Book All Semester Assignments at 50% OFF! ORDER NOW
  • Subject Name : Law

Ghana's cocoa harvesting sector is large and has a major impact on the national economy. One of the biggest producers of cocoa beans worldwide, Ghana's economy heavily depends on the commodity. Many farmers rely on the cocoa industry for their livelihood, and it is a significant source of foreign exchange profits. Small holder farmers in Ghana who work relatively tiny land areas produce most of the country's cocoa. These farmers are essential to the cocoa bean industry. Ghana's cocoa beans are a vital commodity on the international market since they are used to make chocolate and other items that contain cocoa[1]. Ghana's Gross Domestic Product (GDP) has historically benefited greatly from the cocoa sector. The nation's economy has been greatly aided by the money received from cocoa exports. Ghana's foreign exchange profits are significantly boosted by cocoa exports, which also promote economic growth and balance of payments stability. The growing demand for cocoa and the involvement of multinational corporations in the cocoa sector are intertwined and have an impact on the local economies of cocoa-producing countries as well as the global economy. [2] A number of variables, including growing populations, shifting consumer preferences, rising chocolate consumption, and economic development in emerging nations, have contributed to the steady increase in the demand for cocoa. The production, processing, and manufacturing of cocoa are all part of a convoluted worldwide supply chain. West Africa is a major producer of cocoa, which is mainly farmed in tropical climates. As the world's cocoa supply grows, worries about deforestation, biodiversity loss, and environmental degradation in cocoa-producing regions have grown. Clearing land is often required to expand cocoa production, which can have serious ecological repercussions.[3] Concerns over labour practices, such as child labour and subpar working conditions in some cocoa-producing regions, have also been linked to the demand for cocoa. Child work is one of the major concerns associated with the globalised economy of the world, which is typified by the procurement of goods and services from distant nations. Although child labour in the global economy is a current concern. Ghana's cocoa sector has long been plagued by the issue of child labour in its various sectors such as production, processing, packaging and harvesting. The industry has a high rate of child labour due to a number of factors, including poverty, limited educational opportunities, and families' reliance on cocoa growing for financial support. The exploitation of child labour in Ghana's and other major cocoa-producing nations' industries has drawn criticism from throughout the world[4]. The issue is receiving more attention, and efforts to address it are growing as a result. The Ghanaian government has launched a number of programmes to stop child labour in partnership with foreign organisations and the cocoa sector. Campaigns for public awareness, educational initiatives, and the encouragement of ethical work practices are among the initiatives. The introduction of certification programmes like Rainforest Alliance and Fair-Trade guarantees that cocoa is produced in an ethical and sustainable manner, which forbids the use of child labour.[5]

History

An International Programme on the Elimination of Child Labour (IPEC, in Short) was carried out by International Labor Organisation (ILO) from 2002 to 2006 known as the WACAP. This program was carried out with the objective to end the child labour taking place in the agriculture sector of Africa. This program was highly proven beneficial fir the elimination of child labor in agriculture sector of Africa majorly including cocoa sector. WACAP was implemented in five different countries and its objectives and techniques so mentioned was duly adopted by the different sector. Several components of the project that was duly adopted by different sectors were:

  1. Raising awareness in the society such as community, families, and children including both private and public sector.
  2. Increasing education among individuals and organization regarding dealing and elimination of child labor.
  3. Training programs for working children.
  4. Monitoring of Child labour.
  5. Enhancing the knowledge related to project. [6]

This program carried out by the ILO was a success and showed that the child labor can be eradicated from the society and the children can be sent successfully back to homes and schools with proper education and training programs among the society and marginalised community. ILO in its Convention No. 182 has recognised child labor as the worst form of labor which possess the matter of urgent concern. [7]It is regarded as worst form of child labor because it just not only include bonded labor but also child trafficking, harm to morals and safety. That is the reason why cocoa companies was under continuous threat back in 2000’s when the media reports, newspaper, television documentary showing the pity condition of the childs in the cocoa sector.[8] An agreement was carried out in between various stakeholders, private players, government and many non-government organisation. That partnership agreement signed by various cocoa manufacturer and World Cocoa Foundation known as Harkin-Engel Protocol was signed on 19 September, 2001. This protocol derives its essence from the WACAP of ILO. IT also aimed to eliminate the child labor from the cocoa sector. Moreover, ILO plays an important role of monitoring, assessing, reporting, and providing remedy to the victim of worst form of child labor. Many other steps were also taken under this Protocol such as International Cocoa Initiative was launched in 2002 with the objective of bringing a better place for working in a cocoa sector[9]. This initiative exerted a strong force on various state government such as Cote d’ Ivoire to obey the international norms and form various domestic laws to eradicate the issue of child labor in cocoa sector or widely known as agriculture sector. Another programme known as Sustainable Tree Crops Programme (STCP) was also implemented with the objective to decrease the use of chemicals in crops. In 2001, ILO through its report showed that almost 378,000 children were working in the agriculture sector, when these allegations went surpassing the media. [10]Therefore, ILO passed a minimum age convention however, Cote d’ Ivoire was never a party of this convention. However, the domestic laws of Cote d’ Ivoire or Ivorian laws was never in consonance with the international laws. But finally, Cote d’ Ivoire ratified the convention and many domestic government, private players including various transnational companies adhered to the ILO convention and minimum age criteria of 18 years and healthy work environment for children. Moreover, private players were now required to fill a certificate showcasing that their product is formed after using Sustainable method of production. Moreover, in past few years also the cocoa sector has also asked European Union to make laws containing strict implication for the companies who does the abuse of human rights.[11]

