Search

This paper analyses five constitutional developments in Central and Eastern Europe that can impact the domestic implementation of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs). Using Czechia, Poland and Slovenia as examples, the paper highlights four potential drivers, namely: (1) the process of constitutionalizing human rights; (2) the proliferation of the doctrine of horizontal effect of constitutional rights; (3) the constitutional legitimacy of state intervention in the free market economy; and (4) the mechanism of judicial review. Furthermore, the author underlines the most significant challenge, which is increasing resistance to international norms in some countries, e.g., Poland. The paper concludes that the jurisprudence of the constitutional courts can facilitate the domestic implementation of the UNGPs, particularly Pillars I (State duty to protect human rights) and III (access to remedy). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There has been a recent resurgence in scholarly work concerned with the economics of human rights. This article builds on this work to develop a conceptual framework of human rights and political economy. It provides a theoretical basis for the turn to human rights and economics, rooted in the increasing micro-management of the economy by liberal states that can constitute the state planning of material distribution within the state. It demonstrates that human rights principles do apply to economic questions and elaborates methods and practices to realize the potential of rights in this arena. The article applies these methods and conceptualizations to state obligations and business responsibilities to excavate current limits and potentials of rights and contextualizes the project within left critiques of rights and “claim right” perspectives.

In this article, we apply the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights to the private equity (PE) business model. PE firms often adopt a controversial, ‘value extractive’, business model based on high debt and extreme cost-cutting to generate investor returns. PE firms own large numbers of companies, including in many rights-related sectors. The model is linked to increased human rights risks to workers, housing tenants, and in privatized health and social care. We map these risks and analyse the human rights responsibilities of PE firms. Our analysis has major implications for understandings of human rights responsibility. We argue that value extractive methods are the root cause of eventual harm to human rights, even though they may not harm rights directly. To respect human rights, PE firms must mitigate the risks of these value extractive methods. We define how human rights due diligence (HRDD) could achieve this and argue that given the extent of harm and the lack of a business case for adopting such a view of human rights responsibility, business strategy level HRDD should be a core component of forthcoming HRDD laws. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article presents an empirical study of six grievance mechanisms in multi-stakeholder initiatives (MSIs). It argues that key characteristics of each grievance mechanism as well as the contexts in which they operate significantly affect human rights outcomes. However, even the most successful mechanisms only manage to produce remedies in particular types of cases and contexts. The research also finds that it is prohibitively difficult to determine whether 'effective' remedy has been achieved in individual cases. Furthermore, the key intervention by the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs), to prescribe a set of effectiveness criteria for designing or revising MSI grievance mechanisms, itself appears ineffective in stimulating better outcomes for rights-holders. Drawing on these findings, the article reflects on the future potential and limitations of MSI grievance mechanisms within broader struggles to ensure business respect for human rights. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper critically investigates the implementation of the UN guiding principles on business and human rights (UNGPs) into the corporate setting through the concept of 'translation'. In the decade since the creation of the UNGPs, little academic research has focussed specifically on the corporate implementation of human rights. Drawing on qualitative case studies of two multinational corporations—an oil and gas company and a bank—this paper unpacks how human rights are translated into the corporate context. In doing so, the paper focuses on the "resonance dilemma" translators encounter, the strategies used to make human rights understandable and palatable, and the difficulties that emerge from this process. We contend that the process of making human rights understandable and manageable can change their form and content, which may act as an obstacle to human rights realisation and corporate accountability for human rights. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There has been a recent resurgence in scholarly work concerned with the economics of human rights. This article builds on this work to develop a conceptual framework of human rights and political economy. It provides a theoretical basis for the turn to human rights and economics, rooted in the increasing micro-management of the economy by liberal states that can constitute the state planning of material distribution within the state. It demonstrates that human rights principles do apply to economic questions and elaborates methods and practices to realize the potential of rights in this arena. The article applies these methods and conceptualizations to state obligations and business responsibilities to excavate current limits and potentials of rights and contextualizes the project within left critiques of rights and “claim right” perspectives.

