scholarly journals The Emergence of International Standards

2020 ◽  
pp. 69-139
Author(s):  
Elisa Morgera
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Multinational Enterprises ◽  
Performance Standards ◽  
Transnational Corporations ◽  
International Standards ◽  
Un Global Compact ◽  
Accountability Standards ◽  
Progressive Development ◽  
Business And Human Rights ◽  
Rules And Principles

This chapter provides a short theoretical discussion on the role of standards, as opposed to rules and principles, in the progressive development of international law. The chapter also assesses the conceptual and legal relevance of each initiative, namely: the UN draft Code of Conduct on Transnational Corporations, the UN Global Compact, the UN Norms on the Responsibilities of Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises with regard to Human Rights, the influential UN Framework on Business and Human Rights and its Guiding Principles, the Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development and the Performance Standards of the International Finance Corporation. The chapter discusses the different conceptual approaches taken by these initiatives and assesses the extent to which current human rights-based approaches have built upon the earlier consolidation of international corporate environmental accountability standards and the extent to which they contribute to further detailing these standards.

scholarly journals THE ROLE OF NATIONAL ACTION PLANS IN IMPLEMENTATION OF INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS IN BUSINESS AND HUMAN RIGHTS

2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (6) ◽  
Author(s):  
Adel I. Abdullin ◽  
Alexey A. Sinyavskiy
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Transnational Corporations ◽  
International Standards ◽  
Action Plans ◽  
Legal Personality ◽  
Business And Human Rights ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
Guiding Principles ◽  
International Legal Personality

"Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights” are the first universally recognized global international standard in the field of human rights and business. In accordance with them, transnational corporations and other enterprises are obliged to comply with the national laws of states and respect internationally recognized human rights while carrying out their business activities. On 16 June 2011, the Human Rights Council unanimously endorsed the Guidelines in its resolution 17/4, “Human Rights and Transnational Corporations and Other Enterprises,” setting a universal standard for protecting human rights from the adverse effects of transnational corporations and other enterprises. However, in accordance with the doctrine of international law, corporations do not have an international legal personality and their obligations to respect human rights are only voluntary in nature, and therefore, the main obligation to ensure the protection of human rights lies with states. One of the ways to implement international standards in the field of business and human rights in practice is the development by States of National Action Plans. This paper is devoted, firstly, to a summary of the main ideas of the “Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights” as an international legal standard in the field of human rights. Secondly, to consider the role of National Action Plans in the implementation of the Guidelines in EU countries. Thirdly, a review of existing practices for the implementation of these principles by EU states using National Action Plans

Contributory Fault under International Law: A Gateway for Human Rights in ISDS?

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Farouk El-Hosseny ◽  
Patrick Devine
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Multinational Enterprises ◽  
Indigenous Rights ◽  
Business And Human Rights ◽  
Investment Treaty ◽  
Recent Developments ◽  
The Government ◽  
Bear Creek ◽  
Shed Light

Abstract The intersection between foreign investment and human rights is gaining attention, as is evident from an increasing number of investment treaty awards analysing legal issues relating to human rights. In the recent International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) arbitration of Bear Creek v Peru, Philippe Sands QC posited, in a dissenting opinion, that the investor’s contribution to events—ie protests against its allegedly adverse environmental impact and disregard of indigenous rights, namely resulting from its ‘inability to obtain a “social licence”’—which led to the unlawful expropriation of its investment, was ‘significant and material’. He further noted that the investor’s ‘responsibilities are no less than those of the government’ and found that damages should thus be reduced. Last year, the Netherlands adopted a new model bilateral investment treaty (BIT), which allows tribunals to ‘take into account non-compliance by the investor with the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights and the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises’ when assessing damages. These recent developments shed light on how states and tribunals, as part of their decision-making process, can take into account human rights in practice, and crucially in respect of damages analyses. By first dissecting the concept of contributory fault, then shedding light on the intersection of investment treaty law and human rights, as elucidated in recent jurisprudence, this article questions whether there now exists a gateway for human rights obligations (soft or hard) in the investment treaty arbitration realm through the concept of contributory fault.

From a Stark Utopia to Everyday Utopias

2018 ◽  
Vol 60 (1) ◽  
pp. 575-606
Author(s):  
Michelle Staggs Kelsall
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
United Nations ◽  
Transnational Corporations ◽  
Public Domain ◽  
Due Diligence ◽  
Karl Polanyi ◽  
Business And Human Rights ◽  
Human Rights Council ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
Human Rights Due Diligence

This article considers the emergence of the Business and Human Rights agenda at the United Nations (UN). It argues that the agenda can be seen as an example of the UN Human Rights Council attempting to institutionalise everyday utopias within an emerging global public domain. Utilising the concept of embedded pragmatism and tracing the underlying rationale for the emergence of the agenda to the work of Karl Polanyi, the article argues that the Business and Human Rights agenda seeks to institutionalise human rights due diligence processes within transnational corporations in order to create a pragmatic alternative to the stark utopia of laissez-faire liberal markets. It then provides an analytical account of the implications of human rights due diligence for the modes and techniques business utilises to assess human rights harm. It argues that due to the constraints imposed by the concept of embedded pragmatism and the normative indeterminacy of human rights, the Business and Human Rights agenda risks instituting human rights within the corporation through modes and techniques that maintain human rights as a language of crisis, rather than creating the space for novel, everyday utopias to emerge.

