Resolving Business and Human Rights Disputes – Is Arbitration the Way to Go?

2020 ◽  
Vol 23 (3) ◽  
pp. 465-488
Author(s):  
Corina Vodă
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Business ◽  
Multinational Enterprises ◽  
National Level ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Public Consultation ◽  
Business And Human Rights ◽  
The Hague ◽  
Rights Arbitration ◽  
Default Rules

The insufficient level of protection afforded to human rights violations caused by business-related activities of multinational enterprises has recently begun to garner increased attention. On an intergovernmental level, the elaboration of an internationally binding treaty regulating the activities of transnational corporations is underway. States have also taken initiatives on a national level to reflect their commitment in implementing the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. In both respects, much work remains ahead. Against this background, a group of prominent lawyers have suggested the use of arbitration as an alternative venue for resolving business and human rights disputes. After a span over five years of concept elaboration, public consultation and drafting, the idea has materialised in the creation of the Hague Rules on Business and Human Rights Arbitration (the Hague Rules or Rules), which were officially launched on 12 December 2019. This paper aims to take stock of the proposed Rules and the context of their appearance and examine if arbitration is a suitable medium for resolving business-related human rights infringements. In doing so, it discusses the legal framework governing the confluence of business and human rights as well as the features which speak both in favor and against arbitration as a means of settling business-related human rights disputes. The provisions of the Hague Rules are addressed in detail, particularly where default rules where tailored to better respond to the needs of human rights disputes. The paper concludes with an assessment of arbitration’s potential to ensure protection and enforcement of human rights in international business and reflects whether the Rules are robust enough to empower victims in this endeavor.

International arbitration as a means to protect human rights: analysis of the Hague Rules on Business and Human Rights Arbitration

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 173-187
Author(s):  
Irina Artamonova
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Investment ◽  
International Arbitration ◽  
Commercial Activity ◽  
Foreign Investors ◽  
International Investment Law ◽  
Business And Human Rights ◽  
The Hague ◽  
Investment Law ◽  
Rights Arbitration

This article analyses the Hague Rules on Business and Human Rights Arbitration that were published in December 2019. The Hague Rules state how arbitration proceedings should resolve disputes arising from the influence of commercial activity in general on human rights. The purpose of the article is to assess the efficiency of the Hague Rules in settling such disputes by examining their features. The first part of the article studies the possibility of referring human rights disputes to international arbitration. In particular, the author examines the current practice of international investment tribunals and specifies the following situations where arbitrators deal with issues of human rights violations: to accept jurisdiction over counterclaims by host states against foreign investors; to interpret and provide guidance for establishing international investment law standards; to reasonably reduce the amount of compensation awarded to foreign investors in the event of violation by the host state. The author also emphasises that the application of the Hague Rules will enable tribunals to fully exercise their jurisdiction over human rights disputes and to examine such disputes on their merits. Having established the general possibility of referring human rights disputes to international arbitration, the author proceeds by analysing certain features of the Hague Rules, and then considering provisions on the importance of collaborative settlement mechanisms, special requirements to arbitrators, culturally appropriate arbitration proceedings, the possibility of bringing multiparty claims, enhanced requirements to the transparency of the arbitration proceedings and other issues. Finally, the author delves into certain challenges that may impede the practical application of the Hague Rules. In particular, such challenges may include: the fact that the Hague Rules do not solve the problem of the companies’ lack of obligations to protect human rights; the problem of enforcing awards taken in accordance with the Hague Rules; the hindered access of individuals to arbitration proceedings. Despite the above challenges, the author concludes that the Hague Rules may become a rather powerful instrument as an additional mechanism to resolve human rights disputes.

scholarly journals The Hague Rules on Business and Human Rights Arbitration

2020 ◽  
Vol 114 ◽  
pp. 149-155
Author(s):  
Ursula Kriebaum
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Dispute Resolution ◽  
Alternative Route ◽  
Human Rights Abuses ◽  
Business And Human Rights ◽  
The Hague ◽  
Rights Arbitration ◽  
The U.S ◽  
Alien Tort Statute

Let me start with the goals of the Hague Rules on Business and Human Rights Arbitration. The Business and Human Rights Arbitration Project dates back to 2013. In that year the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the Kiobel v. Shell case that the U.S. Alien Tort Statute of 1789 has no extraterritorial effect. It denied victims of human rights abuses by companies access to U.S. courts to obtain damages for alleged violations. As a consequence, the idea arose that arbitration could be used as an alternative route for dispute resolution available to corporations and rights holders to resolve their disputes in the business and human rights field.

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.

scholarly journals International business and human rights: A research agenda

2019 ◽  
Vol 54 (1) ◽  
pp. 54-65 ◽  
Author(s):  
Florian Wettstein ◽  
Elisa Giuliani ◽  
Grazia D. Santangelo ◽  
Günter K. Stahl
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Business ◽  
Research Agenda ◽  
Business And Human Rights

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document