The regulation of transnational employment in the European Union operates at the crossroads between private international law and internal market rules. The private international law rules are currently laid down in the Rome I Regulation. This regulation is complemented by the Posted Workers Directive, a directive based on the competences of the EU in the field of free movement of services. The current contribution first describes the rules which determine the law applicable to the employment contract under Article 8 Rome I Regulation and the way these rules are interpreted by the CJEU before critically analysing these rules and the reasoning that seems to lie behind the court’s interpretation (section 2). The law applying to the contract is, however, only of limited relevance for the protection of posted workers. This is due inter alia to the mandatory application of certain rules of the country to which the workers are posted, even if a different law governs their contract. This application of host state law is based on Article 9 Rome I Regulation in conjunction with the Posted Workers Directive. Section 3 describes the content of these rules and the – to some extent still undecided – interaction between the Rome I Regulation and the PWD. The conclusion will be that there is an uneasy match between the interests informing private international law and the interests of the internal market, which is not likely to be resolved in the near future.
{"title":"Private International Law: An Appropriate Means to Regulate Transnational Employment in the European Union?","authors":"Aukje A.H. van Hoek","doi":"10.5553/ELR.000023","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5553/ELR.000023","url":null,"abstract":"The regulation of transnational employment in the European Union operates at the crossroads between private international law and internal market rules. The private international law rules are currently laid down in the Rome I Regulation. This regulation is complemented by the Posted Workers Directive, a directive based on the competences of the EU in the field of free movement of services. The current contribution first describes the rules which determine the law applicable to the employment contract under Article 8 Rome I Regulation and the way these rules are interpreted by the CJEU before critically analysing these rules and the reasoning that seems to lie behind the court’s interpretation (section 2). The law applying to the contract is, however, only of limited relevance for the protection of posted workers. This is due inter alia to the mandatory application of certain rules of the country to which the workers are posted, even if a different law governs their contract. This application of host state law is based on Article 9 Rome I Regulation in conjunction with the Posted Workers Directive. Section 3 describes the content of these rules and the – to some extent still undecided – interaction between the Rome I Regulation and the PWD. The conclusion will be that there is an uneasy match between the interests informing private international law and the interests of the internal market, which is not likely to be resolved in the near future.","PeriodicalId":106035,"journal":{"name":"Human Rights & the Global Economy eJournal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2014-11-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125600202","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2014-11-20DOI: 10.22459/AG.21.01.2014.05
M. Potter
The argument by Piketty and others that there is growing inequality and this is causing damage is not new. But regardless of who is running this argument, it is significantly flawed. The poor have definitely improved their situation, especially if taxes and income support are included, in many countries in the developing world and the US. A focus on inequality to the exclusion of poverty glosses over the large successes over recent decades. It paints a false picture of decline when large improvements have occurred.To the extent there have been increases in executive wages, this has probably been driven by technology and globalisation, not by poor corporate governance. And the returns to wealth being (relatively) high should be expected given the riskiness of owning wealth, and is actually necessary to ensure that investment occurs.Piketty’s (implied) argument that investment is bad should be dismissed out of hand, as should his argument that high taxes are required on wealth. Instead, the problems generated by ‘unfairly’ acquired wealth should be addressed by removing rents. Policymakers should consider broadening the ownership of capital and assisting those who are in genuine need, and reject proposals that pander to envy.