Promoting Business and Human Rights Education: Lessons from Colombia, Ukraine and Pakistan

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-9
Author(s):  
Anthony EWING
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Western Europe ◽  
Academic Discipline ◽  
Business Case ◽  
International Standards ◽  
Corporate Accountability ◽  
Course Content ◽  
Business And Human Rights ◽  
Training Programmes ◽  
University Settings

Business and human rights (BHR) has been taught as an academic discipline and field of practice for thirty years.1 Since the first courses at business schools, law schools, and schools of public policy in North America and Western Europe, BHR curricula have proliferated worldwide. BHR course content has expanded to include new international standards, such as the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs); tools for corporate accountability; 2 and examples from the growing body of corporate BHR practice. BHR pedagogy has evolved to embrace multidisciplinary teaching techniques, from business case studies to legal drafting exercises and experiential role plays.3 BHR teaching is taking place in every region, from Africa and Asia to the Middle East and Latin America. Over 350 individuals teach the subject in some form at more than 200 institutions in 45 countries.4 More than 100 universities have added BHR courses to their curricula in the past decade alone. BHR is also taught outside traditional university settings in dedicated workshops and training programmes for professionals, academics and students.5

Regolazione internazionale e responsabilitŕ globale delle imprese transnazionali

2009 ◽  
pp. 229-258
Author(s):  
Fabrizio Marrella
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Global Financial Crisis ◽  
Holistic Approach ◽  
Transnational Corporations ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Global Scale ◽  
State Control ◽  
Business And Human Rights ◽  
The Global Financial Crisis

- In recent years and before the global financial crisis, international law has struggled to regulate the activity of transnational corporations since the latter have greatly expanded their capacity for action on a global scale. Despite numerous efforts by the International Community to agree on a hard law international legal framework, the soft law process has been the primary arena for the regulation of transnational corporations and human rights. In addition, host state control, home state control and international responsibility of directors and companies itself have so far remained the fundamental avenues through which issues of global corporate responsibility have been assessed. ‘Contractualisation' of human rights has also been viewed as a further avenue to control the human rights impact of corporate activity. The UN Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises has generated an impressive stock of report capitalizing on issues well known in specialised international economic law literature. He is raising global awareness and institutionalizing new paradigms of understanding the complex relationship between business and human rights: a matter of vital importance for this century. The work of the UN Special Representative constitutes therefore a step forward towards an holistic approach of contemporary international law.

Part III The Social Dimension, 14 Human Rights

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Muchlinski Peter T
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Civil Rights ◽  
Multinational Enterprises ◽  
Social Dimension ◽  
Human Rights Violations ◽  
State Action ◽  
Business And Human Rights ◽  
Human Rights Council ◽  
The Social ◽  
Corporate Social

This chapter evaluates another element of corporate social responsibility (CSR) applicable to multinational enterprises (MNEs): human rights. Historically, human rights have been used by corporations to protect their vital interests against state action, leading to human/civil rights protections for corporations. The chapter focuses on how far MNEs, and other business actors, should be responsible for human rights violations. This has been significantly influenced by the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs), endorsed in June of 2011 by the UN Human Rights Council, which implement the UN ‘Protect, Respect and Remedy’ framework. The UNGPs have created a framework for business and human rights that covers three pillars: the state duty to protect human rights, the corporate responsibility to respect human rights and access to remedy. The chapter then traces the development of concern for business and human rights, and discusses the justifications for holding businesses accountable for human rights violations, the establishment of business and human rights on the agenda of the UN and the principal areas in which business violations of human rights arise.

The Inter-American Court of Human Rights and Multinational Enterprises: Towards Business and Human Rights in the Americas?

2017 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. 437-463 ◽  
Author(s):  
María Carmelina Londoño-Lázaro ◽  
Ulf Thoene ◽  
Catherine Pereira-Villa
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Multinational Enterprises ◽  
Qualitative Data ◽  
Benefit Sharing ◽  
Soft Law ◽  
Due Diligence ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
Business And Human Rights

Abstract This article analyses the role of the jurisprudence of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR) within a business and human rights framework. A qualitative data analysis of cases on multinational enterprises (mnes) identifies the following: that the obligations the IACtHR places upon States explicitly contemplate soft law instruments, such as the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights; and that there exist shared obligations with companies and attempts to regulate mne conduct by establishing conditions for due diligence, such as prior consultation, benefit-sharing and reparation measures for affected communities. Therefore, IACtHR rulings may contribute to the rule of law in so far as they have normative effects on member States, but they can also prove to be ineffective given the nature of corporate conduct and certain non-enforceable responsibilities.

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’.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document