The Potential of Arbitration as Effective Remedy in Business and Human Rights: Will the Hague Rules be Enough?

IF 2.3 Q3 BUSINESS Business and Human Rights Journal Pub Date : 2022-05-17 DOI:10.1017/bhj.2021.36
Andi Baaij
{"title":"The Potential of Arbitration as Effective Remedy in Business and Human Rights: Will the Hague Rules be Enough?","authors":"Andi Baaij","doi":"10.1017/bhj.2021.36","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The area of business and human rights (BHR) has a gap in its means to effectively remedy human rights violations. In pursuit of implementing the third pillar of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, which focuses on providing an effective remedy to rightsholders affected by corporate human rights violations, it has been proposed to utilize arbitration as a new platform to deal with such violations. The Drafting Team that instigated this initiative has prepared a set of procedural rules for BHR arbitration, called the Hague Rules. The Rules were officially launched on 12 December 2019. These arbitral rules are tailored to the specific needs of settling human rights disputes. In this article, the general idea of BHR arbitration will be analysed and assessed in light of the normative concept of ‘effective’ remedy, using the Hague Rules as a focus point. This article will discuss not only what the Hague Rules would introduce to the general concept of BHR arbitration, but also what limitations might still remain in securing an effective remedy.","PeriodicalId":9399,"journal":{"name":"Business and Human Rights Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2022-05-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Business and Human Rights Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/bhj.2021.36","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"BUSINESS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract The area of business and human rights (BHR) has a gap in its means to effectively remedy human rights violations. In pursuit of implementing the third pillar of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, which focuses on providing an effective remedy to rightsholders affected by corporate human rights violations, it has been proposed to utilize arbitration as a new platform to deal with such violations. The Drafting Team that instigated this initiative has prepared a set of procedural rules for BHR arbitration, called the Hague Rules. The Rules were officially launched on 12 December 2019. These arbitral rules are tailored to the specific needs of settling human rights disputes. In this article, the general idea of BHR arbitration will be analysed and assessed in light of the normative concept of ‘effective’ remedy, using the Hague Rules as a focus point. This article will discuss not only what the Hague Rules would introduce to the general concept of BHR arbitration, but also what limitations might still remain in securing an effective remedy.
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
仲裁作为商业和人权的有效救济的潜力:海牙规则就足够了吗?
商业与人权领域在有效补救侵犯人权行为方面存在差距。为了落实《联合国企业与人权指导原则》的第三个支柱,即重点为受企业侵犯人权行为影响的权利持有人提供有效补救,有人提议利用仲裁作为处理此类侵犯行为的新平台。发起这一倡议的起草小组为BHR仲裁制定了一套程序规则,称为《海牙规则》。《规则》于2019年12月12日正式发布。这些仲裁规则是根据解决人权争端的具体需要而制定的。本文将以《海牙规则》为重点,根据“有效”补救的规范概念,对BHR仲裁的总体思路进行分析和评估。本文不仅将讨论《海牙规则》将如何引入BHR仲裁的一般概念,还将讨论在确保有效补救方面可能仍然存在哪些限制。
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
3.30
自引率
13.60%
发文量
41
期刊介绍: The Business and Human Rights Journal (BHRJ) provides an authoritative platform for scholarly debate on all issues concerning the intersection of business and human rights in an open, critical and interdisciplinary manner. It seeks to advance the academic discussion on business and human rights as well as promote concern for human rights in business practice. BHRJ strives for the broadest possible scope, authorship and readership. Its scope encompasses interface of any type of business enterprise with human rights, environmental rights, labour rights and the collective rights of vulnerable groups. The Editors welcome theoretical, empirical and policy / reform-oriented perspectives and encourage submissions from academics and practitioners in all global regions and all relevant disciplines. A dialogue beyond academia is fostered as peer-reviewed articles are published alongside shorter ‘Developments in the Field’ items that include policy, legal and regulatory developments, as well as case studies and insight pieces.
期刊最新文献
Investor Obligations: Transformative and Regressive Impacts of the Business and Human Rights Framework Sweatshops and Labour Law: The Ethical and Legal Implications of Ignoring Labour Law in Developing Countries Economic Diplomacy and Home State Responsibility for Human Rights Abuses Involving Extractive Industries Abroad: The Case of Canada Corporate Human Rights Responsibility in Illiberal Regimes: The Example of the Ukrainian Refugee Crisis in Hungary The Blood Cobalt Narrative: Addressing Human Rights Concerns or Scaremongering?
×
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