Reflection on the State`s Positive Duty to Protect after the Endorsement of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights

2018 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 83-112
Author(s):  
Eun Ju Jeong
2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (1) ◽  
pp. 177 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sara L Seck

This paper will consider whether the polycentric governance approach of the 2011 United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights has the potential to achieve the goal of transnational corporate compliance with human rights responsibilities including, importantly, the goal of access to remedy and justice for those who have been harmed. The paper was initially written as a contribution to a conference at the University of Windsor entitled Justice Beyond the State: Transnationalism and Law. First, the paper examines understandings of “citizenship” and “non-citizenship” in relation to transnational corporate [TNC] accountability in the human rights context. Two distinct perspectives are explored: first, TNC citizenship and non-citizenship and the rights and responsibilities that flow from these; and second, citizenship and non-citizenship of victims of human rights violations in relation to rights of access to remedy. Together, these insights inform an understanding of the role that transnational law and legal pluralism beyond the state could serve in facilitating remedy for human rights violations. Specifically, the paper will conclude with reflections on what might be required for implementation of the UN Guiding Principles to achieve the goal of transnational corporate compliance and access to remedy for victims of rights violations. Le présent document examinera si l’approche polycentrique en matière de gouvernance adoptée par les Principes directeurs relatifs aux entreprises et aux droits de l’homme, publiés par les Nations Unies en 2011, peut permettre de réaliser l’objectif de la conformité transnationale des entreprises aux responsabilités en matière de droits de la personne, notamment et surtout l’objectif de l’accès aux recours et à la justice pour les parties lésées. Au départ, le document avait été rédigé à titre de contribution à une conférence à l’Université de Windsor intitulée Justice Beyond the State: Transnationalism and Law. Le document se penche tout d’abord sur la compréhension des termes « citoyenneté » et « non-citoyenneté » en ce qui concerne la responsabilité transnationale des entreprises dans le contexte des droits de la personne. Deux perspectives distinctes sont étudiées : premièrement, la citoyenneté et la non-citoyenneté transnationales des entreprises et les droits et responsabilités qui en découlent; deuxièmement, la citoyenneté et la non-citoyenneté des victimes de violations des droits de la personne par rapport aux droits d’accès aux recours. Ensemble, ces perspectives éclairent une compréhension du rôle que le droit transnational et le pluralisme juridique au-delà de l’État pourraient jouer pour faciliter les recours en cas de violation des droits de la personne. En particulier, le document présentera en conclusion des réflexions sur ce qui pourrait être requis pour mettre en œuvre les Principes directeurs des Nations Unies de manière à réaliser l’objectif de la conformité transnationale des entreprises et de l’accès aux recours pour les personnes dont les droits ont été violés


Author(s):  
Alvise Favotto ◽  
Kelly Kollman

AbstractThe adoption of the Guiding Principles for Business and Human Rights by the United Nations (UNGPs) in 2011 created a new governance instrument aimed at improving the promotion of human rights by business enterprises. While reaffirming states duties to uphold human rights in law, the UNGPs called on firms to promote the realization of human rights within global markets. The UNGPs thus have sought to embed human rights more firmly within the field of corporate social responsibility (CSR) and to use CSR practices to improve corporate human rights accountability. In this paper, we explore how this incorporation of human rights into the CSR field has affected the business practices and public commitments British firms have made to promote human rights. We analyse the CSR reports published by the 50 largest British firms over a 20-year period starting in the late 1990s and interview senior CSR managers of these firms. We find that these firms have expanded how they articulate their responsibility for human rights over time. These commitments however remain largely focused on improving management practices such as due diligence and remediation procedures. Firms are often both vague and selective about which substantive human rights they engage with in light of their concerns about their market competitiveness and broader legitimacy. These outcomes suggest that, while firms cannot completely resist the normative pressures exerted by the CSR field, they retain significant resources and agency in translating such pressure into concrete practices.


2017 ◽  
Vol 40 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Radha Ivory ◽  
Anna John

Allegations of extraterritorial corporate misconduct illustrate the global dimensions of Australia’s challenge to implement the United Nations (‘UN’) Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (‘Guiding Principles’).In the mid-1990s, companies in the BHP Billiton group faced claims that they had polluted a river in Papua New Guinea, thereby causing damage to the customary lands and livelihoods of Indigenous Peoples.Less than a decade later, the Australian Federal Police commenced a criminal investigation against an Australian-Canadian joint venture for alleged support of government violence in the Democratic Republic of Congo.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document