Multinational companies are getting bigger and bigger.
This show will look at what the future might hold.
Will countries start to use that power for themselves?
And could the law make companies a force for good?
Huawei: the company that many fear is being
used by China - for spying.
And how could the immense power of corporations and their billionaires
be used to help people around the world?
Of course, countries will still be powerful in 50 years' time.
Nations will go on competing with each other.
Businesses have been used as part of that in the past.
Is Chinese phone company, Huawei, already showing how
old rivalries might look in the future?
Huawei equipment has been used
in new mobile networks in many western countries –
you might even own a Huawei phone.
But western intelligence chiefs warn it could be used
by China for spying or even sabotage.
They're worried the Chinese government controls the company.
Lots of nations are banning its technology.
It goes all the way back to them being founded by a former
officer of the Chinese military, to the fact that their organisational
structure isn't well known, and the fact that there are some
pretty damning lawsuits out there regarding the theft of trade secrets.
Meng Wanzhou, daughter of the company's founder and also
Huawei's chief finance officer, has been charged with stealing
trade secrets by China's main rival, the US.
So, what can the law do if competing countries
and their companies become even closer?
Dr Russell Buchan from the University of Sheffield explained
how hard it is to prove a country is hiding behind a company:
A state can be be responsible under international law for
the acts of non-state actors, actors, such as companies,
where the act of that non-state actor can be attributed to the state.
Now, attribution is a very particular technical concept of
international law, but in order for attribution be established,
certain factors need to be present: for example,
the state has to instruct or direct the acts of the non-state actor.
The state will will also have to support the acts of the non-state actor:
for example, through training, through the provision of finances,
or other forms of technical support.
To prove countries are using companies, states have to be
shown to be supporting a company and telling them what to do.
Why would a country hide behind a company?
If a state acts through a company but the acts of that company
cannot be attributed to the state under international law,
then it follows that the state will not held responsible legally for any
violations of international law that that company would otherwise commit.
For example, by intervening in the internal affairs of
other states or, for example, by interfering with the
human-rights protection of individuals located elsewhere in the world.
Hiding behind behind a company means countries can avoid certain
responsibilities: that includes certain human-rights agreements.
Is this something international organisations are worrying about?
International organisations are very worried about states avoiding
their legal responsibilities by acting through non-state actors.
And in recent years we've seen international organisations
push for different standards, lower standards,
for attributing the acts of non-state actors to states.
So, we're moving away from the question of whether states exercise
effective control over non-state actors and looking to more relaxed
and less stringent standards such as, for example, whether the state is
exercising overall control over the acts of non-state actors.
International organisations worry about states hiding from
the law behind companies. Some are trying to change the law to
make it it easier to link a company to a country. Will that happen soon?
Including non-state actors within the framework of international
law has always been very difficult,
so it's very unlikely that international law will regulate
directly and specifically the acts of of non-state actors.
However, international law is increasingly looking to establish
a closer relationship between non-state actors and the state
and, by doing so, they can ensure that states do not avoid
their legal responsibilities under international law.
It's very hard to use international law on companies, but lawyers are
trying to make sure they follow rules by linking them more to countries.
So, it's hard to prove that a country is hiding behind a company.
But lawyers are working to make it easier.
Looking to the future, will companies get more powerful than countries?
Tesla founder Elon Musk – at one point the richest person on the planet –
is so powerful that when he added '#bitcoin' to his
Twitter profile page, the online currency's market value rose by 50%.
Could the opposite happen in future?
Could a giant company ruin a nation by devaluing its currency?
Or could the opposite be true? A company trading in two countries
works better if those countries get on well enough to allow easy trade.
How could companies use their power to promote peace?
And what about how they behave? Could good working conditions
and fair pay be forced on big companies?
Would they spread good practices around the world?
So, are companies and their owners getting too powerful for the law?
Ranjan Agarwal, who's dealt with some huge companies, gave us his opinion:
In many countries there are laws that make officers and directors liable
for the acts of their companies. I believe that in recent years
we've seen more and more countries enforce those laws against officers
and directors, in order to not only hold the companies,
but also the leadership of those companies, accountable for
violations of human-rights law, environmental law and labour laws.
Ranjan says there are lots of laws which limit powerful companies.
Importantly, many countries are increasingly using their laws against
big companies and their owners. But how about the future?
I believe that the law is ever-changing.
So, for example, in many countries one tool
that is used to hold companies accountable is class actions,
where a single individual can sue on behalf of an entire community
to hold a company accountable under the domestic law
and hopefully change the behaviour of that company
and other companies like it in the future.
Laws such as class actions, where one person sues
on behalf of many people,
could be used to make companies behave.
But are companies trying to influence lawmakers?
I believe that many companies see themselves as partners
in the process of establishing norms
that can govern environmental and social governance.
Though these companies in some places may have undue influence,
I believe that many states and many political leaders understand that
this is a project that has to be run and forwarded by nation states,
using companies as partners, as opposed to influencers.
Companies often work with governments to help shape laws,
but he believes lawmakers are trying to limit their influence.
So, is the law good enough to contain big companies in future?
I believe that the current system that we have developed
in international law is fit for purpose.
I think that requiring nation states to invoke domestic laws
at home that mirror international treaties or international norms
is an effective and efficient way of dealing with the problem.
I think the challenge for the international community
is establishing agreement or consensus
on what those expectations or norms should be.
Ranjan believes that international law is fit for purpose:
he says the big challenge is to decide what type of society
we want the law to protect.
We've seen that countries can sometimes try to hide
behind companies to get round certain international laws,
and that the influence of multinational companies is getting ever bigger.
But we’ve also seen that international law can limit their power
and help us decide what kind of world we want to live in.