Securing Human Rights Through Risk-Management Methods: Breakthrough or Misalignment?

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Radu Mares
Keyword(s):  
Author(s):  
Raphaël Gellert

The goal of this chapter is twofold. First, it provides a comprehensive overview of two key notions: risk and regulation. In the case of risk this includes the following. An explanation of risk and risk management, including an appraisal and description of the technical notion of risk as it appears in ISO Standards. It also provides for a discussion of some of the key methods for assessing and managing risks, including some of the main drawbacks and criticisms that have been raised against the use of risk management. In the case of regulation, it includes a more in-depth analysis of the notion, and of its constitutive elements; a discussion on the conflation between law and regulation; and a discussion on what exactly the object of regulation is. These discussions of key caveats pertaining to these two notions serve as the backbone of many of the analyses carried out in later chapters (e.g. understanding data protection in the light of the constitutive elements of regulation, discussing various methods for data protection risk management, etc). Second, beyond these caveats, this chapter also shows and contrasts how both risk and regulation can be analysed as a matter of two balancing exercises with associated safeguards, and hence, as variations around the proportionality principle. A grid at the end of the chapter summarises this, with reference to the European Convention on Human Rights proportionality test.


2015 ◽  
Vol 26 (2-4) ◽  
pp. 281-293
Author(s):  
Marieke Liem ◽  
Jan Maarten Elbers

In recent decades, the number of long-term detainees held worldwide has increased significantly. Academics and policy makers have begun to challenge the widespread use and effectiveness of such severe sentences, however. This article aims to shed light on the role of human rights in imposing and executing long-term custodial sentences. There appears to be tension between ensuring that human rights are respected and provision of security through the incapacitation of offenders. This tension can only be understood properly in the context of contemporary risk-management associated with increased punitiveness.


2012 ◽  
Vol 28 (1) ◽  
pp. 110-124 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kate Prebble ◽  
Kate Diesfeld ◽  
Rosemary Frey ◽  
Daniel Sutton ◽  
Michelle Honey ◽  
...  

2016 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 225-247 ◽  
Author(s):  
Björn FASTERLING

AbstractThe UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights endorse a risk management perspective of human rights due diligence, which may create ambiguities with regard to the nature of risk and the objectives of risk management. By ‘human rights risk’ we understand a business enterprise’s potential adverse human rights impacts. Human rights risk can be contrasted to an enterprise’s ‘social risk’ which refers to the actual and potential leverage that people or groups of people with a negative perception of corporate activity have on the business enterprise’s value.This article puts forward the argument that due diligence in respect of human rights risk is conceptually incompatible with the management of social risk, because social risk management and human rights due diligence vary at each step of the risk management process (risk identification, risk measurement and assessment, risk reduction measures). To resolve this incompatibility, an effective integration of human rights due diligence processes into corporate risk management systems would require an elevation of human rights respect to a corporate goal that determines corporate strategy.


2019 ◽  
Vol 32 (3) ◽  
pp. 517-535
Author(s):  
Radu Mares

AbstractThis is a study of three authoritative instruments that promote a common idea: economic activities and development should be conducted with respect for human rights. The World Bank Framework, the International Financial Corporation Performance Standards and the UN Guiding Principles on business and human rights are examined to get clarity on how human rights risk management differs from more conventional management approaches. The focus here is on prevention of human rights impacts. Do the three instruments employ approaches adequate for handling human rights risks? To understand prevention, one needs to reflect on what makes human rights a particular type of impact and account for the regulatory context of protecting human rights transnationally. The analysis identifies four ‘offsets’ through which economic decision-makers can distort their human rights performance and place causal observers at a disadvantage. Prevention becomes an issue of how to relate to ‘residual impacts’ on human rights. This article finds that the ‘hierarchy or mitigation’ and even ‘human rights due diligence’ under illuminate the challenge. The proposal here is to add ‘reduction at source’ as a parameter of human rights risk management. The sources for this analysis are the three instruments, and the practice of implementing organizations, particularly IFC projects, CAO cases, impact assessments, and CSR reports. In conclusion, the potential for cross-fertilization among instruments is genuine. Increased clarity on prevention of human rights impacts should assist economic decision-makers in their risk management task and casual observers in assessing their performance.


Author(s):  
Roger Brownsword

In a context of rapidly emerging technologies, this chapter considers the bearing of human dignity on the regulatory environment. It opens by suggesting that one of the reasons why moral communities are now debating human dignity with such intensity is because of concerns arising from the rapid development of novel biotechnologies. Next, it considers how far it is possible to satisfy ideals of regulatory coherence when the regulation of emerging technologies hinges on our divided understanding of human dignity. Thirdly, it identifies two threats to human dignity that are immanent in modern regulatory thinking. One threat is a risk-management mentality that marginalizes (and possibly excludes) moral considerations; and the other is an over-reliance on technological instruments such that the complexion of the regulatory environment denies humans the opportunity to express their dignity.


Author(s):  
J. Paul Narkunas

Reified Life: Speculative Capital and the Ahuman Condition addresses the most pressing political question of the 21st century: what forms of life are free and what forms are perceived legally and economically as surplus or expendable, human and otherwise. Reified Life theorizes the dangerous social implications of a posthuman future, whereby human agency is secondary to algorithmic processes, digital protocols, speculative financial instruments, and nonhuman market and technological forces. Narkunas contends that it is premature to speak of a posthuman or inhuman future, or employ an ‘ism, given how dynamic and contingent human practices and their material figurations can be. Over several chapters he diagnoses the rise of “market humans,” the instrumentalization of culture to decide the life worth living along utilitarian categories, and the varied ways human rights and humanitarianism actually throw members of the species like refugees outside the human order. Reified Life argues against posthumanist calls to abandon the human and humanism, and instead proposes the ahuman to think alongside the human. Reified Life elaborates speculative fictions as critical mechanisms for envisioning alternative futures and freedoms from the domineering forces of speculative capital, whose fictions have become our realities. Narkunas offers, to that end, a novel interpretation of the post-anthropocentric turn in the humanities by linking the diminished centrality of humanism to the waning dominion of nation-states over their populations and the intensification of financial capitalism, which reconfigures politics along economic categories of risk management.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document