State Responsibility and Obligation:

The duty and obligation of states to confront and eradicate child labour, especially in the agricultural sector, is heavily stressed by international law. States are expected to follow certain principles and norms, which are outlined in several international treaties and recommendations. Under international law, states have the following primary obligations regarding child labour in the agriculture sector:

  1. Convention No. 182 of the ILO on the Worst Forms of Child Labour: The most severe types of child labour, such as dangerous agricultural labour, are specifically addressed by this convention. States who have ratified this treaty are required to act right away to outlaw and end child labour of this kind.
  2. Convention No. 138 of the International Labour Organisation (ILO): The minimum age required to work in any occupation, including agriculture, is established by this convention. States must set and implement age restrictions to keep kids out of jobs that could endanger their morals, health, or safety.[12]
  3. Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) of the United Nations: Children's rights are outlined in the CRC, which also places a strong emphasis on shielding young people from dangerous jobs and economic exploitation. States that have ratified the CRC are required to implement policies aimed at preventing child labour and to establish suitable penalties or sanctions in the event that it is violated.[13]
  4. International Human Rights Instruments: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights are two examples of international human rights instruments that acknowledge the right to fair and comfortable working conditions. They also stress the significance of shielding children from exploitation and dangerous labour.[14]
  5. National Law and Enforcement: States are in charge of passing and upholding national laws that particularly deal with child labour in the agricultural industry. This include defining the legal age to work, controlling the working environment, and imposing sanctions for infractions.
  6. Education and Social Programmes: To address the underlying causes of child labour, states are urged to put in place educational and social programmes. Getting kids into high-risk jobs requires access to high-quality education, especially in rural communities where agriculture is the main industry.
  7. International Cooperation: Addressing cross-border concerns pertaining to child labour in agriculture requires cooperation between nations, international organisations, and non-governmental organisations (NGOs). Coordination, the exchange of best practices, and assistance to nations where child labour is a major problem are all examples of international collaboration.[15]
  8. Reporting and Monitoring: Under international processes, states are frequently obliged to provide information about their efforts to end child labour in agriculture. Monitoring and reporting aid in determining areas for improvement and evaluating the success of actions implemented.
  9. Corporate Accountability: Although states have the primary responsibility, businesses must also uphold human rights, including the ban on child labour, in their operations and supply chains. This is stressed by international standards like the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights.[16]

Adhering to laws and regulations and putting policies in place to deal with the underlying causes of child labour are two of the hurdles. One reason why kids choose to work in agriculture instead of going to school is a lack of access to high-quality education, particularly in rural areas. To achieve long-term solutions, it is imperative to tackle the underlying economic causes of poverty and child labour in agriculture.

To sum up, states have an explicit legal obligation to prohibit and end child labour in the agricultural industry. A protected environment for children and the protection of their rights are ensured by the complete strategy, which combines legislation, enforcement, education, and international collaboration.[17]

Role and Obligation of Private Actors or Transnational Companies[18]

In order to address and prevent child labour, private actors—including businesses engaged in the agricultural sector, notably in sectors like cocoa harvesting—have a major role, responsibility, and obligation. International law sets forth the requirements for commercial actors to make sure that their operations do not contribute to child labour, as do developing standards in corporate social responsibility (CSR). The following are important facets of their duties and role:

