The UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights and Networked Governance: Improving the Role of Human Rights Ombudsman Institutions as National Remedies

The Unrealized Potential of National Human Rights Institutions in Business and Human Rights Regulation: Conditions for Effective Engagement and Proposal for Reform

“…First, the mandate determines whether an NHRI is allowed to investigate, monitor, and report on, human rights violations committed by any actor or only those caused by actors associated with the state (which is often the case in NHRIs with complaints handling powers, see Reif 2017). It thus prescribes which types of actors the NHRI can regulate and collaborate with, for instance, in providing advice and training or investigating a complaint.…”

“…11 The Paris Principles require NHRIs to have "broad constitutional and/or legislative mandates that cover all human rights; independence; an array of express human rights promotion and protection responsibilities; a pluralist representation; adequate funding; and responsibilities to cooperate, consult and interact with UN bodies, regional organizations, other NHRIs, other statutory bodies responsible for human rights promotion and protection, and human rights NGOs." (Reif 2017: 616) Yet, it is evident that the Paris Principles do not explicitly require NHRIs to engage with human rights violations by non-state actors (Brodie 2012: 250). As Cantú Rivera (2020: 497, 498) notes, the Principles "do not explicitly refer to an [NHRI's] advisory role for actors other than the state," and they "do not contain a specific mandate" to redress cases of corporate human rights abuse.…”

“…The Special Representative of the UN Secretary-General (SRSG), John Ruggie, and the UN Human Rights Council have specifically emphasized the capacity of NHRIs to act as nonjudicial remedy mechanisms for victims of corporate human rights abuses. 5 But although there is a fast-growing body of literature on business and human rights and on the implementation of the UNGPs (e.g., Mares 2012; Deva and Bilchitz 2013;Bernaz 2017;Rodríguez-Garavito 2017), there is relatively little knowledge by comparison of the structural conditions for NHRIs to be able to meet these diverse expectations, as NHRI scholarship has been slow to engage with the field of business and human rights (for notable exceptions, see Brodie 2012;Haász 2013;Reif 2017).…”

Public-Public Collaboration for Food Safety Risk Management: Essence, Modes, and Identification of Key Influencing Factors Using DANP

“…Since the 1990s, the concept of cross-boundary governance in the public governance theory of Western countries has been extended to apply to food safety risk management. A variety of public governance theories, such as networked governance, multilevel governance, collaborative governance, and whole of government (15)(16)(17)(18)(19), have become important theoretical paradigms to guide research on cross-boundary governance for food safety risk management. Based on the actors involved, Toppinen and Korhonen (20), Bunthof et al (21), Yu and Xiao (22), Kim et al (23), and Diehlmann et al (24) defined four basic types of cross-boundary governance of public affairs, including food safety risk management: public-public, public-private, interregional, and multiagent.…”