Unpacking Accountability in Business and Human Rights: The Multinational Enterprise, the State, and the International Community

Author(s):  
Larry Catt Backer
Author(s):  
Matti Kohonen ◽  
Radhika Sarin ◽  
Troels Boerrild ◽  
Ewan Livingston

This chapter identifies several areas of convergence between the fields of tax policy and human rights. These include the concept of the corporation as a unitary entity; the notion of extraterritorial impacts and obligations of states and corporations; and the risks of corporate personhood. These principles are all highly relevant to corporations’ human rights due diligence and risk assessment of their tax policies. Applying a business and human rights perspective to international tax law can clarify responsibilities of companies toward their other stakeholders as well as their relationship with subsidiaries and business partners in terms of responsible tax conduct. The chapter then explores two dimensions of the human rights impacts of tax-related corporate decisions: impacts mediated by the state and impacts not mediated by the state.


Author(s):  
Allison Christians

This chapter explores the prospects for bringing legal claims seeking accountability for human rights harms due to tax policies and practices. There are a number of ways in which an individual may raise a claim that their rights have been violated in connection with taxation, each of which generally depends on some recognized relationship between the claimant and the person, entity, or institution being asked to remedy the perceived wrong. Meanwhile, there are at least three distinct kinds of relationships involving the state that could theoretically give rise to human rights claims in respect of tax. These three relationships are those among, first, individuals and their own states; second, individuals and foreign states; and, third, states among themselves as members of the international community. In each case, organizations may be formed to represent the interests of individuals, but at stake in all cases is the protection of individual rights.


2018 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 113-126
Author(s):  
André Luiz Olivier da Silva

Resumo: Neste trabalho analisam-se as exigências por direitos humanos enunciados a partir de uma perspectiva universal, segundo a qual esses direitos se constituem dentro de obrigações gerais e são válidos para todas as pessoas do mundo. Mas podemos falar em direitos humanos considerados gerais e absolutos mesmo quando não se consegue especificar o detentor e o destinatário dos direitos em uma relação obrigacional específica? Com base em um procedimento de observação e na explicitação de algumas exigências por direitos humanos no mundo contemporâneo, aborda-se a natureza dos direitos a partir da correlação obrigacional entre direitos e deveres, bem como a distinção entre direitos especiais e direitos gerais, destacando que os direitos humanos são reivindicados como direitos gerais e universais, embora não se possa afirmar que sejam universais em si mesmos. A hipótese  neste artigo é a de que os direitos humanos são reivindicados “como se” fossem “gerais” dentro de obrigações específicas, seja em um conflito entre cidadãos e o Estado, seja a partir das relações dos países na comunidade internacional. Quando não estão especificados em obrigações concretas, esses direitos apresentam dificuldades quanto à sua efetividade justamente porque não se consegue identificar e especificar sujeitos e destinatários – que não são exatamente o Estado ou o cidadão deste ou daquele país, mas, sim, a pessoa humana. Nesse sentido, ainda estamos longe do ideal de universalização dos direitos humanos na comunidade internacional, e esses direitos só podem ser exercidos quando incorporados a um ordenamento jurídico ou, ao menos, inseridos em práticas morais e sociais.Palavras-chave: Direitos humanos. Direitos gerais. Universalidade. Obrigações específicas. Abstract: This paper discusses the claims by human rights from a universal perspective, according to which human rights constitute general obligations and are valid for all people of the world. Can we talk about human rights considered general and valid for all human beings even when we can not specify the holder and the addressee of rights in a specific obligational relationship? Based on a procedure of observation and explanation of some claims for human rights in the contemporary world, this article aims to approach the nature of these rights from the obligational correlation between rights and duties, as well as the distinction between special rights and general rights, highlighting that human rights are claimed as general rights, emphasizing its “universal” character, although we can’t ensure that these rights are universal in themselves. Our hypothesis is that human rights are claimed “as if” they were “general” within specific obligations, whether in a conflict between citizens and the state, as based on the relations of countries in the international community. When not specified in concrete obligations, human rights have doubts as to its effectiveness precisely because it is not easy to identify and specify recipients and subject of rights – which are not exactly state or country, but rather the human person. In this sense, we are still far from the ideal of universal human rights in the international community, and these rights may be exercised only when incorporated into a law, or at least, embedded in moral and social practices.Keywords: Human Rights. General rights. Universality. Specific obligations.