  1. Convention No. 182 of the ILO on the Worst Forms of Child Labour: The convention's principles, which demand the outlawing and eradication of the worst types of child labour, particularly dangerous agricultural labour, are intended to be followed by private actors.
  2. Convention No. 138 of the International Labour Organisation (ILO): It is expected of private actors to observe and adhere to the minimum age limits established by this convention, guaranteeing that minors are not working in jobs that could endanger their health, safety, or morals.
  3. Guiding Principles for Business and Human Rights, United Nations: According to these principles, private actors have an obligation to uphold human rights, including children's rights, and to take reasonable steps to detect, stop, and resolve any negative effects their operations may have on human rights.[19]
  4. Child Labour in Cocoa Harvesting:
  5. Programmes for Certification: involvement in and adherence to certification programmes, such as Rainforest Alliance, UTZ Certified, and Fair Trade, which establish guidelines for moral and sustainable business operations, including the outlawing of child labour.
  6. Taking Care in the Supply Chain: identifying and reducing the danger of child labour by doing due diligence along the whole supply chain. This entails keeping an eye on suppliers, evaluating risks, and putting corrective measures in place.
  7. Openness and Reporting: It is encouraged for private actors to be open about their efforts to end child labour. Reports on the actions done, the advancements achieved, and the difficulties encountered in stopping child labour in their supply chains are part of this.[20]
  8. Initiatives for Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR):
  9. Participation in the Community: interacting with local communities to learn about their needs and issues, then putting those needs into practice through programmes that support poverty reduction, education, and community development.
  10. Programmes for Education: funding and supporting educational initiatives that try to keep kids in school by giving them alternatives to risky jobs.
  11. National Law and Compliance: Making sure that business policies conform to international standards and abiding by national laws pertaining to child labour. Businesses are required to pursue greater ethical standards and to do more than just comply.[21]
  12. Cooperation and Partnership: Working together to address the underlying causes of child labour and put practical solutions in place with governments, non-governmental organisations (NGOs), and other stakeholders.[22]
  13. The National Platform for Cocoa
  14. The Ghana Cocoa Board (COCOBOD) has taken part in programmes like the National Cocoa Platform, which attempts to unite different stakeholders in order to tackle issues related to sustainability, including child labour.
  15. Systems for Monitoring and Remediating Child Labour (CLMRS): Ghana's cocoa sector has put CLMRS into place to find and address child labour cases. This include keeping an eye on things, reporting on them, and working with the local community to implement corrective measures.
  16. Enhanced Consciousness: Growing awareness of the detrimental effects of child labour in the cocoa industry is a result of efforts to increase understanding of the necessity of sustainable and ethical practices.[23]
  17. OECD Multinational Enterprise Guidelines: The OECD Guidelines offer suggestions for multinational corporations' ethical business practices. Chapter four focuses on businesses' obligations to uphold human rights and refrain from inadvertently causing or aiding in violations of those rights. Chapter two encourages businesses to support advancements in the social, political, and economic spheres, including the abolition of child labour.[24]

Conclusion:

States are required by international law to uphold human rights within their boundaries, especially those pertaining to child labour. The state in which these exploitative acts take place has an obligation to protect the welfare of its residents, particularly the children, and to uphold the law. It also has an obligation to look into and prosecute perpetrators. A state can be held responsible for violating human rights if it does not act appropriately. There is a growing recognition among private actors—including multinational corporations—that their duties extend beyond national boundaries. According to the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, corporations have an obligation to uphold human rights. Part of this obligation involves carrying out due diligence to find and resolve any negative effects that their operations may have on human rights.[25]

In this situation, multinational firms may be held liable for complicity if it is discovered that they deliberately encouraged or profited from child labour practices. The impacted kids could be able to pursue remedies, such as damages compensation. Such legal actions may be brought in the corporation's home country, the nation where the human rights breaches took place, or through international procedures. To hold corporations accountable, legal frameworks have been established. Extraterritorial laws in several nations enable victims of foreign human rights violations to bring lawsuits against corporations. International efforts also seek to establish a legally binding mechanism that makes corporations responsible for human rights breaches throughout the world. One such project is the UN's convention on business and human rights. Eventually, the ability of nations to implement and defend international human rights standards and the international community's resolve to confront cross-border corporate accountability for violations of human rights will determine how successful these legal actions are.

Evolving Contract and Tort Law in the Digital Age

Technology's rapid advancements have a significant impact on the legal system, requiring adjustments and modifications to reflect new opportunities and difficulties. The need to safeguard sensitive data has increased as technology develops. To improve data privacy and cybersecurity, new rules and regulations are being adopted, such as the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in the European Union. To guarantee that people have control over their personal data and that companies are held responsible for data breaches, legal frameworks are changing. Many legal processes are changing as a result of automation and artificial intelligence (AI). AI is transforming legal practitioners' work in a variety of ways, including contract analysis, legal research, and predictive analytics.

