<i>The Necessity for a Business and Human Rights Treaty</i>

Bilchitz, David

doi:10.1017/bhj.2016.13

Cited by 73 publications

(32 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In other words, the integration of the two debates provides the space within which to formulate positive human rights obligations for corporations" (Wettstein 2012: 739). Scholars such as David Bilchitz (2014) have also noted this possibility with reference to the treaty-making process in particular.…”

Section: Csr and Bhr-convergence Or Divergence?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Corporate Social Responsibility Versus Business and Human Rights: Bridging the Gap Between Responsibility and Accountability

Ramasastry¹

2015

Journal of Human Rights

157

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article explores the evolution of business and human rights (BHR) from a lawyer's perspective and examines how it is contextually and conceptually different from corporate social responsibility (CSR) in its aims and ambitions. While CSR emphasizes responsible behavior, BHR focuses on a more delineated commitment in the area of human rights. BHR is, in part, a response to CSR and its perceived failure. This has led to a gap with two disciplines or strands of discourse that are diverging rather than converging. This article explores how the quest for accountability shapes a very different narrative for BHR, which takes it more into the realm of binding law, State sponsored oversight, and the importance of access to remedy as a measure of corporate accountability. As a result, at the current juncture, the BHR movement is drifting further away from CSR and the role of companies as voluntary and affirmative contributors to human rights realization. The author argues that BHR can draw from CSR to allow states to create incentives for businesses to promote human rights in their operations.

show abstract

Section: Csr and Bhr-convergence Or Divergence?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Corporate Social Responsibility Versus Business and Human Rights: Bridging the Gap Between Responsibility and Accountability

Ramasastry¹

2015

Journal of Human Rights

157

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…2. A treaty would also most likely utilize the authority and enforcement powers of home or host states; see Bilchitz (2016). 3.…”

Section: Fundingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Grappling with injustice: Corporate crime, multinational business and interrogation of law in context

Haines

Macdonald

2019

Theoretical Criminology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article interrogates criminological ambivalence towards law as both essential in the control of corporate crime and as an enabler of corporate harm. It argues we can make sense of such tensions by seeing law—in its plurality of soft and hard forms—as constituent elements within multiple fields of struggle, in which laws operate as tools wielded to influence contested rules, and as rules governing regulatory struggles. This argument is developed by bringing criminological analyses of the law’s role in business facilitation and regulatory enforcement together with sociological analyses of ‘fields of struggle’. The value of this approach in illuminating law’s ambiguous role in relation to corporate harm is illustrated through two cases of multinational business activity in Indonesia.

show abstract

“…The UNGP form the starting point for further developing and strengthening corporate human rights responsibilities (see Blitt, 2012). The United Nations Working Group on Business and Human Rights has continued developing and negotiating a business and human rights treaty (Bilchitz, 2016;De Schutter, 2016;OHCHR, 2018a). Recently, in July 2018, the draft Treaty on Transnational Corporations and Other Business Interests with Respect to Human Rights (TNC treaty) was made public (OHCHR, 2018b).…”

Section: The United Nations Guiding Principles On Business and Human mentioning

confidence: 99%

Civil society challenges the global food system: the International Monsanto Tribunal

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The global food system has severe implications for human health, soil quality, biodiversity, and quality of life. This paper provides an analysis on how transnational alliances challenge the global food system. We illustrate this by focusing on the activities and hearings of the International Monsanto Tribunal (IMT), held in the Hague in 2016. The IMT provided a platform for civil society and enabled transnational alliances to demand attention for local struggles and legal disputes in relation to Monsanto's products. With the involvement of independent and renowned experts, the knowledge exchange between local victims and civil society was enhanced, and the IMT reinforced social movement's goals towards demanding justice for the negative effects associated with the global food system. The advisory opinion determined that Monsanto's practices are in violation with human rights standards. The IMT exemplified that there is an immediate need for structural change in the current global food system.

show abstract

The Necessity for a Business and Human Rights Treaty

Cited by 73 publications

References 30 publications

Corporate Social Responsibility Versus Business and Human Rights: Bridging the Gap Between Responsibility and Accountability

Corporate Social Responsibility Versus Business and Human Rights: Bridging the Gap Between Responsibility and Accountability

Grappling with injustice: Corporate crime, multinational business and interrogation of law in context

Civil society challenges the global food system: the International Monsanto Tribunal

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About