Host Government Agreement Btc

On 16 May 2003, BTC Co and the three host governments issued a joint statement in which the consortium (among others) urged the consortium to comply with OECD guidelines for multinational enterprises 1 and the Voluntary Principles for Security and Human Rights.2 “We do not know why there has been so much delay in being brought to justice in this case” commented Manana Kochladze of Green Alternative. “However, we are well aware that the previous government, which was responsible for granting the environmental approval, was dissatisfied with a truly independent judicial review process. We hope that this era is now over in Georgia. The Green Alternative will emphasize that the routing decision also violates the legal rights of Georgian citizens, who consider that appropriate access to information and appropriate participation in the decision-making process (in accordance with Article 37 of the Georgian Constitution), the Aarhuus Convention and the actual host government agreement signed by the Georgian government and BTC Co. And on 22 September 2003, BTC Co made a commitment to human rights, in which the consortium pledged not to assert its rights under the project agreements if this was incompatible with the obligation of the three host governments to protect human rights. The company is legally binding only for BTC Co. Host governments could say so if BP challenged them under the stabilization clauses. In response to these questions and concerns, all of which were raised by civil society groups, in particular the impact of the HGA on each country`s ability to protect and respect the human rights of its citizens, two other agreements were signed in 2003 and, according to BTC Co., were included in the legal regime of the pipeline. HGAs prevail over national law (with the exception of each country`s constitution), which means that the BTC consortium is exempt from any internal obligations inconsistent with the provisions of the agreements. Governments have effectively removed their executive and legislative powers to protect their citizens from potential environmental damage and the resulting health and safety risks, or to improve the regulatory system.