Electronic discovery, or "e-discovery," in court cases has significantly increased as a result of the digitization of material. To ensure that electronic evidence is handled properly in legal processes, laws pertaining to the discovery of electronic evidence are constantly changing to keep up with technological changes. Online Dispute Resolution (ODR), which is the process of settling conflicts through online platforms, is being made possible by technology. Legal systems are looking into ways to offer effective and easily accessible methods for resolving conflicts using online platforms as more and more interactions and transactions take place online. Smart contracts, or self-executing contracts with the contents of the agreement explicitly put into code, are a product of the development of blockchain technology. Regulations are changing to meet the legal implications of smart contracts, and legal systems are adjusting to recognise and enforce them. Startups in the legal technology (legal tech) space are coming up with creative ways to increase the effectiveness of law firms, increase access to legal services, and streamline legal procedures. Technology is being used more and more by legal practitioners, and legal education is changing to include courses on innovation and technology. Social media's widespread use presents legal issues with regard to privacy, defamation, and free expression. Laws are being revised to address concerns including disinformation, online harassment, and striking a balance between the right to free speech and the need to prevent harm in the digital sphere. Lawmakers are being prompted to examine new rules in order to guarantee public safety, ethical use, and accountability as a result of emerging technologies like biotechnology, driverless vehicles, and artificial intelligence. Laws are being created to control these technology and deal with possible risks.

Contract Law:

Smart Contract: the recent example of prevalence and increase of technology in contract law is the development of smart contract. The smart contracts, distributed ledger technologies (DTL), and cryptoassets is having a lot of impact on the share market and many other industries. However, they still do not have a legal sanctity that is why the emergence in the contract law is due to judge-led task. The general rule with regards to the crypto currency is that they are led by consensus. However, English Law still not disqualify them as property and therefore are not protected. Even the English Courts have increased the use of technology in order to enhance their operations. Majorly, the Commercial Courts were first to increase the use of technology in their courts.

Smart contract are the one which can be created without interference of the human. Legal systems like common law, which objectively evaluate the intention of the contracting parties, should have no trouble upholding the existence of a contract as long as the parties were aware of the nature of the arrangement they were entering into at the time of the contract. [26]

However, the law needs to deal with how to offer redress in cases where fraud or deception, for instance, has vitiated contractual consent. Since the conditions of a buyer-seller agreement are encoded into lines of code that are stored on a blockchain, smart contracts are self-executing. A product is released or money is paid when the coded requirements are satisfied. Nobody, not even a court has the authority to halt a smart contract's execution. The contract's performance cannot be stopped by the courts. However, the law of unjust enrichment in both cases may offer a remedy to order the parties to retransfer the money or property that was the subject of the transaction in common law and civil law jurisdictions. Moreover, nowadays consumers are accustomed to and frequently purchase digital products; in fact, some of the central issues addressed in this report were initially addressed by a common law court in 1983 and were first brought before the English Commercial Court in a case that was reported in 1988.[27] Digital technology is now well-established and widely used. However, a comprehensive, authoritative, and satisfying explanation of the legal rights that consumers have when purchasing digital products does not yet exist. Subject-specific legislation does not address the field, and it is unclear if digital items are protected by the current body of laws protecting consumers, which includes the Consumer Protection Act of 1987 and related laws as well as the Sale of Goods Act 1979 (SGA) and related legislation. This has to be considered inadequate. The business community requested a clear and easily accessible description of the law governing contracts for the sale of products, and this request led to the original Sale of products Act 1893, which is widely acknowledged as favouring certainty in the law. In addition, ambiguity in the law works against the interests of buyers as consumers and can be used by providers as a pretext to deny customers their rights. It is rarely cost-effective for a customer to consult an expert regarding a dispute involving even a somewhat pricey purchase, much less file a lawsuit[28]. Therefore, it would be in the best interests of both enterprises and consumers to have a concise, authoritative summary of the law. The absence of particular legal provisions in this regard is not unique to the UK. To date[29], the majority of jurisdictions have left the question up to the courts to handle through the application of non-subject specific legislation, most of which was written before the advent of digital technology. Furthermore, contrary to expectations, international legislative groups have not taken the lead in this field. Therefore, there's a chance that the UK will seize the lead in this growingly significant business sector.[30]

Tort Law:

The presence of civil liability outside the purview of contract law will also need to be addressed by the law.[31]

Artificial intelligence (AI) has the potential to be used to a wide range of financial system functions, including trade execution, portfolio management, fraud detection, and asset and liability optimisation. In the context of tort or delict law, culpability may arise from the confluence of an individual's activity and a causal connection, as well as an unlawful purpose to hurt another or knowledge of harm to another actions.[32] Will legislation be required to hold AI system developers accountable, as one could in connection with the producer of autonomous vehicles? Or should people who chose to utilise such technologies be held legally responsible? Or is it appropriate to hold people accountable at all if AI systems write their own algorithms? Instead, should the AI system be given legal personhood similar to that of a corporation? It will take the development of a body of law to determine liability allocation. Should a machine that uses artificial intelligence (AI) be granted separate legal personality and who should be held accountable if it doesn't have mandatory third-party insurance?[33]