This column analyses the current process in the UN Human Rights Council to negotiate an international legally binding instrument to regulate, in international human rights law, the activities of transnational corporations and other business enterprises. It does so in the context of two previous attempts at the UN level to adopt binding rules for (multinational) corporations and the continued inability of international soft standards as well as hard rules at the national level in States in ensuring that businesses take their human rights responsibilities seriously. It is argued that an international treaty is desirable as part of a regulatory ecosystem to promote respect of human rights by business enterprises and to strengthen corporate accountability for human rights abuses. While the treaty should build on and complement the existing international soft standards, it should also try to fill some of the regulatory gaps that these standards might not ever be able to fill. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although the fusion energy sector is at a nascent stage, the private fusion energy market has grown. There are currently 38 private fusion energy companies around the world aiming to commercialize fusion energy technologies in early 2030s and 2040s. Given the capability of fusion energy in transforming today's energy paradigm and the global character of the market, it is important to analyze how these companies are interacting with international human rights standards. Therefore, this work investigates the involvement of the private fusion energy sector with two voluntary international initiatives in particular: the UN Global Compact and the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGP). This study attempts to answer two research questions: (i) Are private fusion energy companies participating in the UN Global Compact? (ii) How are private fusion energy companies publicly implementing the UNGP? Content analysis of secondary data collected from the UN Global Compact, Fusion Industry Association, ITER and companies' official websites as well as published reports is adopted. In summary, this work finds that private fusion energy companies are neither participants nor signatories of the UN Global Compact. Their observance of the UNGP is also very poor. This study contributes to the field by highlighting this gap which the private fusion energy companies need to consider and take measures towards, in order to create a salutary human rights sector. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Since the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs) were adopted by the UN Human Rights Council in 2011, they have diffused into policy frameworks, laws, and regulations across the globe. This special issue seeks to advance the interdisciplinary field of human rights research by examining key elements of the emerging transnational regime for the regulation of business and human rights. In seven original contributions, scholars from political science, law, accounting, and philosophy critically reflect on the theoretical foundations of the UNGPs, they analyze the effectiveness of implementation mechanisms and current regulatory practice, and they advance proposals for the future development of the business and human rights regime. In this introduction, we prepare the ground for these analyses, proceeding in three steps. Firstly, we argue that the adoption of the UNGPs has triggered a norm cascade which requires a distinctive, empirically oriented research agenda focusing on the scope, governance, and effectiveness of corporate human rights accountability norms and instruments. Secondly, we explain how the articles in this special issue contribute to that research agenda by addressing these themes. Thirdly, we provide an overview of the individual contributions and point out avenues for future research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article traces the adverse human rights impacts of business responses to COVID-19 in the garment sector to long-standing systemic problems in global supply chain management. It scrutinises attempts by States and business enterprises in Europe to address these adverse impacts in the light of the ongoing implementation of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. The article discerns a shift in the European legal and policy framework from early attempts to promote corporate social responsibility to more recent modalities of home state regulation of corporations. In response to concerns that the EU's regulatory turn in business and human rights may exhaust itself in perpetuating economic imperialism and market hegemony, the article highlights the importance of ensuring access to judicial remedies for foreign victims of business-related human rights violations; and of grounding unilateral home state regulation in a multilateral international legal framework. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of African Human Rights Yearbook / Annuaire Africain des Droits de l'Homme is the property of University of Pretoria and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

In March 2022, the European Commission presented its long-awaited legislative proposal on the EU-wide human rights and environmental due diligence (HREDD) for business. This article argues that the proposed Directive fails to be an effective and innovative legislation in three respects. Firstly, it does not draw lessons from the shortcomings of the to-date regulatory policy relating to business and human rights. It mainly consolidates at the EU level the status quo of extant due diligence legislation in Europe. Secondly, the proposal falls short of the established international standards and its own objectives insofar as it fails to establish instruments for effectively preventing and remedying human rights and environmental harm. Thirdly, the proposal’s normative preference for process- (rather than result-) oriented HREDD risks reducing it to yet another compliance instrument. Beside amending these shortcomings, to achieve a breakthrough, the upcoming legislation should in any case define HREDD as the legal standard of care; the compliance with which does not per se exclude civil liability. The general negotiation approach of the Council is not proposing much improvement in that regard. The stakes for the European Parliament’s possible role to raise the bar are thus very high. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