{"title":"Capital in the Twenty-First Century: A Critique of Thomas Piketty's Political Economy","authors":"M. Potter","doi":"10.22459/AG.21.01.2014.05","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.22459/AG.21.01.2014.05","url":null,"abstract":"The argument by Piketty and others that there is growing inequality and this is causing damage is not new. But regardless of who is running this argument, it is significantly flawed. The poor have definitely improved their situation, especially if taxes and income support are included, in many countries in the developing world and the US. A focus on inequality to the exclusion of poverty glosses over the large successes over recent decades. It paints a false picture of decline when large improvements have occurred.To the extent there have been increases in executive wages, this has probably been driven by technology and globalisation, not by poor corporate governance. And the returns to wealth being (relatively) high should be expected given the riskiness of owning wealth, and is actually necessary to ensure that investment occurs.Piketty’s (implied) argument that investment is bad should be dismissed out of hand, as should his argument that high taxes are required on wealth. Instead, the problems generated by ‘unfairly’ acquired wealth should be addressed by removing rents. Policymakers should consider broadening the ownership of capital and assisting those who are in genuine need, and reject proposals that pander to envy.","PeriodicalId":106035,"journal":{"name":"Human Rights & the Global Economy eJournal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2014-11-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"114127364","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Human beings by virtue of their being human, posses certain basic and inalienable rights which are commonly known as human rights. These rights are essential for all the individuals irrespective of any criteria, as they are consonant with their freedom and dignity and are conducive to physical, moral, social, economic and spiritual welfare. These are also necessary, as these provide suitable conditions for the material and moral enlistment for all human beings. With the advent of science and technology in the era of Economic Globalization the concept of human rights has assumed a new dimension. The paradigm of Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is being steadily, but surely, being supplanted by that of trade-related, market friendly human rights (TRMFHR) under the auspices of contemporary globalization. Globalization has been a successful means for human development in many aspects but, it has also introduced rapidly advancing threats to the human right to environment. The emergent paradigm insists upon the promotion and the protection of the collective human rights of global capital, in ways, which justify corporate well being and dignity even when it entails continuing gross and flagrant violation of human rights of actually existing human beings and communities. The study of environment as a human right cannot be separated from biology, ecology, economics, medicine, political science, psychology and public administration. The contemporary development of Globalization resulted to a new concept of ‘industrial agriculture’. In modern agriculture, the focus is rapidly shifting to biotechnological means to produce transgenic varieties utilizing the Plant Genetic Resources (PGRs) of the world’s biodiversity. Recombinant technology and genetic engineering now permit the creation of desirable varieties with a specific trait, not available within the gene pool. Development of transgenic plant varieties or breeding new varieties of plants require investment in terms of skill, labour, material resources and funds, and may take many years’, intellectual effort and technological experiment. Therefore, it attracts Intellectual Property Protection (IPP). Others so as to deprive its breeder of the opportunity to profit adequately from his investment may in many cases readily reproduce a new variety, once released. Granting to a breeder of a new plant variety, the exclusive right to exploit his variety, both encourages him to invest in plant breeding and contribution to the development of agriculture, horticulture and forestry. Breakthrough in genetic engineering, availability of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) on seeds, transgenic plants, genetically modified crops and globalization of agricultural trade are causing apprehension and threat of genetic pollution which has a direct impact upon the right to environment and other human rights as well. Environmental degradation and harm arising out of unsustainable practices of development, and the con
{"title":"Intellectual Property, Human Rights & Sustainable Development in India","authors":"A. Singh, Adarsh Kumar","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2552489","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2552489","url":null,"abstract":"Human beings by virtue of their being human, posses certain basic and inalienable rights which are commonly known as human rights. These rights are essential for all the individuals irrespective of any criteria, as they are consonant with their freedom and dignity and are conducive to physical, moral, social, economic and spiritual welfare. These are also necessary, as these provide suitable conditions for the material and moral enlistment for all human beings. With the advent of science and technology in the era of Economic Globalization the concept of human rights has assumed a new dimension. The paradigm of Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is being steadily, but surely, being supplanted by that of trade-related, market friendly human rights (TRMFHR) under the auspices of contemporary globalization. Globalization has been a successful means for human development in many aspects but, it has also introduced rapidly advancing threats to the human right to environment. The emergent paradigm insists upon the promotion and the protection of the collective human rights of global capital, in ways, which justify corporate well being and dignity even when it entails continuing gross and flagrant violation of human rights of actually existing human beings and communities. The study of environment as a human right cannot be separated from biology, ecology, economics, medicine, political science, psychology and public administration. The contemporary development of Globalization resulted to a new concept of ‘industrial agriculture’. In modern agriculture, the focus is rapidly shifting to biotechnological means to produce transgenic varieties utilizing the Plant Genetic Resources (PGRs) of the world’s biodiversity. Recombinant technology and genetic engineering now permit the creation of desirable varieties with a specific trait, not available within the gene pool. Development of transgenic plant varieties or breeding new varieties of plants require investment in terms of skill, labour, material resources and funds, and may take many years’, intellectual effort and technological experiment. Therefore, it attracts Intellectual Property Protection (IPP). Others so as to deprive its breeder of the opportunity to profit adequately from his investment may in many cases readily reproduce a new variety, once released. Granting to a breeder of a new plant variety, the exclusive right to exploit his variety, both encourages him to invest in plant breeding and contribution to the development of agriculture, horticulture and forestry. Breakthrough in genetic engineering, availability of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) on seeds, transgenic plants, genetically modified crops and globalization of agricultural trade are causing apprehension and threat of genetic pollution which has a direct impact upon the right to environment and other human rights as well. Environmental degradation and harm arising out of unsustainable practices of development, and the con","PeriodicalId":106035,"journal":{"name":"Human Rights & the Global Economy eJournal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2014-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121450183","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
At the invitation of the Government, the Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights, Magdalena Sepúlveda Carmona, undertook a mission to Timor-Leste from 13 to 18 November 2011. The Special Rapporteur collected first-hand information on the human rights situation of people living in extreme poverty and on policies relating to poverty alleviation, development and social protection, and the allocation of resources by the Government of Timor-Leste to these areas. In this report, the Special Rapporteur recognizes the difficult task faced by Timor-Leste in tackling the challenge of State-building and development only 10 years after independence. However, despite rapid economic growth in recent years, the situation of the poorest segments of society remains grave and there are significant and growing inequalities in terms of income, opportunities and access to services. The Special Rapporteur emphasizes that the country’s human rights obligations to progressively realize the economic, social and cultural rights of all its population, without discrimination, apply even during times of development and post-crisis rebuilding.