Digital Products:

The additional difficulty with contracts pertaining to the delivery of digital products is that the thing transferred—that is, the primary subject matter of the agreement—is, in a sense, intangible. Software can be distributed through various contractual arrangements and media, as mentioned in Part I of this study. When categorising a contract for the provision of digital goods, there are two interrelated distinctions that need to be considered. First, between "off-the-peg" and "bespoke" software, as described in this paper. The first category describes a scenario in which the client hires the software provider to write a programme, while the second describes a scenario in which the producer develops and sells a standard product[34]. A standard product is one that the customer can purchase directly from the manufacturer or via a middleman, usually but not necessarily an independent merchant. This is the setup that is used by customers to acquire digital goods the most frequently. The second differentiation pertains to the mode of delivery of the digital product to the end user. Here, a distinction is generally made between delivery through digital means and delivery through some physical media.[35] This wide division does, however, include a variety of distinct distribution arrangements. A scenario where the supplier provides a physical product that requires embedded software to function is at one extreme of the spectrum. [36]

Online Purchases:

  1. Consumer Rights Act of 2015: This important piece of legislation was designed to improve consumer protection when it came to internet purchases. It brought in clauses covering things like the right to return defective items, the quality of the goods, and the openness of contract terms. This law requires vendors to give precise and comprehensible information, guaranteeing that customers have all the information they need to make informed decision[37]s about purchases they make online.[38]

  2. Regulations on Distance Selling: Prior to the passage of the Consumer Rights Act, the Regulations on Distance Selling offered a number of safeguards to customers conducting online or distant business. The Consumer Rights Act superseded these rules, however the ideas behind safeguarding customers during online purchases are still applicable[39].

  3. Digital material and Services: The unique characteristics of digital material and services have been acknowledged by legislation. Specific requirements pertaining to digital content are outlined in the Consumer Rights Act. One such provision is the right to have defective digital content repaired or replaced.[40]
  4. European Union Influence: The legal framework for online purchases was affected by EU consumer protection rules and legislation even though the UK was not a member of the EU at the time. Depending on domestic policy concerns, the UK may continue to align or diverge in some areas after Brexit.

Guidelines for Digital Content and Service Liability:

  1. The Consumer Rights Act of 2015 guarantees that customers have rights and remedies in the event that digital products fail to live up to specified criteria by establishing liability standards for digital content and services.[41]

  2. Product Liability rules: In order to handle concerns pertaining to digital goods and services, traditional product liability rules may need to be modified. It can be difficult to determine the obligations of producers, sellers, and service providers in the digital sphere, and it can even need legal clarification.[42]

Assignment of Liability Amongst Various Market Participants:

  1. Platform Liability: There has been discussion on the responsibility of internet platforms. Although platforms are essential for enabling transactions, there is debate concerning their accountability for guaranteeing the security and legitimacy of goods and services that are advertised on them. Legal frameworks might change in the future to provide more precise rules on platform liability.
  2. Intermediary Liability: To maintain a balance between holding online intermediaries responsible for damaging information or transactions and making sure that the legal framework does not unnecessarily impede the development of online platforms, laws pertaining to intermediary liability may need to be reviewed on an ongoing basis.

Conventional Law Principles:

  1. Stability of Legal Foundations: Legal traditions have a strong hold on the fundamental ideas of tort and contract law, which regulate the creation of contracts and offer remedies for civil wrongs. While new situations and difficulties may arise as a result of technological improvements, the core ideas of tortious liability and contractual responsibilities might hold steady.[43]

  2. Legal Framework Adaptability: English law has proven to be flexible in response to evolving situations. When it comes to judicial rulings and statutory modifications, the common law system tends to evolve gradually rather than drastically altering legal systems. This gradual progress permits adaptability in handling new problems.[44]

Evolution of Common Law:

  1. The evolution of legal principles is aided by the decisions made in previous cases, which are a major source of precedent in English law. Although new fact patterns may be brought about by technology, case law frequently develops to allow for the application of preexisting legal principles to these novel situations.
  2. Courts have the option to gradually incorporate technological challenges by utilising pre-existing legal principles. For instance, courts may interpret and modify contract law concepts pertaining to offer, acceptance, and consideration to accommodate the digital context when it comes to e-contracts[45].
  1. Legislative Response: In reaction to developments in technology, lawmakers may propose new laws that deal with particular facets of online transactions or potential security issues. These legislative modifications, however, might only be focused tweaks to account for technology advancements rather than a comprehensive rewrite of contract and tort law.[46]