(Series Information) European Papers - A Journal on Law and Integration, 2020 5(3), 1435-1450 | European Forum Insight of 10 November 2020 | (Table of Contents) I. Introduction. - II. COVID-19, human rights and shareholder primacy. - III. The UNGPs, the scope of the corporate responsibility to respect and the COVID-19 crisis. - IV. The content of the corporate responsibility to respect and the COVID-19 crisis. - V. Human rights due diligence and the COVID-19 crisis. - VI. Post-pandemic developments: the EU path towards mandatory human rights due diligence laws. - VII. Conclusions: actors, responsibilities and rights in the post-pandemic society. | (Abstract) COVID-19 has prompted unprecedented changes to daily life across the EU and has affected the enjoyment of many of the rights set out in human rights international treaties. While the current debate on the impact of COVID-19 on human rights mainly has focused its attention on the role of States, on the emergency measures they have to adopt to contain the Pandemic spread and on the measures they are urged to implement to safe-guard rights of individuals, less attention has been devoted to the role played by the private sector. The objective of the paper is exactly to review such a role and to assess, in the light of the UN Guiding Principles on Busi-ness and Human Rights (UNGPs), the scope and the content of the Corporate Responsibility to Respect (CRtoR). Under the UNGPs, in effect, enterprises are asked to implement responsible business conduct by respecting human rights in the course of their operations and throughout the entire value chain. Companies are asked to take the necessary measures to prevent their activities from having a negative impact on human rights and, if an impact is originated, to prevent, mitigate and remedy it. This framework applies of course also in respect to the human rights risks associated to pandemic outbreaks, such as the COVID-19 crisis.

COVID-19 has affected the full range of human rights, though some rights holders have experienced a disproportionate impact. This has triggered debate about the respective obligations and responsibilities of states and business enterprises under international human rights law. Against this backdrop, this article examines critically whether the "protect, respect and remedy" framework operationalised by the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights is "fit for the purpose" to deal with the COVID-19 crisis. I argue that while the UNGPs' framework provides a good starting point, it is inadequate to bring transformative changes to overcome deep-rooted socio-economic problems exposed by this pandemic. Realising human rights fully would not only require harnessing the potential of states' tripartite obligations, but also move beyond limiting the responsibility of businesses to respect human rights. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Law firms, bars and lawyers associations qualify as 'enterprises' in the sense of all international CSR norms such as the UN Global Compact, the UN Guiding Principles, the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises and ISO 26000 Guidance on Social Responsibility. Thus, these CSR norms apply to law firms and lawyers in principle. Lawyers are, however, not only service providers. They have also an official function based on human rights and rule of law guarantees of access to justice and the courts. Therefore, the application of CSR norms has to be adapted to the specific role and duties of the lawyers. This applies in particular to their capacity (1) as enterprises and suppliers of services, (2) as gatekeepers concerning the 'CSR-compliance' of their clients, and (3) as 'legal' advisors. An important element is lawyers' independence. Besides certain legally defined responsibilities, lawyers are not to be identified with their clients and their deeds. A more far-reaching responsibility, based on 'social expectations' in line with the UN Guiding Principles, risks undermining the independence of the attorneys and their role in the administration of justice as the examples from the Nazi regime and McCarthy era show. Be careful what you wish for. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article conceptualizes corporate accountability under international law and introduces an analytical framework translating corporate accountability into seven core elements. Using this analytical framework, it then systematically assesses four models that could be used in a future business and human rights (BHR) treaty: the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights model, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights model, the progressive model, and the transformative model. It aims to contribute to the BHR treaty negotiation process by clarifying different options and possible trade-offs between them, while taking into account political realities. Ultimately, the article argues in favour of the BHR treaty embracing a progressive model of corporate accountability, which combines ambitious development of international law with realistic prospects of state support. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The modern corporation offers significant potential to contribute to the human rights project, in part because it is free from the challenges posed by national sovereignty. That promise has begun to be realized in businesses practicing corporate due diligence with regard to the human rights of persons involved in or affected by those enterprises. Yet due diligence preserves the self-seeking orientation of the conventional corporation and seeks only to protect itself from committing human rights abuses. This approach, typified by the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, does not address background conditions for and root causes of vulnerability to human rights abuses. My alternative, the human rights corporation, takes an other-regarding orientation that advances human rights within the corporation and in its human, social, economic, and natural environments. It moves beyond the due diligence carrot-and-stick model to a model in which the corporation produces not only goods and services but also human rights consciousness and practice as well. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Philosophy of Law & General Theory of Law / Filosofia Prava i Zagal'na Teoria Prava is the property of Yaroslav Mudryi National Law University and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The corporate responsibility to respect human rights was formally introduced in 2011 with the unanimous endorsement of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs) by the UN Human Rights Council. It is grounded in social expectations and forms part of the companies' "social license to operate." This paper argues that this responsibility is progressively turning into a legal duty for lead companies to respect human rights in those types of value chains which are characterized by a high level of control by a lead company over its business partners. Our argument rests on two recent legal developments. Firstly, the article analyzes the judicialization of the corporate responsibility to respect in the case law on parent company liability in various jurisdictions, which, we argue, is highly likely to have some implications in relation to certain types of value chains so as to trigger the liability of lead companies for the human rights harms arising out of the activities of entities over which they exercise sufficient control. Secondly, the article delves into the legislative developments which increasingly require lead companies to exercise due diligence so as to prevent and address adverse human rights impacts in their own activities and global value chains. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Revista de Direito Internacional is the property of Revista de Direito Internacional and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

