Fundamental Rights and the Legal Obligations of Business. By David Bilchitz. [Cambridge University Press, 2022. xxii + 499 pp. Hardback £110.00. ISBN 978-1-108-84194-8.]

IF 1.5 2区 社会学 Q1 LAW Cambridge Law Journal Pub Date : 2023-03-01 DOI:10.1017/S000819732300003X
Nick Friedman
{"title":"Fundamental Rights and the Legal Obligations of Business. By David Bilchitz. [Cambridge University Press, 2022. xxii + 499 pp. Hardback £110.00. ISBN 978-1-108-84194-8.]","authors":"Nick Friedman","doi":"10.1017/S000819732300003X","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Following the publication of the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs) in 2011, and subsequent attempts at the national and international level to enforce human rights in the commercial sphere (like the UK’s Modern Slavery Act 2015), there has been renewed scholarly interest in the human rights duties of corporations. “Business and human rights” is a difficult area of inquiry: making sound policy proposals requires attention to the intersection of human rights, corporate law, tort, both private and public international law, and other legal fields besides. Moreover, it frequently requires a theory of these fields, including a theory about which field should be deployed to solve certain problems under certain conditions. Depending on the author’s aims, it can also require engagement with economics and with difficult philosophical issues concerning the nature of the corporation. This call for interdisciplinarity is what makes “business and human rights” an exciting field of study, but the difficulty of answering that call has created a body of scholarship that sometimes feels superficial or theoretically thin. In this regard, David Bilchitz is exceptional. Bilchitz is one of the leading figures in the field; he has been working on tricky pieces of the business and human rights puzzle for a long time. He has captured the depth and breadth of his knowledge in his latest book, Fundamental Rights and the Legal Obligations of Business, which is stunning in its sophisticated coverage of numerous legal fields as well as some associated areas of philosophy. The book is divided into three parts. After an initial chapter on the nature and purpose of the corporation (to which I return below), Part I describes and critiques various models of legal reasoning that courts have adopted to address human rights infringements by corporations. Most of the chapters in this part describe models which assume that human rights obligations bind only the state. Chapter 2 focuses on the state’s duty under international law to protect a person’s human rights from violation by a third party (say, another individual or a corporation). Chapter 3 describes the “indirect application model” that exists in some national legal systems. It is the domestic analogue of the international law duty to protect: once again, human rights obligations fall on states only, requiring them to enact legislation and develop their common law with a view to preventing human rights violations by corporate actors. Chapter 4 describes what Bilchitz calls the “expanding the state” model, which redraws the boundaries of the state to extend human rights obligations to at least some kinds of state-like corporations. The overriding critique of all three foregoing models is that they wrongly suppose that corporations themselves bear no human rights obligations, and so depend on circuitous reasoning to implicate the state in a corporation’s human rights abuses. By closely analysing case law which adopts these models, Bilchitz convincingly shows that courts cannot (and, in fact, do not) attribute the relevant obligations to the state without first having some view of what the state must protect people from – that is, a view about what corporations may not to do with respect to human rights. Thus, the courts which embrace these models implicitly and inevitably determine a corporation’s human rights duties while professing that such duties bind only the state. Building on these criticisms, Bilchitz offers his preferred model of reasoning in Chapter 5 – the “direct obligations model” – which explicitly Cambridge Law Journal, 82(1), March 2023, pp. 181–184 © The Authors, 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Faculty of Law, University of Cambridge doi:10.1017/S000819732300003X","PeriodicalId":46389,"journal":{"name":"Cambridge Law Journal","volume":"82 1","pages":"181 - 184"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cambridge Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S000819732300003X","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Following the publication of the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs) in 2011, and subsequent attempts at the national and international level to enforce human rights in the commercial sphere (like the UK’s Modern Slavery Act 2015), there has been renewed scholarly interest in the human rights duties of corporations. “Business and human rights” is a difficult area of inquiry: making sound policy proposals requires attention to the intersection of human rights, corporate law, tort, both private and public international law, and other legal fields besides. Moreover, it frequently requires a theory of these fields, including a theory about which field should be deployed to