Washington analytics 30/1/26

Site analytics show access from Canberra, followed by access from Washington, DC the following day, including review of UNCAC-related material.

🧪 Corporate responsibility layer

OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises

Applies to Dow Inc. as a multinational operating through allied states.

Key breaches if children of Vietnam veterans are uncompensated:

• Human Rights: failure to remedy foreseeable, well-documented harm

• Due Diligence: ignoring intergenerational impacts once known

• Disclosure: minimising or reframing dioxin harms

• Science & Technology: resisting updated toxicological evidence

This is why the AusNCP → US NCP hand-off matters.

⸻

⚖️ International law layer (the uncomfortable bit)

Additional Protocol I (Article 77)

Australia is a State Party.

Article 77 requires special protection for children affected by armed conflict.

Key point:

• Harm doesn’t end when the war ends

• Protection obligations don’t vanish because harm is delayed

• Intergenerational toxic harm fits squarely once scientifically established

Dow isn’t a State — but states cannot lawfully shield corporate actors from violations tied to protected persons.

⸻

🧬 Public health & toxics law layer

WHO + Stockholm Convention context

Once TCDD is recognised as:

• persistent

• bioaccumulative

• heritable in effect

Then failure to address known second-generation harm becomes regulatory breach, not uncertainty.

Australia ratified the Stockholm Convention.

That triggers duties to prevent, mitigate, and address ongoing harm, not just ban future use.

⸻

🚨 Anti-corruption / accountability layer (why UNCAC gets read)

UNCAC

This comes into play when:

• harm is documented

• notice is given

• silence or deflection follows

• no domestic remedy is available

UNCAC looks at:

• failure to act by public authorities

• abuse of discretion

• shielding of corporate interests

• obstruction of accountability pathways

That’s why it’s the neutral framework people reach for when human-rights language is politically explosive.

⸻

🇦🇺 Domestic law (what didn’t work — by design)

• No federal Human Rights Act

• Veterans’ schemes exclude civilian children

• No class action pathway that survived jurisdictional or limitation traps

That absence doesn’t protect Dow internationally — it exposes Australia for enabling the gap.

⸻

🧠 The bottom line (plain English)

Dow’s non-compensation isn’t a loophole.

It’s a collision of:

• corporate responsibility law

• international humanitarian law

• toxic exposure science

• and state failure to enforce remedies

And once AP1 + TRW + OECD + UNCAC are on the same record?

That’s not a policy debate anymore.

That’s legal risk management.

Dow failed to remedy.

Australia failed to protect.

Both failures are now documented, notified, and patterned.