  2. Legislation pertaining to consumer protection: One piece of legislation that demonstrates a legislative response to the evolving nature of consumer commerce is the Consumer Rights Act of 2015, which includes provisions unique to digital content and online transactions.[47]

Problems and Rebuttals:

  1. Criticism of Lagging Behind: According to some, the law, particularly tort and contract law, may not keep up with technological advancements. It can be difficult for legal systems to keep up with the quick speed of technological advancement, which could result in holes or ambiguities in the legal system.[48]

  2. Complexity of Technological concerns: It may be difficult for legal systems to provide precise and useful guidance due to the complexity of technological concerns, such as those using blockchain technology or artificial intelligence. Legislators and courts may find it challenging to create clear regulations for quickly changing technologies.[49]

In summary, English contract law and tort law have demonstrated flexibility in response to technological advancements, while the rate of this flexibility may differ. The legal system frequently changes gradually through the use of case law and statutory modifications. Although tackling the complex and dynamic nature of technology presents challenges, one of the legal system's greatest adaptabilities continues to be its capacity to interpret and apply preexisting concepts to novel situations.[50] It will require ongoing monitoring and possible legislative actions to make sure that the legal system effectively tackles new problems that arise in the digital age.

[1] Barry Callebaut, ‘Barry Callebaut confirms strong growth in demand for certified cocoa and chocolate’ (Press Resease, 28 Jan 2010) www.barry-callebaut.com last accessed on 25th December, 2023.

[2] IPEC: Programme to combat hazardous and exploitative child labour in Cocoa/Commercial agriculture in West Africa (WACAP), project document (Geneva, 2002), p. 29.

[3] Canagarajah, S. & Xiao, Y., 2001, ‘Public Health and Education Spending in Ghana in 1992 – 98,Issues of Equity and Efficiency’ (World Bank, April 2001) last accessed on 25th December, 2023.

[4] Dasgupta, ‘Poverty, institutions and the environmental resource-base.’(1995).

[5] Hazardous Child Labour in Agriculture: Cocoa, Safety and health fact sheet [Geneva, ILO, 2004].

[6] SWAC, ‘Emerging good practice in combating the worst form of child labor in West African Cocoa growing countries’ (OCED, 2011) https://www.oecd.org/swac/publications/49069653.pdf last accessed 26th December, 2023.

[7] Press Release, ‘Agreement to end child labour on cocoa farms’ (ILO, 01.10.2002) https://www.ilo.org/global/about-the-ilo/newsroom/news/WCMS_007859/lang--en/index.html last accessed on 26th December 2023.

[8] The fundamental ILO standards on child labour are: the Minimum Age Convention (No.138) and Recommendation (No.146), and the Worst Forms of Child Labour Convention (No.182) and Recommendation (No.190)

[9] Janelle M. Diller and David A. Levy, ‘Child Labor, Trade and Investment: Toward the Harmonization of International Law’ (1997) 91(4)< https://doi.org/10.2307/2998099> last accessed on 26th December, 2023.

[10] United States Department of Labor, Bureau of International Labor Affairs. ‘Findings on the Worst Forms of Child Labor’. US Government, Washington, D.C., 2017.

[11] Franziska Humbert, ‘The challenge of child labour in International Law’(Cambridge university press, February 2010) https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511641985 last accessed 27th December, 2023.

[12] The Diplomatic Service of European Union, ‘Child labour has to end for sustainable development’(European Union External Action, 12.06.2023) < https://www.eeas.europa.eu/eeas/child-labour-has-end-sustainable-development_en> last accessed 27th December, 2023.

[13] General comment No. 15 on the right of the child to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health (art. 24)

[14] Walter Kälin & Jörg Künzli, ‘The law of international human rights protection’ 422 (2009).

[15] Kemi Mustapha, Taste of Child Labour Not So Sweet: A Critique of Regulatory Approaches to Combating Child Labour Abuses by the U.S. Chocolate Industry, 87 WASH. U. L. REV. 1163, 1170 (2009-2010).

[16] Ruth Mayne, ‘Regulating TNCs: The Role of Voluntary and Governmental Approaches, in REGULATING INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS: BEYOND LIBERALISATION’ (235) 240 (Sol Picciotto & Ruth Mayne eds., 1999).

[17] The prohibition of slavery, of course, is a fundamental and universal human rights standard contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), art. 4, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966), art. 8, and the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights (1986), art. 5, among others.

