States routinely provide support and assistance to their corporate nationals in their global trade and investment ventures. While states may not intend to allow corporate nationals to violate human rights in their extraterritorial operations, by their actions or omissions, states may facilitate, or otherwise contribute to, a situation in which such violations by a corporation occur. This article investigates the extent to which the extraterritorial activities of transnational corporations (TNCs) that violate international human rights law can give rise to home state responsibility. The analysis shows that home states of TNCs have obligations under international law in certain situations to regulate the extraterritorial activities of corporate nationals or the latter's foreign subsidiaries and can incur international responsibility where they fail to do so.
In May 2011, the United Nations Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the Issue of Human Rights and Transnational Corporations and other Business Enterprises (SRSG), Professor John G Ruggie, submitted to the Human Rights Council his ‘Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights’ aimed at implementing his ‘Protect, Respect and Remedy’ policy framework. The Council unanimously adopted the Guiding Principles at its June 2011 session. Ruggie's work has been both welcomed and criticised and his Guiding Principles are likely to remain controversial. Apart from the SRSG's recommendation to the HRC to develop a process to clarify the legal obligations of business entities not to commit international crimes, his work on this issue did not include a recommendation that the future development of binding international obligations should be one of the goals of his policy framework and guiding principles.This article argues that Ruggie's approach to addressing corporate human rights impunity was misconceived. For Ruggie, ‘[t]he root cause of the business and human rights predicament today lies in the governance gaps created by globalization – between the scope and impact of economic forces and actors, and the capacity of societies to manage their adverse consequences’. It is argued here, however, that to address corporate impunity effectively, one cannot simply deal with the governance gaps alone. One must also identify and address the root causes of those gaps. This article contends that corporate human rights impunity is deeply embedded in the international legal system. It seeks to demonstrate the problems with the SRSG's approach by arguing that, along with the interventions of international financial institutions in the economies of developing states, one of the most significant impediments to corporate human rights accountability is the structure of the international legal system itself. The validity of this assertion is explored through an examination of the critiques of the international legal system by Third World Approaches to International Law (TWAIL) scholars, as well as insights drawn from feminist critiques of international law. It is argued that powerful states have used international law and international institutions to create a globalised legal environment which protects and facilitates corporate activity and, although the SRSG identified symptoms of this reality during his tenure, he did not examine the deep structural aspects of this problem. This article demonstrates that such an examination would have revealed the crucial need for binding international human rights obligations for business entities in any adequate strategy aimed at addressing corporate impunity. It concludes with some recommendations for developing such obligations incrementally.
L’extraction des ressources a des conséquences directes et indirectes sur les femmes, et la recherche a démontré que ces conséquences ne sont pas les mêmes pour les hommes. La violence à l’égard des femmes semble avoir des conséquences transversales. Pourtant, les États, les organismes intergouvernementaux, les différents intervenants et les groupes de l’industrie n’en ont pas tenu compte lorsqu’ils ont établi des normes pour minimiser l’effet des activités des entreprises extractives sur les droits de la personne. En utilisant les travaux de Dorothy Smith sur l’ethnographie institutionnelle, et surtout la textualité féministe, le présent article propose une analyse approfondie à plusieurs niveaux, d’un point de vue féministe, du Principes directeurs relatifs aux entreprises et aux droits de l’homme (PDNU), qui constitue l’un des textes centraux visant l’impunité des entreprises quant aux effets nuisibles genrés de leurs activités d’exploitation des ressources, et en particulier, de la violence faite aux femmes. Les auteures se demandent dans quelle mesure le texte du PDNU tient compte des femmes et de leurs intérêts. Pour répondre à cette interrogation, elles examinent la place que donne le texte au savoir et au traitement distinct des femmes par rapport aux activités des États et des entreprises et le situent dans le système juridique international genré issu du néolibéralisme. Elles démontrent ainsi que le PDNU est une méthode pour établir une « relation de pouvoir » déterminant le comportement des États et des entreprises envers les femmes. La structure et la nature des normes issues du texte non seulement ne reconnaissent pas les expériences des femmes et ne protègent pas leurs droits dans le domaine de l’extraction des ressources, mais aident également à perpétuer les structures patriarcales et néolibérales qui oppriment les femmes.
In response to increasing public concern over the accountability of transnational corporations (TNCs) for violations of human rights in the states in which they operate, governments, corporations and NGOs have promoted the development and implementation of voluntary self-regulatory regimes. However, TNC practices under these regimes call into question their adequacy and effectiveness in preventing complicity in egregious violations of human rights by corporations operating in conflict zones and repressive regimes. This article reviews and assesses the language, human rights content and compliance mechanisms of the voluntary policies and/or codes developed by a number of corporations, industry groups, intergovernmental organizations and multistakeholder initiatives, as well as associated corporate practices. The analysis shows that these voluntary regimes are flawed and inadequate, and therefore unable to ensure that TNCs are not complicit in human rights violations in their extra-territorial activities.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.