Easing ‘The Burden of the Brutalized’: Applying Bystander Intervention Training to Corporate Conduct

IF 0.2 4区 社会学 Q4 LAW Catholic University Law Review Pub Date : 2018-03-06 DOI:10.2139/SSRN.3135490
Jena Martin
{"title":"Easing ‘The Burden of the Brutalized’: Applying Bystander Intervention Training to Corporate Conduct","authors":"Jena Martin","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.3135490","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The last few years have borne witness to a shift regarding how to address issues of oppression and social injustice. Across many different advocacy points - from police brutality to sexual violence - there seems to be a consensus that simply engaging the oppressor or the victim is not enough to affect real social change. The consensus itself is not new: it has been at the heart of many social justice movements over the years. However, what is new is the explicit evocation of the bystander within this framework. Too often, in conversations on conflicts generally (and negative human rights impact specifically), bystanders have been relegated to the sidelines, with no defined, specific role to play and no discussion within the larger narrative. Now, however, -- through the use of bystander intervention training -- these actors are taking on a more prominent role. \n \nIn previous articles, I have stated that the rhetoric and posture that transnational corporations (TNCs) maintain vis-a-vis human rights impacts is that of a bystander. Frequently, when human rights abuses occur, TNCs find themselves in the position of having to acknowledge their presence in the area of the underlying conflict, while profusely maintaining that none of their actions caused the harm against the community. Building off this prior work, this article seeks to answer the following question: are there lessons that can be learned from bystander intervention training in other contexts, that can be used for the benefits of TNCs within the field of business and human rights? I conclude that what is lacking in the current discourse on corporate policies regarding addressing negative human rights impacts is an articulation regarding when, and under what circumstances, it is appropriate for corporations to intervene in negative human rights disputes. This goes beyond the current proposals for human rights due diligence frameworks in that, rather than merely undergoing an assessment and then reporting this information out (as is required by most current legal frameworks that address business and human rights reporting) this would help corporations – informed by a bystander intervention framework – to engage with either the oppressor or the oppressed in a way that directly minimizes human rights abuses.","PeriodicalId":44667,"journal":{"name":"Catholic University Law Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2018-03-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Catholic University Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.3135490","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

The last few years have borne witness to a shift regarding how to address issues of oppression and social injustice. Across many different advocacy points - from police brutality to sexual violence - there seems to be a consensus that simply engaging the oppressor or the victim is not enough to affect real social change. The consensus itself is not new: it has been at the heart of many social justice movements over the years. However, what is new is the explicit evocation of the bystander within this framework. Too often, in conversations on conflicts generally (and negative human rights impact specifically), bystanders have been relegated to the sidelines, with no defined, specific role to play and no discussion within the larger narrative. Now, however, -- through the use of bystander intervention training -- these actors are taking on a more prominent role. In previous articles, I have stated that the rhetoric and posture that transnational corporations (TNCs) maintain vis-a-vis human rights impacts is that of a bystander. Frequently, when human rights abuses occur, TNCs find themselves in the position of having to acknowledge their presence in the area of the underlying conflict, while profusely maintaining that none of their actions caused the harm against the community. Building off this prior work, this article seeks to answer the following question: are there lessons that can be learned from bystander intervention training in other contexts, that can be used for the benefits of TNCs within the field of business and human rights? I conclude that what is lacking in the current discourse on corporate policies regarding addressing negative human rights impacts is an articulation regarding when, and under what circumstances, it is appropriate for corporations to intervene in negative human rights disputes. This goes beyond the current proposals for human rights due diligence frameworks in that, rather than merely undergoing an assessment and then reporting this information out (as is required by most current legal frameworks that address business and human rights reporting) this would help corporations – informed by a bystander intervention framework – to engage with either the oppressor or the oppressed in a way that directly minimizes human rights abuses.
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
减轻“野蛮人的负担”:将旁观者干预培训应用于企业行为
过去几年见证了如何解决压迫和社会不公正问题的转变。从警察暴行到性暴力,在许多不同的倡导点上,似乎都有一个共识,即仅仅让压迫者或受害者参与进来不足以影响真正的社会变革。共识本身并不新鲜:多年来,它一直是许多社会正义运动的核心。然而,新的是在这个框架内对旁观者的明确唤起。在关于冲突(特别是负面人权影响)的对话中,旁观者往往被边缘化,没有明确的、具体的角色可扮演,也没有在更大的叙事中进行讨论。然而,现在,通过使用旁观者干预培训,这些行动者正在发挥更突出的作用。在以前的文章中,我曾指出,跨国公司对人权影响所持的言论和姿态是旁观者的。当发生侵犯人权事件时,跨国公司往往不得不承认自己在潜在冲突地区的存在,同时一再坚称自己的任何行为都没有对社区造成伤害。在这项先前工作的基础上,本文试图回答以下问题:在其他情况下,是否可以从旁观者干预培训中吸取教训,用于跨国公司在商业和人权领域的利益?我的结论是,目前关于公司政策的讨论中,关于解决负面人权影响的讨论缺乏关于公司何时以及在何种情况下干预负面人权争端的明确表述。这超出了目前关于人权尽职调查框架的建议,这将有助于企业在旁观者干预框架的指导下,以直接最大限度地减少侵犯人权行为的方式与压迫者或被压迫者接触,而不仅仅是进行评估,然后报告这些信息(这是目前大多数涉及商业和人权报告的法律框架所要求的)。
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
0.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
At the Intersection of Due Process and Equal Protection: Expanding the Range of Protected Interests Easing ‘The Burden of the Brutalized’: Applying Bystander Intervention Training to Corporate Conduct Partisan Gerrymandering and the Illusion of Unfairness Oversight of Oversight: A Proposal for More Effective FOIA Reform Fulfilling the Promise of Roe: A Pathway for Meaningful Pre-Abortion Consultation
×
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