This article analyses the recent exchange of letters between two UN human rights mandate-holders and the Blackstone Group LP, a private equity firm with significant investments in the rental housing market in multiple jurisdictions. The mandate-holders argue that Blackstone's investments are causing serious harm to the right to housing, including retrogressing affordability, and increasing evictions, homelessness and housing-related poverty. The scale of investment displaces communities and reshapes the housing landscape for the next generation. Blackstone's rebuttal was, in part, predicated on their subservience to market forces and their obeying the law in all jurisdictions. This is largely accurate, indicating that markets and their constitutive rules permit and incentivise retrogressive housing outcomes. The paper therefore argues that promoting socio-economic rights under financialised globalisation requires challenging the engrained norms of marketisation. International human rights law provides an entry point for this project. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Revista de Direito Internacional is the property of Revista de Direito Internacional and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Antalya Bilim University Law Review is the property of Antalya International University and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Business enterprises involved in the exploitation of mineral resources originating from conflict zones are at risk of financing armed activities and fuelling systematic violations of international law and human rights abuses. This article first analyses the initiatives developed by the UN and OECD aimed at encouraging companies to respect human rights and avoid contributing to conflict by adopting "supply chain due diligence" practices. Second, it focuses on a recent Regulation adopted by the EU to tackle trade in certain minerals sourced from conflict-affected and high-risk areas in order to highlight its main positive aspects and challenges and, at the same time, to ascertain whether and to what extent this new legislation is consistent with the UN/OECD international standards on responsible sourcing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

During the last years, there has been an increasing discussion on the role of business in human rights violations and an increase in human rights litigation against companies. The result of human rights litigation has been rather disillusioning because no corporation has been found guilty and most cases have been dismissed. We argue that it may nevertheless be a useful instrument for the advancement of the business and human rights agenda. We examine the determinants of successful human rights litigation in terms of judicial, educational, and regulatory effects. This article reviews more than 40 corporate foreign direct liability cases and their effects on corporate human rights policies and conduct. The review shows that most corporations adjusted their human rights policies and adopted additional measures to cope with human rights issues during or shortly after the legal proceedings. Opening legal channels for human rights litigation may be one way for governments to incentivize firms to respect human rights. These findings have implications for the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights as well as on our interpretation of the most recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in Kiobel v. Shell. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]