The EU’s engagement with business on human rights

2020 ◽  
pp. 312-342
Author(s):  
Mary E Footer
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Turn Of The Millennium ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Human Rights Protection ◽  
Rights Protection ◽  
Business And Human Rights ◽  
Labour Standards ◽  
European Business ◽  
Corporate Social ◽  
The Impact

Since the turn of the millennium, the European Union (EU) has sought to advance its policies on business and human rights with the aim of achieving specific outcomes on human rights protection, core labour standards, and a better alignment of European and global approaches to Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). At the heart of this endeavour lies the European Commission’s renewed strategy for CSR in its 2011 Communication. This chapter critically analyses the impact of the EU’s re-calibration of its CSR policy to allow for the fuller engagement of European business with human rights on the internal and external plane. The EU has sought to develop a ‘smart mix’ of voluntary policy measures and complementary regulatory initiatives to achieve its aims. Consequently, it has made considerable progress towards embedding business and human rights in European law and policy. However, it continues to face challenges due to its lack of competence along the whole spectrum of business-related human rights, and the transversal character of EU policy, which elicits a multidimensional response to implementation, involving a plethora of actors from government, business, and civil society.

Drafting an International Legally Binding Instrument on Business and Human Rights

2021 ◽  
Vol 23 (5) ◽  
pp. 466-485
Author(s):  
Elżbieta Karska
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
Human Rights Violations ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Human Rights Protection ◽  
Rights Protection ◽  
Business And Human Rights ◽  
Legal Grounds

Abstract This article deals with the process of creating a convention in the field of human rights, the working name of which is the ‘International Legally Binding Instrument on Business and Human Rights’. The author analyses the existing legal grounds for the responsibility of business for human rights violations in international law. She has assessed non-binding instruments, leading her to draw the conclusion that mechanisms strengthening protection are required in human rights protection law. The process of the creation of a new convention itself is subjected to an in-depth review. A special place is given to the issue of the position of a victim of human rights violations committed as a result of the activity of transnational enterprises, the rights of the victims of such violations and the mechanisms of international cooperation in the combatting thereof. In the conclusion the author states that human rights require actions that move beyond existing divisions, and that the work of the intergovernmental group led by Ecuador should be seriously supported by the European Union and the United States.

Business and Human Rights – Recent Trends in Germany

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 63-72
Author(s):  
Marlen Vesper-Gräske
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Legal Status ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Human Rights Protection ◽  
The Public ◽  
Legislative Action ◽  
Business And Human Rights ◽  
Key Points ◽  
Recent Trends ◽  
Corporate Social

There is an undeniable, growing trend in the current Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) discussions: the responsibility of corporations to abide by and to protect human rights. This discussion includes potential criminal liability for corporations as well as their management for human rights violations. This article will survey the legal status quo of corporate responsibility in the context of human rights protection in Germany. It will then outline two drafts of legislation: a first draft leaked to the press in February 2019 that did not result in further legislative action, and a second draft recently leaked to the public that included key points for such a legislation to become the new German Human Rights Supply Chain Due Diligence Law.

Australian Bills of Rights and the ‘New Commonwealth Model of Constitutionalism’

2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Simon Evans ◽  
Julia Watson
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
High Court ◽  
Human Rights Protection ◽  
Rights Protection ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
Key Features ◽  
The Uk ◽  
High Court Of Australia ◽  
The Impact

This chapter examines the influence of the new Commonwealth model of human rights protection (exemplified by the UK Human Rights Act 1998) on the form of the two Australian statutory Bills of Rights, and then considers the impact of Australia's distinctive legal culture and constitutional structure on the operation of these instruments. In particular, it examines the impact of culture and structure in the decision of the High Court of Australia in R. v Momcilovic [2011] HCA 34; (2011) 280 A.L.R. As a result of that case, key features of the Australian Bills of Rights now diverge from the dominant UK approach, a divergence so striking that it may no longer be possible to identify the Australian Bills of Rights as exemplars of the new Commonwealth model.

The EU’s engagement with foreign powers on human rights

2020 ◽  
pp. 265-292
Author(s):  
Francisca Costa Reis ◽  
Weiyuan Gao ◽  
Vineet Hegde
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Lisbon Treaty ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Human Rights Protection ◽  
Rights Protection ◽  
Cohesive Group ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Economic Partnership ◽  
Set Up ◽  
The Eu

With a mandate under the Lisbon Treaty, the European Union (EU) has been engaging with foreign powers like Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa (BRICS) nations on human rights issues. Despite the common and shared goals, the BRICS set-up is not institutionalised, which prompts the EU to engage with each country on a bilateral basis. Such collaborations have occurred in bilateral dialogues, multilateral fora, through developmental assistance, and negotiations in economic partnership agreements. The scope and content of the discussions and cooperation vary due to the difference in the political structures of the countries. While the EU and the BRICS may share some common goals politically and economically, pursuing shared objectives related to democracy and human rights promotion remains challenging. These countries may believe in human rights protection, but the understandings and the approaches vary drastically, as visible when issues of sovereignty and non-intervention are raised to resist comprehensive discussions. Although the BRICS are emerging as an interconnected group and have begun to cooperate more closely in multilateral fora, the EU may also have to consider dealing with it in its institutional capacity. It could be more challenging to fulfill the mandate of the Lisbon Treaty for the EU while dealing with this cohesive group that has different understandings on human rights protection within their own states.

