Angelica Bonfanti (PhD) is an Associate Professor of International Law at the Law Faculty of the University of Milan, where she teaches the courses International Law, EU Law on Business and Human Rights, and the Jean Monnet Module Cultural Diversity and Human Rights Law.
The research for this study received funding from the European Union – Next-GenerationEU – NRRP – MISSION 4 – COMPONENT 2 – INVESTIMENT 1.1 – PRIN 2022 PNRR D.D. 1409 14-09-2022 – P20223XFXK – Arms, Peace and Sustainability (ArPeSu) – CUP G53D23007820001
- Towards Corporate Accountability in Armed Conflicts: The Evolving Regulatory Framework
When corporate activities, investments or value chains intersect with armed conflicts, the issue of corporate accountability for violations of international human rights law (IHRL) and international humanitarian law (IHL) becomes increasingly relevant. Due to the complex interdependence of the global economy, corporate activities can sustain or exacerbate conflict dynamics. This ranges from extractive industries operating in weak governance zones and conflict scenarios, to contractors supplying weapons, surveillance or technical equipment, and businesses providing goods and services that are to varying degrees functional to the hostilities. Business enterprises may contribute, either directly or indirectly, to serious violations of international law, yet they remain protected by domestic limited liability doctrines and gaps in overall regulatory fragmentation.
Recent conflicts have illustrated the ambivalent role of corporate actors. Paradigmatic is their involvement in conflicts such as the Russian-Ukrainian and the Israeli-Palestinian ones. During the former, for example, numerous multinational corporations continued to operate in Russia or to do business with Russia. Investigations reveal that over 1,767 international companies are still conducting business in Russia, thereby indirectly sustaining the Russian economy. Similarly, the 2025 Report of the UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territorydetails the involvement of many companies in activities sustaining Israel’s prolonged occupation and alleged genocidal policies. These companies operate across sectors including arms production and digital surveillance, finance, construction, and tourism.
The relationship between corporate activity and armed conflicts involves a complex web of international provisions, including IHL principles, rules regarding the exploitation of natural resources, and the obligation on states to protect HRs during armed conflicts. This legal framework is complemented by the obligations arising on third states in cases of serious breaches of peremptory norms of general international law. Art. 41 of the International Law Commission’s Articles on State Responsibility (2001) requires all states to cooperate to bring to an end these breaches through lawful means, and neither recognize as lawful the situations created, nor render aid or assistance in maintaining them. This point was examined and clarified with reference to the Israeli-Palestinian crisis by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in its Advisory Opinions on the Legal Consequences of Israel’s Practices in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (19 July 2024). Likewise, the General Assembly in September 2024 recalled all states to “take steps to ensure that their nationals, and companies and entities under their jurisdiction […] do not act in any way that would entail recognition or provide aid or assistance in maintaining the situation created by Israel’s illegal presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory”.
Against this backdrop, it appears clear that arms trade deserves specific attention. Pursuanto to Art. 6(3) of the Arms Trade Treaty contracting states shall not authorize any transfer of conventional arms if they have “knowledge at the time of authorization that the arms or items would be used in the commission of genocide, crimes against humanity, grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 1949, attacks directed against civilian objects or civilians protected as such, or other war crimes”. The ICJ’s ruling in the case of Nicaragua v Germany sets a significant precedent for state responsibility regarding arms exports. Nicaragua claimed that Germany had violated its obligations under the Genocide Convention and IHL by providing military assistance to Israel despite a plausible risk of grave breaches of these rules. Although the ICJ declined to order provisional measures, the Court acknowledged Germany’s obligation to assess whether exported weapons might be used in grave breaches of peremptory rules of international law. Therefore, while ultimately finding insufficient evidence of urgency for provisional measures, the Court’s reasoning reaffirmed that states must exercise preventive due diligence in arms transfers to avoid complicity in international crimes.
As set out in the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs), the above-described international legal framework is relevant for the businesses operating in armed conflicts. Under Principle 7 of the UNGPs, in line with the guidance of the UN Working Group report ‘Business, human rights and conflict-affected regions: towards heightened action’, companies operating in conflict or high-risk areas must implement the Heightened Human Rights Due Diligence (H-HRDD) and treat the risk of complicity in gross human rights abuses as a legal compliance issue. Therefore, besides requiring companies to identify potential and effective negative impacts and prevent abuses and provide remediation where violations occur, H-HRDD necessitates a proactive, context-sensitive and continuous monitoring, not only throughout the entire value chain but also within the specific conflict scenario.
All this said, while the conceptualization under the UNGPs has provided clarity, the corporate accountability gap persists. Despite the growing recognition that “business activities in conflict-affected areas will never be neutral and without impact”, effective accountability remains critical and victims’ access to justice complex. However, a significant trend is evolving, as the judicial and non-judicial practice commented on below shows.
Corporate accountability in armed conflicts: the evolving practice before the OECD NCPs
Although the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises are non-binding, NCPs have progressively become a significant forum for evaluating corporate conduct in conflict-affected areas.