solve certain problems under certain conditions. Depending on the author’s aims, it can also require engagement with economics and with difficult philosophical issues concerning the nature of the corporation. This call for interdisciplinarity is what makes “business and human rights” an exciting field of study, but the difficulty of answering that call has created a body of scholarship that sometimes feels superficial or theoretically thin. In this regard, David Bilchitz is exceptional. Bilchitz is one of the leading figures in the field; he has been working on tricky pieces of the business and human rights puzzle for a long time. He has captured the depth and breadth of his knowledge in his latest book, Fundamental Rights and the Legal Obligations of Business, which is stunning in its sophisticated coverage of numerous legal fields as well as some associated areas of philosophy. The book is divided into three parts. After an initial chapter on the nature and purpose of the corporation (to which I return below), Part I describes and critiques various models of legal reasoning that courts have adopted to address human rights infringements by corporations. Most of the chapters in this part describe models which assume that human rights obligations bind only the state. Chapter 2 focuses on the state’s duty under international law to protect a person’s human rights from violation by a third party (say, another individual or a corporation). Chapter 3 describes the “indirect application model” that exists in some national legal systems. It is the domestic analogue of the international law duty to protect: once again, human rights obligations fall on states only, requiring them to enact legislation and develop their common law with a view to preventing human rights violations by corporate actors. Chapter 4 describes what Bilchitz calls the “expanding the state” model, which redraws the boundaries of the state to extend human rights obligations to at least some kinds of state-like corporations. The overriding critique of all three foregoing models is that they wrongly suppose that corporations themselves bear no human rights obligations, and so depend on circuitous reasoning to implicate the state in a corporation’s human rights abuses. By closely analysing case law which adopts these models, Bilchitz convincingly shows that courts cannot (and, in fact, do not) attribute the relevant obligations to the state without first having some view of what the state must protect people from – that is, a view about what corporations may not to do with respect to human rights. Thus, the courts which embrace these models implicitly and inevitably determine a corporation’s human rights duties while professing that such duties bind only the state. Building on these criticisms, Bilchitz offers his preferred model of reasoning in Chapter 5 – the “direct obligations model” – which explicitly Cambridge Law Journal, 82(1), March 2023, pp. 181–184 © The Authors, 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Faculty of Law, University of Cambridge doi:10.1017/S000819732300003X
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
企业的基本权利和法律义务。大卫·比尔奇茨著。剑桥大学出版社,2022。xxii + 499页,精装本110.00英镑。ISBN 978-1-108-84194-8。)
2011年《联合国商业与人权指导原则》出版后,以及随后在国家和国际层面试图在商业领域强制执行人权(如英国2015年的《现代奴隶制法》),学术界对公司的人权义务重新产生了兴趣。“商业与人权”是一个很难研究的领域:提出合理的政策建议需要关注人权、公司法、侵权行为、国际私法和公法以及其他法律领域的交叉点。此外,它经常需要这些领域的理论,包括在特定条件下应该部署哪个领域来解决某些问题的理论。根据作者的目的,它也可能需要参与经济学和与公司性质有关的棘手哲学问题。这种对跨学科性的呼吁使“商业与人权”成为一个令人兴奋的研究领域,但回应这一呼吁的困难创造了一个有时感觉肤浅或理论上单薄的学术体系。在这方面,大卫·比尔奇茨是个例外。比尔奇茨是该领域的领军人物之一;长期以来,他一直致力于商业和人权领域的棘手问题。他在最新出版的《企业的基本权利和法律义务》一书中捕捉到了自己知识的深度和广度,该书对众多法律领域以及一些相关的哲学领域进行了深入的报道,令人惊叹。这本书分为三个部分。在关于公司的性质和目的的第一章(我将在下文返回)之后,第一部分描述并批评了法院为处理公司侵犯人权行为而采用的各种法律推理模式。本部分的大部分章节描述了假设人权义务只对国家具有约束力的模式。第2章着重于国家根据国际法保护个人人权不受第三方(如另一个人或公司)侵犯的义务。第三章介绍了一些国家法律体系中存在的“间接适用模式”。这在国内类似于国际法的保护义务:再次,人权义务只属于国家,要求它们制定立法和制定普通法,以防止公司行为者侵犯人权。第4章描述了Bilchitz所说的“扩大国家”模式,该模式重新划定了国家的边界,将人权义务至少扩展到一些类似国家的公司。对上述三种模式最重要的批评是,它们错误地认为公司本身不承担人权义务,因此依赖迂回的推理将国家卷入公司侵犯人权的行为中。通过仔细分析采用这些模式的判例法,Bilchitz令人信服地表明,法院不能(事实上也没有)将相关义务归因于国家,而不首先对国家必须保护人民免受什么影响有一些看法,也就是说,对公司在人权方面可能不应该做什么有一些看法。因此,接受这些模式的法院隐含地、不可避免地确定了公司的人权义务,同时声称这些义务只对国家有约束力。在这些批评的基础上,Bilchitz在第5章中提出了他喜欢的推理模式——“直接义务模式”——明确地说,《剑桥法律杂志》,82(1),2023年3月,第181–184页©作者,2023。剑桥大学出版社代表剑桥大学法学院出版doi:10.1017/S000819732300003X
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
6.70%
发文量
56
期刊介绍: The Cambridge Law Journal publishes articles on all aspects of law. Special emphasis is placed on contemporary developments, but the journal''s range includes jurisprudence and legal history. An important feature of the journal is the Case and Comment section, in which members of the Cambridge Law Faculty and other distinguished contributors analyse recent judicial decisions, new legislation and current law reform proposals. The articles and case notes are designed to have the widest appeal to those interested in the law - whether as practitioners, students, teachers, judges or administrators - and to provide an opportunity for them to keep abreast of new ideas and the progress of legal reform. Each issue also contains an extensive section of book reviews.
期刊最新文献
RECYCLED MALICE RELATIONAL TRADE NETWORKS SECTION 36 OF THE LIMITATION ACT 1980 THE UK INTERNAL MARKET: A GLOBAL OUTLIER? WEDNESBURY UNREASONABLENESS
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1