scholarly journals U.S. Multinationals and Human Rights: A Theoretical and Empirical Assessment of Extractive Versus Nonextractive Sectors

2020 ◽  
pp. 000765032092897
Author(s):  
Krishna Chaitanya Vadlamannati ◽  
Nicole Janz ◽  
Indra de Soysa
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Multinational Corporations ◽  
Status Quo Bias ◽  
Democratic Institutions ◽  
Host Countries ◽  
Human Rights Protection ◽  
Rights Protection ◽  
Human Rights Abuse ◽  
Negative Impacts ◽  
The Impact

The consequences of foreign direct investment (FDI) for human rights protection are poorly understood. We propose that the impact of FDI varies across industries. In particular, extractive firms in the oil and mining industries go where the resources are located and are bound to such investment, which creates a status quo bias among them when it comes to supporting repressive rulers (“ location-bound effect”). The same is not true for nonextractive multinational corporations (MNCs) in manufacturing or services, which can, in comparison, exit problematic countries more easily. We also propose that strong democratic institutions can alleviate negative impacts of extractive FDI on human rights (“ democratic safeguard effect”). Using U.S. FDI broken up into extractive and nonextractive industries in 157 host countries (1999–2015), we find support for these propositions.1 Extractive FDI is associated with more human rights abuse, but nonextractive FDI is associated with less abuse, after controlling for other factors, including concerns about endogeneity. We find also that the negative human rights impact of extractive FDI vanishes in countries where democratic institutions are stronger. Our results are robust to a range of alternative estimation techniques.

Out of Sight, Out of Mind: Post-return Monitoring – A Missing Link in the International Protection of Refugees?

2019 ◽  
Vol 38 (4) ◽  
pp. 363-386
Author(s):  
Jari Pirjola
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Asylum Seekers ◽  
The European Union ◽  
International Protection ◽  
Missing Link ◽  
Return Policies ◽  
Human Rights Protection ◽  
Rights Protection ◽  
Irregular Migrants ◽  
Refugees And Asylum Seekers

Abstract Post-return monitoring of rejected asylum-seekers is the missing link in the protection chain for rejected asylum-seekers. In the European Union, for example, the rights of rejected asylum-seekers are well guaranteed and monitored in the pre-return and return phases. Systematic monitoring of forced returns stops when the deportee arrives at the airport of his or her country of origin. The sending countries do not know what happens to rejected asylum-seekers and irregular migrants upon return. International human rights organisations have started to pay attention to this gap in the international protection system. Ignorance by States in this regard deprives them of important insights from the viewpoint of human rights protection and return policies. This article explores what comprises post-return monitoring, what kinds of post-return monitoring projects have been carried out so far and how post-return monitoring could be implemented in the future. The article also discusses the role of post-return monitoring in the refugee determination procedure. It is argued that post-return monitoring could both strengthen the protection of refugees and asylum-seekers and assist States in creating effective, transparent, and morally responsible return policies.

“Not Taking Rights Seriously”. Opting for the Primacy of eu Law over Broader Human Rights Protection

2015 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 277-302
Author(s):  
Fisnik Korenica ◽  
Dren Doli
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Human Rights Protection ◽  
Rights Protection ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Charter Of Fundamental Rights ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
The Relationship

The European Union (eu) accession to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (echr) has been a hot topic in the European legal discourse in this decade. Ruling on the compliance of the Draft Agreement on eu accession to the echr with the eu Treaties, the Court of Justice of the eu (cjeu) came up with a rather controversial Opinion. It ruled that the Draft Agreement is incompliant with the eu Treaties in several respects. One of the core concerns in Opinion 2/13 relates to the management of horizontal relationship between the eu Charter of Fundamental Rights (ChFR) and echr, namely Article 53 ChFR and Article 53 echr. The article examines the Opinion 2/13’s specific concerns on the relationship between Article 53 ChFR and Article 53 echr from a post-accession perspective. It starts by considering the question of the two 53s’ relationship from the eu-law autonomy viewpoint, indicating the main gaps that may present a danger to the latter. While questioning from a number of perspectives the plausibility of the cjeu’s arguments in relation to the two 53s, the article argues that the Court was both controversial and argued against itself when it drew harshly upon these concerns. The article also presents three options to address the cjeu’s requirements on this issue. The article concludes that the cjeu’s statements on the two 53s will seriously hurt the accession project, while critically limiting the possibility of Member States to provide broader protection.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document