UN Norms on the Responsibilities of Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises with regard to Human Rights

2003 ◽  
Vol 4 (10) ◽  
pp. 1065-1080 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carolin F. Hillemanns
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Transnational Corporations ◽  
Labor Rights ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
Conflict Zones ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
Business Enterprises ◽  
Business Entities ◽  
Human Rights Norms ◽  
Corporate Social

The United Nations Sub-Commission for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights unanimously approved the “Norms on the Responsibilities of Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises with regard to Human Rights” (the Norms) on 13 August 2003. Together with the interpretative Commentary, the Norms constitute an authoritative guide to corporate social responsibility. They are the first set of comprehensive international human rights norms specifically aimed at and applying to transnational corporations and other business entities (companies). They set out the responsibilities of companies with regard to human rights and labor rights, and provide guidelines for companies in conflict zones. They prohibit bribery and provide obligations with regard to consumer protection and the environment. General provisions of implementation include the obligation to provide reparation for a failure to comply with the Norms.

scholarly journals The UN 'Norms on the Responsibility of Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises with Regard to Human Rights': A Requiem

2012 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 5 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pini Pavel Miretski ◽  
Sascha-Dominik Bachmann
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Transnational Corporations ◽  
Global Business ◽  
Unsuccessful Attempt ◽  
Business And Human Rights ◽  
Adverse Impacts ◽  
Guiding Principles ◽  
Business Enterprises ◽  
Human Rights Norms ◽  
Alternative Solutions

On 11 June 2011, the United Nations Human Rights Council endorsed the ‘Guiding Principles for Business and Human Rights’ as a new set of guiding principles for global business designed to provide a global standard for preventing and addressing the risk of adverse impacts on human rights linked to business activity. This outcome was preceded by an earlier unsuccessful attempt by a Sub-Commission of the UN Commission on Human Rights to win approval for a set of binding corporate human rights norms, the so called ‘Norms on the Responsibilities of Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises with Regard to Human Rights’. This article identifies and discusses the reasons why the Norms eventually failed to win approval by the then UN Commission on Human Rights. This discussion assists an understanding of the difficulties in establishing binding ‘hard law’ obligations for transnational corporations with regard to human rights within the wider framework of international law. It elucidates the possible motives as well as the underlying rationale which led first to the adoption and then the rapid abandoning of the Norms. The discussion also sheds light on the future of the voluntarism of business human rights compliance, on the likelihood of finding alternative solutions, and finally on the rationale for, and effect of, the ‘Guiding Principles for Business and Human Rights’.

24. Within the state

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew Byrnes ◽  
Catherine Renshaw
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Common Law ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
General Law ◽  
National Human ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
The Common ◽  
Human Rights Norms ◽  
National Human Rights Institutions ◽  
Domestic Law

This chapter examines the state’s role in promoting and protecting human rights, and is organized as follows. Section 2 deals with substantive protections: the nature, status, and scope of human rights protections under national law. These include the incorporation or other use of international human rights norms in domestic law, constitutional guarantees of rights, human rights legislation, protection under the general law, including the concept of the rule of law, and the common law. Section 3 considers institutional protections of human rights. It briefly outlines the types of institutions that commonly play a role in the implementation, monitoring, and protection of human rights, including the courts, the executive, and the legislature, as well as mechanisms such as ombudsmen and national human rights institutions.

scholarly journals INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSAL INSTITUTIONAL MECHANISM FOR HUMAN RIGHTS PROTECTION IN BUSINESS SPHERE

2020 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
United Nations ◽  
Transnational Corporations ◽  
Human Rights Protection ◽  
Rights Protection ◽  
Business And Human Rights ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
Business Enterprises ◽  
Rights Issues

The article focuses on the functioning of the international universal institutional mechanism for the protection of human rights in business sphere. The importance of the statutory bodies of the United Nations, the officials who are empowered to make decisions on many issues related to a wide range of subjects of international legal relations, including the protection of human rights in business sphere, is emphasized, in particular: the General Assembly, the Economic and Social Council, the Security Council, the Secretary-General. The role of the Human Rights Council as a body of the United Nations, which is responsible for promoting the universal respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, in the creation of specialized, narrow-profile human rights protection structures in business sphere has been defined. The powers of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on Human Rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises have been described, with an emphasis on the significance of “Protect, respect and remedy” framework proposed by him. The attention is paid to the Working Group on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises. The importance of the UN Forum on Business and Human Rights as a dialogue center for the cooperation on business and human rights issues is highlighted. The emphasis is placed on the mandate of the Open-ended intergovernmental working group on transnational corporations and other business enterprises with respect to human rights, which provides the development of a legally binding instrument for regulating the activities of transnational corporations and other business enterprises in international human rights law. It is emphasized on the tasks performed by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights in business and human rights issues, and its cooperation with specialized bodies in this area; its role in the promotion and implementation of the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights is highlighted.

Germany

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Valentin Aichele
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Direct Effect ◽  
Federal Courts ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
Persons With Disabilities ◽  
Public International Law ◽  
Monitoring Mechanism ◽  
International Human ◽  
Human Rights Norms

This chapter analyses the use and interpretation of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) in sixty-nine decisions of German federal courts between 2009 and mid-2016. German courts’ failure to be proactive in demonstrating ‘friendliness towards public international law’ when dealing with international human rights norms has been criticised. The National CRPD Monitoring Mechanism addressed problems in the application of the law. This chapter investigates the courts’ understanding of basic CRPD concepts, judicial techniques, interpretation methods and specific CRPD provisions. The importance of the concepts of self-executing provisions and direct effect is discussed. In quantitative terms, German courts have referred to the CRPD more often than any other UN international human rights instrument. Furthermore, in qualitative terms, federal courts have become more receptive towards the CRPD. However, it is clear that much of the potential for courts to use the CRPD in the realisation of the rights of persons with disabilities remains untapped.

Municipal Courts and the International Interpretive Principle: Al-Kateb v Godwin

2020 ◽  
Vol 43 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Kirby
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Common Law ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
Global Problems ◽  
The Common ◽  
International Human ◽  
Human Rights Norms ◽  
Constitutional Adjudication

This article examines the decision in Al-Kateb v Godwin (2004) 219 CLR 562. It revisits the suggested ‘heresy‘ that international human rights law may influence the interpretation of the Australian Constitution and other legal texts. Accessing universal human rights law, including in constitutional adjudication, was endorsed in the Bangalore Principles on the Domestic Application of International Human Rights Norms 1988. The author suggests that interpreting statutory language in this way is not dissimilar to the common-law principle of interpreting statutes so as to uphold basic rights. But should an analogous approach be permissible in deciding the meaning of constitutional language? Although arguably invoked by the majority of the High Court in Mabo v Queensland [No 2] (1992) 175 CLR 1, in the context of declaring the common-law, so far this approach has not been accepted for constitutional elaboration in Australia. But should this be so in the age of global problems and internationalism?

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document