to shift responsibility between the various arms of the corporation, In fact, UCC maintained a high degree of corporate, managerial, technical and operational control over its Indian subsidiary. It was therefore aware of the dangers posed to human life and in a position to take precautions. And certainly could have released information to mitigate the enormity of the death and chronic illness toll.