[18] A transnational corporation (‘TNC’) is “an economic entity operating in more than one country or a cluster of economic entities operating in two or more countries – whatever their legal form, whether in their home country or country of activity, and whether taken individually or collectively”. Norms on the Responsibilities of Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises with Regard to Human Rights, U.N. ESCOR, 55th Sess. 22nd Mtg., Agenda Item 4 at § 20, U.N. Doc E/CN.4/Sub.2/2003/12/Rev.2 (Aug. 26, 2003), available at http://www.unhchr.ch/huridocda/huridoca. nsf/%28Symbol%29/E.CN.4.Sub.2.2003.12.Rev.2.En. 

[19] Alsever, ‘Fair prices for farmers: Simple idea, complex reality’ (2006, March 19) https://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/19/business/yourmoney/fairprices-for-farmers-simple-idea-complex-reality.html last accessed on 27th December, 2023.

[20] Certification schemes are programs established by an organization or group requiring adherence to a set of principles by participating transnational corporations. See generally, Amanda Berlan, Making or Marketing a Difference? An Anthropological Examination of the Marketing of Fair Trade Cocoa from Ghana, in Hidden Hands In The Market: Ethnographies Of Fair Trade, Ethical Consumption, And Corporate Social Responsibility (171-194) (Geert de Neve et al. eds., 2008)

[21] CHRISTIAN TOMUSCHAT, HUMAN RIGHTS 107 (2nd ed. 2008); accord. Michael K. Addo, Human Rights and Transnational Corporations – an Introduction, in HUMAN RIGHTS STANDARDS AND THE RESPONSIBILITY OF TRANSNATIONAL CORPORATIONS 3, 4 (Michael K. Addo ed., 1999); Jack Donnelly, Social Construction of International Human Rights, in HUMAN RIGHTS IN GLOBAL POLITICS 71, 95 (Tim Dunne & Nicholas J. Wheeler eds., 1999); DAVID P. FORSYTHE, HUMAN RIGHTS IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS 277 (3rd ed. 2012); Scott Pegg, An Emerging Market for the New Millennium: Transnational Corporations and Human Rights, in TRANSNATIONAL CORPORATIONS AND HUMAN RIGHTS 1, 16 (Jedrzej G. Frynas & Scott Pegg eds., 2003).

[22] Mitro, M. T., 2002, ‘Outlawing the trade in child labor products: Why the GATT article XX health exception authorizes unilateral sanctions’, American University Law Review, Vol. 51, No. 6, pp. 1223–1273.

[23] Rainforest Alliance, ‘About the rainforest alliance’ < https://www.rainforest-alliance.org/about> last accessed on 28th December, 2023.

[24] These preliminary findings are drawn from the current OECD assessments of The Alignment of Industry and Multi-Stakeholder Programmes with the OECD Garment and Footwear Guidance (See OECD (2019)).

[25] Verité, Inc, ‘Assessment of forced labor risk in the cocoa sector of Côte d’Ivoire’ (2019, February)< https://www.verite.org/wpcontent/uploads/2019/02/Verite-Report-Forced-Labor-in-Cocoa-in-CDI.pdf> last accessed 29th December, 2023.

[26] LawTech Delivery Panel (UK Jurisdiction Taskforce), ‘Legal statement on cryptoassets and smart contracts’ (November 2019), https://35z8e83m1ih83drye280o9d1-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wpcontent/uploads/2019/11/6.6056_JO_Cryptocurrencies_Statement_FINAL_WEB_111119-1.pdf last accessed on 29th December, 2023.

[27] Susan Freiwald, ‘Comparative Institutional Analysis in Cyberspace: The Case of Intermediary Liability for Defamation’ (Harvard University, 2001) 14.

[28] Baris Soyer andAndrew Tettenborn, ‘Artificial intelligence and civil liability—do we need a new regime?’ (IJLIT, 2022) (30) 4 https://doi.org/10.1093/ijlit/eaad001

[29] Yesha Yadav,’ The Failure of Liability in Modern Markets’ (2016) 102 Va L Rev 1031

[30] Tim Allen, Robert Widdison, ‘Can Computers Make Contracts?’ (1996) 9 Harv J Law & Tech 25)

[31] Leon E Wein, ‘The Responsibility of Intelligent Artifacts: Towards and Automation Jurisprudence’ (1992) 6 Harv J Law & Tech 103

[32] Joe Thomson, ‘Delictual Liability’ (4th ed) chapter 2.

[33] For the classic definition see: Stuart J Russell, Peter Norvig, Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach, 3rd ed. (Pearson, New Jersey 2016) 34

[34] Woodrow Barfield, ‘Towards a law of artificial intelligence’ in Woodrow Barfield and Ugo Pagallo, Research Handbook on the Law of Artificial Intelligence (Edward Elgar Publishing: 2018) pg. 5.

