Canadian Mining Internationally and the UN Guiding Principles for Business and Human Rights

Abstract

SummaryBetween 2005 and 2011, there was much debate, both within Canada and at the United Nations (UN), over what role home states should play in the regulation and adjudication of human rights harms associated with transnational corporate conduct. In Canada, this debate focused upon concerns related to global mining that led to a series of government, opposition and multi-stakeholder reports and proposals. These culminated in 2010 with the appointment of an Extractive Sector Corporate Social Responsibility Counsellor and the defeat of Bill C-300, An Act Respecting Corporate Accountability for the Activities of Mining, Oil or Gas in Developing Countries. Meanwhile, at the UN Human Rights Commission/Council, John G. Ruggie was appointed Special Representative to the UN Secretary-General on Business and Human Rights (SRSG). Ruggie’s work led to the 2008Protect, Respect and Remedy: A Framework for Business and Human Rightsand the 2011Guiding Principles for Business and Human Rights(the latter designed to “operationalize” the former). While both documents highlight state duties to protect against human rights violations by businesses and the need for access to remedies by victims, the role of home states in this regard was contested. This article compares the developments in Canada between 2005 and 2011 with the work of the SRSG in relation to the home state duty to protect human rights in the transnational corporate context. It also offers reflections on the implications of the inevitability of industry and industry lawyer participation for the development of home state legal obligations.

Business Strategy as Human Rights Risk: the Case of Private Equity

“…Research into the UNGPs covers numerous angles and industries (Wettstein 2015 ; Arnold 2016 ; Fasterling 2017 ). However, most applied research focuses on specific sectors such as factories, mining, and tourism (Baleva 2018 ; Seck 2011 ; Nolan 2017 ). Mining, for example, carries clear industry-specific risks, from pollution to worker safety.…”

Exporting Canada's extractives approach to development: The nexus of law, violence and development in the case of Tahoe Resources Inc. in Guatemala

“…Although these normative regimes emphasize the state's 'duty to protect' against the human rights violations of businesses, the application to home states is contested (Seck 2011). In limiting the jurisdictional scope of these regimes, the Canadian government effectively evades accountability by hiding behind doctrines of sovereignty and non-interference, resulting in the spatial closure of law and justice for the citizens of foreign countries negatively impacted by Canadian mining operations (Blandy & Sibley 2001;Seck 2012).…”