Non-discrimination and special protection obligations are fundamental aspects of the human rights approach. In the BMZ's 2011 human rights concept, important steps have already been taken to strengthen human rights in development cooperation. An assessment of human rights risks and impacts must be carried out in advance of all bilateral development cooperation projects. This applies in particular to infrastructure projects. However, there are still insufficient opportunities for those affected by human rights violations in the context of development policy projects to claim compensation. It was stated in the human rights concept that "the establishment of a human rights complaints mechanism by the BMZ should be examined". Despite concrete proposals for a practicable design, there is still no uniform, low-threshold complaints mechanism in German development cooperation. The German government should urgently establish such a unified grievance mechanism, including an independent expert panel with specific rights and capacities, to enable individuals and groups negatively affected by projects, programs or policies of German development cooperation to effectively file complaints. The panel should report regularly to the relevant parliamentary bodies and committees and involve them where necessary and previously determined.

For further reading and discussion:

https://www.forum-menschenrechte.de/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/1210_ FMR_Proposal_HR_Complaint_Procedure_Dev_Coop.pdf

§ Establishment of a uniform complaints mechanism in German development cooperation.

Foreign trade promotion urgently needs to be regulated by law. A corresponding law should ensure that the applicant companies comply with their human rights and environmental due diligence obligations and that the funded projects do not run counter to Germany's and the EU's public welfare-oriented state goals and obligations under international law, in particular climate protection, human rights and the Sustainable Development Goals. Compliance by companies with due diligence obligations in accordance with the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises and an ambitious supply chain law must become a prerequisite for application. Companies, goods and projects that do not meet these criteria must be excluded from the guarantee process. Stakeholders (rights holders) must be involved in the review of project impacts on human rights, the environment, climate and sustainable development, as well as in regular monitoring of projects. Effective mechanisms must be put in place to enforce management plans and conditions. Transparency in all guarantee instruments must be increased by providing advance information on projects with human rights and environmental impacts and reporting on approved projects in a way that allows them to be identified. Environmental and human rights-related management plans, conditions, and monitoring results must also be made public so that affected people on the ground know their rights and can claim them. Comprehensive and anonymous complaint options must be made possible in the future for those affected by human rights violations and environmental damage related to projects supported by Germany. The Bundestag must be involved in defining the review and award criteria and in decisions on particularly relevant guarantees.

For further reading and discussion:

https://www.gegenstroemung.org/web/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/2014-04_AWF-in-Einklang-mit-MR-Umwelt-und-Klimschutz.pdf

§ Foreign Trade Promotion Act

Double taxation agreements (DTAs) allocate taxation rights between countries. If companies are active in two countries, this is intended to avoid the same tax substrate being subject to taxation twice, which could hinder investment. In practice, however, an increasingly confusing web of currently 132 German DTAs has led to cleverly operating companies being able to avoid taxation. This is a serious problem, especially for countries in the Global South, partly because their tax revenues depend to a greater extent on corporate taxes. Nor have efforts in the context of reforms of international corporate tax law, primarily the OECD's so-called Multilateral Instrument (Convention on the Implementation of Tax Treaty-Related Measures to Prevent the Avoidance and Transfer of Profits) made DTAs unnecessary. Furthermore, the German government (the Federal Ministry of Finance, BMF) negotiates new DTAs and revisions of existing treaties and submits the results of the negotiations to the Bundestag for ratification. Problematically, the financial impact of DTAs on the countries of the Global South has not yet been systematically studied - either globally or in relation to individual countries. Building on such a study - as available for various other European countries (Ireland, Switzerland, Denmark, the Netherlands) - the Bundestag should become more involved in the design of DTAs. In this context, it would be conceivable to create a legal basis for renegotiation and renegotiation that replaces the existing model agreement of the Federal Ministry of Finance, and in which criteria are defined that ensure a fair balance of interests between the Federal Republic and the respective contractual partner. Existing templates can be used, e.g. developed by the UN Committee of Experts on International Cooperation in Tax Matters, which systematically take into account the interests of the countries of the South. Furthermore, it should be examined whether the Bundestag should work towards replacing DTAs with so-called Tax Information Exchange Agreements (TIEA), which regulate an automatic and mutual exchange of tax information between the competent authorities.

For further reading and discussion:

http://library.fes.de/pdf-files/iez/15869-20200122.pdf

§ Revise double taxation agreements