[35]Hunting and harvesting in a Digital World (2013) <http://www.gartner.com/imagesrv/cio/pdf/cio_agenda_insights2013.pdf> last accessed on 1st Janurary , 2024.

[36] For a broader discussion see: Ute Kohl, ‘Legal Reasoning and Legal Change in the Age of the Internet – Why the ground rules still are still valid’ (1999) 7 IJ L & IT 123

[37] Nigerian Bottling Co. (Nig.) Ltd. v. Ngonadi[1985] 1 NWLR (Pt.4) 739; Ebelemu v. Guinness (Nig.) Ltd. FCA/1/101/82 (1993); Boardman v. Guinness (Nig.) Ltd. (1980) NCLR 109; Soremi v. Nigerian Bottling Co. Ltd. 1977) 12 CCHCJ 2735; Dumuje v. Nigeria Breweries Plc. (Unreported, Suit No. ENC/236/94,04 July 2001

[38] Scott, ‘Regulatory Innovation and the Online Consumer Law & Policy’ (26) 3 (477-506).

[39] Bradgate, ‘Consumer Rights in Digital Products: A research report prepared for the UK Department for Business, Innovation and Skills’, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (2010).

[40] Global Digital Market 2015-2019 http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/global-digitalcontent-market-2015-2019-300037817.html last accessed on 30th December, 2023.

[41] Section 2 Consumer Rights Act 2015

[42] Oced, ‘Protecting And Empowering Consumers In The Purchase Of Digital Content Products’ (Oecd Digital Economy Papers No. 219, 2013) http://www.oecdilibrary.org/docserver/download/5k49czlc7wd3.pdf?expires=1433378544&id=id&accname=guest&che cksum=14E35E7619EE55EA445F2DD08BAB1E74 last accessed on 30th December, 2023.

[43] Atiyah, P (1995) Sale of Goods 9th ed. By John Adams, London, Pitman Publishing

[44] Mark D Flood, Oliver R Goodenough, ‘Contract as Automaton: the Computational Representation of Financial Agreements’ (2015) Office of Financial Research Working Paper 8.

[45] Savin, ‘EU Internet Law Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing’ (2013)http://www.elgaronline.com/view/9781845429379.xml last accessed on 30th December, 2023

[46] Green, S and Djakhongir, S. (2007, March) ‘Software as goods’ Journal of Business Law 161

[47] L. Cornway (2011) Proposed Consumer Rights Bill

[48] Lexis-Nexis Financial Services (2015) Consumer Rights Act 2015, ‘Remedies and Enforcement of Rights’ http://blogs.lexisnexis.co.uk/fs/consumer-rights-act-2015-remedies-and-enforcement-of-rights/ last accessed on 31st December, 2023.

[49] A report by Sir Claus Moser for the DfEE, (1999) A Fresh Start - improving literacy and numeracy found that up to 7 million people in Britain have difficulty with literacy and numeracy referenced in Howells G (2005) The Potentials and Limits of Consumer Empowerment by Information Journal of Law and Society.

[50] Marsoof, ‘Digital content and the definition dilemma under the Sale of Goods Act 1979: Will the Consumer Rights Bill 2013 remedy the malady’ (2014) (JICLT, 9(4), 285-293) http://www.jiclt.com/index.php/jiclt/article/view/224/221 last accessed on 30th December, 2023.

You Might Also Like:- 

Business Law Assignment Help

Company Law Dissertation Topics

Get It Done! Today

Applicable Time Zone is AEST [Sydney, NSW] (GMT+11)
Upload your assignment
  • 1,212,718Orders

  • 4.9/5Rating

  • 5,063Experts

Highlights

  • 21 Step Quality Check
  • 2000+ Ph.D Experts
  • Live Expert Sessions
  • Dedicated App
  • Earn while you Learn with us
  • Confidentiality Agreement
  • Money Back Guarantee
  • Customer Feedback

Just Pay for your Assignment

  • Turnitin Report

    $10.00
  • Proofreading and Editing

    $9.00Per Page
  • Consultation with Expert

    $35.00Per Hour
  • Live Session 1-on-1

    $40.00Per 30 min.
  • Quality Check

    $25.00
  • Total

    Free
  • Let's Start

Browse across 1 Million Assignment Samples for Free

Explore MASS

Customer Feedback

Check out what our Student community has to say about us.

Read More
Order Now

Request Callback

whatsapp Tap to ChatGet instant assignment help

Need Assistance on your
existing assignment order?
refresh