2021 ◽  
Vol 117 (4) ◽  
pp. 4-16
Author(s):  
HONCHAROVA Yuliia ◽  
UDOVENKO Maksym

Background. The legal status of TNCs in international law has become a separate topic of scientific discussions, which, among other things, concerned the influence of TNCs on the sovereignty of states. Digitalization, globalization and modern imperatives of formation of global value chains actualize the subject of relations between the international community and TNCs, which requires retrospective analysis, separation and substantiation of certain stages of formation of such relations. An analysis of recent research and publications has revealed that a comprehensive analysis of the evolution of international legal regulation of TNCs through the prism of the priorities of the international community has not been conducted, which determines the relevance of the study. The aim of the article is to analyze the genesis of the relationship between TNCs and the international community through the prism of the priorities of the international community at certain historical stages. Materials and methods. The normative basis of the study were UN documents, decisions of the UN International Court of Justice. The methodological basis of the study is general scientific and special legal methods of cognition. Results. The existing definitions of the terms «transnational corporation», «multinational enterprise», «multinational corporation», «global corporation», «group of multinational companies» in various documents of international law are considered. The genesis of the formation of international legal norms on the activities of transnational corporations is analyzed, the priorities of the international community in certain historical periods are highlighted. Key tasks for regulating the activities of transnational corporations are forecasted. Conclusion. The phenomenon of TNCs remains one of the imperatives in the development of international law and the subject of activity of international governmental and non-governmental organizations. It is established that the priorities of the international community are gradually changing in the direction of complexity - from the purely socio-economic situation in developing countries to the role of TNCs in achieving the Sustainable Development Goals, with special focus on protection of human rights in the activities of TNCs. Keywords: transnational corporation, human rights, United Nations, corporate responsibility.


2020 ◽  
Vol 14 (3) ◽  
pp. 69-89
Author(s):  
Anna Plunkett

Myanmar has a history of state sanctioned violence against its own people. However, as the regime transition occurs the methods of conducting such violence have also changed. This has not led to an end to violence but an alteration in the methods used by the state. What can be identified is the use of democratic regime transition to legitimise the state’s actions whilst delegitimising the plight of communities that have historically resisted the state. By engaging in the minimal standards of democratic practice whilst developing relations with the international community on the basis of trade, Myanmar has been able to create a protective layering system for its continued human rights abuses within its borderlands. This paper will analyse how Myanmar has effectively coopted the international community into ignoring the continuation of human rights abuses by creating an effectives market for its valuable resources. It will focus on the cases in Karen and Kachin State, two sub-regions within Myanmar that have experienced prolonged conflict and where human rights abuses continue with little oversight from the international community.


2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 179-199 ◽  
Author(s):  
Beate SJÅFJELL

AbstractThis article discusses three questions. First, what drives business to ignore human rights, or even worse, consciously undermine the achievement of human rights? Second, given the state of affairs of business and human rights, why is there not a quick regulatory fix to the problems that we see? Third, in light of the failure of business and of regulation so far, what can be done? The article posits that reform of company law is key to ensuring business respect for human rights, as an intrinsic element of the transition to sustainability. The article outlines how company law can facilitate sustainable business. It concludes with some reflections on the drivers for change that make it possible to envisage that the necessary reform of company law will be enacted.


1970 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Irene Watson

The foundation of the Australian colonial project lies within an ‘originary violence’, in which the state retains a vested interest in maintaining the founding order of things. Inequalities and iniquities are maintained for the purpose of sustaining the life and continuity of the state. The Australian state, founder of a violent (dis)order is called upon by the international community to conform and uphold ‘human rights’, but what does this call to conformity require, particularly when the call comes from states which are also founded upon colonial violence? This article argumes that very little is required beyond the masquerade that ‘equality’ for Aboriginal peoples is an on-going project of the state. So for what purpose does the masquerade continue?


Author(s):  
Nika Arevadze

Public procurement represents a significant part of the global economy and influencesthe nature and quality of public goods and services. Consequently, it has substantial direct and indirectlinks with the human rights of a wide array of rightsholders. However, public procurement systemsrarely reflect these links and remain resistant to calls on human rights integration from internationalorganizations and academic scholarship. While this divergence is often discussed, the root governance issues that create the gap between public procurement and human rights and contribute to the lackof progress remain relatively unexplored. This paper investigates a prevalent governance issue inpublic procurement – political favouritist corruption schemes – and their role in the paradoxical lackof progress in aligning public procurement systems with human rights requirements. Through theanalysis of primary and secondary sources, the paper demonstrates the links between such corruptpractices and prevalent human rights issues in public procurement. It argues that by underminingpublic procurement systems, political favouritism jeopardizes primary economic and secondarysocial objectives of procurement and brings about adverse human rights impacts. These impactsharm civil and political, as well as economic, social and cultural human rights in national contextsand obstruct the development at large. Moreover, this corrupt arrangement represents a roadblockfor promoting human rights integration in public procurement and, hence, hampers the progressfor the novel approach of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights in general, andits provisions concerning the state-business nexus in particular. The paper concludes by outliningthe need for further interdisciplinary and empirical research which will explore this issue throughthe lens of business and human rights, and offer a systemic analysis of root causes, the state of playand potential solutions.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document