International Law

We want Columbia University to divest from from any private company, state actor, or financial institution complicit in violations of international human rights law, the genocide convention, or crimes against humanity.

Our framework for divestment is intentionally broad. We require divestment from companies that violate international human rights law as defined by the UN’s International Bill of Human Rights, the International Criminal Court’s Rome Statue, and the UN’s Genocide Convention.

The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCR) has published a guideline and two supplements to identify corporate complicity in violations of international law. See the UN’s “Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights” and two supplements, “Human Rights Translated 2.0: A Business Reference Guide” (most useful) and “OECD Due Diligence Guidance for Responsive Business Conduct.”

Our contract article would allow student workers to file grievances against the University if it does not immediately divest from any direct or indirect holding that violates international law according to the UN or ICC.

We want Columbia University to practice comprehensive financial transparency to ensure our workplace environment is compliant with the norms of international law, workplace equity, and safety. Columbia must publish all its revenue streams and direct and indirect investments.

Why is this necessary? Columbia systematically obscures most of its investments and revenue streams to avoid blame for investments and other expenditures it knows are unpopular.

Columbia does not publish information about:

• Indirect investments, e.g. ETFs (although the Columbia University Investment Management Company may share upon request)

• Private investments, e.g. venture capital

• Investments hidden by shell companies

• Detailed revenue streams or expenditures

• How donor gifts, grants, and contracts are invested

“Transparency is an issue.” In a 2023 analysis published on the Columbia AAUP webpage, an independent financial auditor found that Columbia is less transparent than peer institutions. 

• All colleges and universities are required to disclose data to the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDs). But the auditor found that Columbia’s data on the IPEDs website did not match its annual financial reports.

• Columbia uses accounting tricks to conceal its revenue and expenses. For example, Columbiareports its “natural expenses” by combining compensation and benefits into one category to obscure how much it pays in salary, and combines “instructional and educational administration” to obscure the difference between faculty and administrative salaries. In contrast, Harvard separates their natural expenses into Salaries and Wages, Employee benefits, Purchased services, Supplies and equipment, Space and occupancy, Interest, Depreciation, Scholarships/awards, and Other.

The international law contract article solves these problems by demanding Columbia disclose all its direct and indirect financial holdings, revenue streams, and expenditures.

We want transitional funding for those who choose not to do research that violates international human rights law.

Why is this necessary? Student workers are often compelled to participate in lab research that is likely to violate international law, for example by developing technology for drones to shoot pedestrians or to biohack life forms to introduce novel behaviors. Learn more in our case studies section.

Transitional funding would allow student workers to switch labs or advisors if they believe their work will be used to violate international law or commit human rights abuses without facing financial penalties.