For example, in RAID v ENRC the UK NCP considered that the company, holding mining concessions in the Democratic Republic of Congo, did not engage effectively with the stakeholder communities and did not take adequate steps to address negative impacts on them, especially with regard to their access to safe drinking water. As a consequence, the NCP recommended developing a publicly available communication strategy, implementing accessible and effective grievance procedures, and using influence to ensure continuing unrestricted access to the water supply. A more restrictive interpretation was followed in the case of United Tegaru Canada v Sun Peak Metals Corporation, where the complainant alleged that the company’s payment of taxes and licensing fees to the Ethiopian government had contributed to human rights violations in the Tigray conflict. The Canadian NCP held that such payments alone did not constitute a ‘contribution’ to adverse impacts, nor could they be considered establishing a ‘business relationship’ pursuant to the OECD Guidelines. In Comité de Solidaridad con la Causa Árabe v CAF and Shapir, the Spanish NCP investigated allegations relating to the construction of tramway lines connecting Jerusalem to settlements in the OPT. In 2022 the NCP identified insufficient due diligence and disclosure and urged the Spanish company to adopt human rights policies and commission independent impact assessments. Similarly, in Lawyers for Palestinian Human Rights v G4S, the UK NCP found that G4S’s supply and maintenance of security equipment used in Israeli prisons and checkpoints in the OPT was inconsistent with the OECD Guidelines. On this basis, in 2015 the NCP recommended that the company implement a contract-approval process including a human rights risk assessment, a measure that, however, according to the NCP’s follow-up statement, the company did not properly carry out. Likewise, the instances ADHRB v Condor Non-Lethal Technologies and ADHRB v SAE Alsetex reached unsatisfactory solutions. Both cases concerned the export of tear gas used by the Bahraini government against peaceful demonstrators. While the Brazilian NCP declined to conduct a further investigation due to a lack of information, the French NCP concluded that compliance with governmental licensing implied conformity with responsible business conduct. However, according to the author, this automatism should be questioned from an H-HHRD perspective.
Emerging corporate accountability for arms transfers in national and international litigation
Following the escalation in Gaza in October 2023, several lawsuits have been filed in different domestic jurisdictions challenging arms transfers to Israel. In Denmark, for example, some NGOs sought to halt the transfer of components for F-35 aircraft, invoking obligations under the ATT. In the Netherlands, the Court of Appeal ruled in February 2024 that there was a clear risk that Israel’s F-35 fighter jets might be used in the commission of serious violations of international humanitarian law and ordered the cessation of exports. On 3 October 2025 the Dutch Supreme Court overturned the Court of Appeal’s decision and ordered the Minister of Justice to reassess the license for the export, taking into account the risk that could arise from possible violations of IHL. In Germany, after multiple courts rejected analogous challenges on standing and political-question grounds, a constitutional complaint was filed in October 2024. In Canada, NGOs contested export permits, arguing that the transfers violated IHL and the Canadian Charter. Finally, transfer of arms to Israel is challenged also before the International Criminal Court by way of a communication submitted to the ICC Prosecutor, which alleges that members of the Australian government are complicit in crimes committed in Gaza.
For these lawsuits to be successful, several legal difficulties must be addressed at both the domestic and international levels. This was clearly manifest in the Italian criminal lawsuit previously filed against officials of Italy’s National Authority for the Export of Armament (UAMA) and the CEO of RWM Italy, concerning the exports of bombs used in an airstrike in Yemen in 2016 that resulted in civilian deaths. In March 2023, the Judge for Preliminary Investigations in Rome dismissed the case: despite the alleged inconsistency with the ATT, it could not be proven that the main intent of UAMA’s officials was to procure a pecuniary advantage to RWM Italia. The case is now pending in front of the European Court of Human Rights, where victims allege that Italy failed to adequately investigate and regulate arms exports, thus violating Article 2 (right to life) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
Concluding remarks
Analysis of corporate accountability in armed conflicts reveals both progress and fragmentation. The legal discourse on complicity is expanding across OECD NCPs, domestic tribunals and international courts. Although complicity is generally conceived as knowingly facilitating or contributing to human rights abuses, crimes or violations of IHL, the required thresholds differ in the various legal frameworks. For example, while the OECD Guidelines and the UNGPs adopt a more flexible and expansive model, criminal law requires more stringent criteria for establishing mens rea and contribution to the underlying crime. This divergence between soft and hard law approaches often results in inconsistent outcomes despite similar factual contexts. The emergence of H-HRDD as a normative expectation could help to bridge these regimes. Driven by the UNGPs, H-HRDD is increasingly functioning as a legal duty of prevention and a basis for accountability in the context of armed conflicts. Legal analysis suggests that trends linking H-HRDD, complicity and grave breaches of international law are gradually emerging. The interplay between domestic adjudication, international jurisprudence, and the practice of OECD NCPs indicates functional convergence: businesses are expected to prevent their involvement in conflict-related abuses and, if such abuses occur, they can be held accountable. While awaiting the rulings in the pending judicial proceedings, the next step is to transform these expectations into written, binding normative provisions.
Suggested citation: A. Bonfanti, ‘Corporate Accountability in Armed Conflicts: Challenges, Risks and Responsibilities’, NOVA BHRE Blog, 10 November 2025