There is a tendency among defenders of Palestine to think of legal advocacy against corporations involved in Israeli human rights abuses as separate and distinct from the grassroots BDS (boycott, divestment, sanctions) movement.

In reality, however, there is a dynamic interrelationship between the two, each enhancing and strengthening the other. International legal mechanisms and norms on the issue of business and human rights are still new and untested and in many cases non-binding. In domestic courts, litigation against corporations for complicity in human rights abuses is in its early stages; corporate law and human rights law developed separately in very different political spheres and contexts.

For this reason, BDS serves a vital role in its capacity to "enforce" international human rights norms on business through consumer boycotts, demonstrations, socially responsible investment, union movements, etc. BDS works to fill a gap in areas where enforcement of such norms through legal mechanisms (in courtrooms, tribunals and other fora) may at present not be attainable.

There are several examples demonstrating this symbiosis. For instance, a consumer boycott of a particular product can raise awareness about its illegal nature or origin that leads to the application of legal mechanisms against the product's suppliers. For example, activists began the “Stolen Beauty” campaign against the sale of Ahava products which are manufactured in the illegal Mitzpe Shalem settlement in the West Bank, using mud from the Dead Sea shore in occupied territory. The products are labeled as originating from “The Dead Sea, Israel.” Protests in the Netherlands led the government to initiate an investigation into whether the goods are illegally mislabeled. Therefore, BDS instigated the government's use of legal mechanisms to target the product and its suppliers.

Another example is the case of Carmel-Agrexco, the Israeli national exporter of fruit and vegetables. The company exports large quantities of goods from illegal Jewish settlements. In November 2004, seven campaigners blockaded the company’s depot in the U.K., using metal fencing, for over eleven hours. Prosecution of the blockaders was dropped after they argued Agrexco was violating international criminal law because the company would have been forced to reveal its illegal business practices in court. Since then, blockades have continued regularly, and the company has taken no action to avoid these revelations.

In 2005 the family of Rachel Corrie and a number of other Palestinians sued Caterpillar for the deaths and injuries of their loved ones caused by the destruction of their homes by the Israeli military using Caterpillar bulldozers. While the case was lost, activists have organized regular protests and shareholders have continued to raise the issue at the company's annual meeting, including a shareholder proposal in 2005 that the company investigate the use of its bulldozers by the IDF.

In the case of Veolia and Alstom, two French companies involved in the Jerusalem light railway connecting Israel with illegal settlements in East Jerusalem have yet to be held accountable through legal mechanisms for aiding and abetting Israeli violations of international law. A case is working its way through the French courts, and in the UK a group of lawyers are using an EU Directive to prevent the companies from being eligible for public contracts. In the meantime, however, Veolia has lost several major contracts as a result of its involvement in the railway, in Melbourne, Stockholm and Galway, Ireland, and the pressure resulted in Veolia selling half of its financial stake in the project.

In the struggle to realise Palestinian human rights, neither is distinct from the other, and both are indispensable. For more information on the BDS movement, visit the following websites:

www.bdsmovement.net
www.pacbi.org
http://usacbi.wordpress.com
www.endtheoccupation.org
www.electronicintifada.net

Yasmine Gado