A/HRC/40/CRP.1 legacy of unaddressed human rights violations associated with oil explorations in the South.1084 Furthermore, the inclusion of all three of the oil joint ventures operating in South Sudan in the US Department of Commerce’s Entities List, as mentioned above, is a stark reminder that these companies have been found, as a consequence of their business activities, to have caused or contributed to the ongoing armed conflict and the violations against civilian in their areas of operation, risking exposure to potential criminal liability. On several occasions over the years, international companies have reportedly been complicit either directly or indirectly in assisting Government forces and their proxies in the fighting that has taken place in the oil regions, especially by allowing them to use their facilities, in particular, air strips and road infrastructure. For example, the Canadian company Talisman, which in the late 1990s was part of the Greater Nile Petroleum Operating Company joint venture (with the Government of Sudan) and operated in the north of former Unity State,, allowed the Sudanese Armed Forces to use its air strip and other facilities, despite knowing of the Sudan Government’s policy of forcibly displacing civilians and its commission of other human rights violations in the area.1085 In a more recent case, the DPOC company, engaged in exploitation of the Palouch oil field, reportedly allowed a South Sudanese private company that supplied it with food and equipment to also carry cargo for SPLA units in the area.1086 In view of this the Commission believes that it is of crucial importance for international companies operating in the oil sector in South Sudan to adhere to the strictest standards of corporate responsibility as well as to national laws regulating this sector, the provisions of which have been outline above.1087 In line with Principle 2 of the UN Global Compact, businesses world-wide should operate according to a system of shared values and principles, including and in particular by respecting human rights and avoiding complicity in human rights abuses. Complicity for human rights abuses has been broadly defined as acts or omissions by companies (or their representatives) that in some way help another to carry out human rights abuses, combined with the company knowing that its acts or omissions have provided such help. This ‘help’ can include assistance, facilitation, legitimization, or encouragement.1088 Additionally, the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights recognise that there is a positive obligation on businesses to both “[…] Avoid causing or contributing to adverse human rights impacts through their own activities, and address such impacts when they occur” as well as to “Seek to prevent or mitigate adverse human rights impacts that are directly linked to their operations, products or services by their business relationships, even if they have not contributed to those impacts.”1089 In order to achieve this, companies should carry out “human rights due diligence” by assessing the risks of human rights violations posed by their activities (either direct or indirect) and taking steps to address these risks, as well as publicizing these actions.1090 The exposure to potential criminal liability of international companies for human rights violations committed in connection with their business operations has been highlighted by the recent case of the Swedish oil company Lundin, which was operating in Block 5A in Sudan in the late 1990s and early 2000s. During this period, widespread and serious human rights violations were committed against the local population, as part of military operations to forcibly displace hundreds of thousands of inhabitants for the purposes of oil exploration.1091 In October 2018, the Swedish Government approved a request by the Public 1084 European Coalition on Oil in Sudan, Unpaid Debt, The Legacy of Lundin, Petronas and OMV in Block 5A, Sudan, 1997-2003, 2010; Human Rights Watch, “Sudan, Oil and Human Rights”, 2003, pp. 438-455, and 470-475. 1085 Human Rights Watch, “Sudan, Oil and Human Rights”, 2003, pp. 64-66; Luke Patey, The New Kings of Crude, China, India, and the Global Struggle for Oil in Sudan and South Sudan, 2014, pp. 68-70. 1086 Conflict Armament Research, “Weapon Supplies Into South Sudan’s Civil War: Regional Re-Transfers and International Intermediaries”, November 2018, p. 76. 1087 See also Petroleum Act (2012), sections 4, 13(3), 58. 1088 United Nations Global Compact, Principle 2: Human Rights. 1089 UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, Article 13. 1090 UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, Articles 17-21. 1091 Human Rights Watch, “Sudan, Oil and Human Rights”, 2003, pp. 313-319; European Coalition on Oil in Sudan, Unpaid Debt, The Legacy of Lundin, Petronas and OMV in Block 5A, Sudan, 1997-2003, 2010. 138