{"title":"Report of the Special Rapporteur on Extreme Poverty and Human Rights. Mission to Timor-Leste","authors":"Magdalena Sepúlveda Carmona","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2494404","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2494404","url":null,"abstract":"At the invitation of the Government, the Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights, Magdalena Sepúlveda Carmona, undertook a mission to Timor-Leste from 13 to 18 November 2011. The Special Rapporteur collected first-hand information on the human rights situation of people living in extreme poverty and on policies relating to poverty alleviation, development and social protection, and the allocation of resources by the Government of Timor-Leste to these areas. In this report, the Special Rapporteur recognizes the difficult task faced by Timor-Leste in tackling the challenge of State-building and development only 10 years after independence. However, despite rapid economic growth in recent years, the situation of the poorest segments of society remains grave and there are significant and growing inequalities in terms of income, opportunities and access to services. The Special Rapporteur emphasizes that the country’s human rights obligations to progressively realize the economic, social and cultural rights of all its population, without discrimination, apply even during times of development and post-crisis rebuilding.","PeriodicalId":106035,"journal":{"name":"Human Rights & the Global Economy eJournal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2014-09-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131583434","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Countries face a new threat that strikes at their ability to balance protection of intellectual property rights against other priorities, such as public health. They may have to pay substantial compensation to companies that dislike domestic intellectual property laws. This threat is much more significant than a landmark international agreement concluded twenty years ago in conjunction with the World Trade Organization (WTO) that for the first time required all countries to provide “minimum” levels of intellectual property rights; before that time, countries were not obligated to provide any such rights at all. Since the conclusion of the WTO, policy makers and scholars have strived to preserve domestic flexibilities to consider domestic policies such as public health. However, those flexibilities may quickly evaporate if companies can bring claims against countries for compromising their investments under so-called “investor-state arbitration” claims. This is not a theoretical problem – Eli Lilly is currently seeking $500 million in compensation from Canada because Canadian courts invalidated two of its patents under prevailing law.Although investor-state arbitration claims have been broadly criticized in recent years, there are unique issues associated with expanding this remedy to domestic actions consistent with the WTO agreement. If Eli Lilly’s claim were to succeed, it would disrupt internationally agreed norms that permit countries to have different standards of protection. This Article provides a detailed analysis of Eli Lilly’s case of first impression. In so doing, the Article offers both an explanation of why Eli Lilly’s claims should be rejected, as well as a prediction of other likely impending threats to domestic regulation of public health that intersect with the interests of pharmaceutical companies. This Article ultimately proposes specific language to incorporate in pending agreements to forestall the predicted harms.
{"title":"Sovereignty Under Siege: Corporate Challenges to Domestic Intellectual Property Decisions","authors":"Cynthia M. Ho","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2480202","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2480202","url":null,"abstract":"Countries face a new threat that strikes at their ability to balance protection of intellectual property rights against other priorities, such as public health. They may have to pay substantial compensation to companies that dislike domestic intellectual property laws. This threat is much more significant than a landmark international agreement concluded twenty years ago in conjunction with the World Trade Organization (WTO) that for the first time required all countries to provide “minimum” levels of intellectual property rights; before that time, countries were not obligated to provide any such rights at all. Since the conclusion of the WTO, policy makers and scholars have strived to preserve domestic flexibilities to consider domestic policies such as public health. However, those flexibilities may quickly evaporate if companies can bring claims against countries for compromising their investments under so-called “investor-state arbitration” claims. This is not a theoretical problem – Eli Lilly is currently seeking $500 million in compensation from Canada because Canadian courts invalidated two of its patents under prevailing law.Although investor-state arbitration claims have been broadly criticized in recent years, there are unique issues associated with expanding this remedy to domestic actions consistent with the WTO agreement. If Eli Lilly’s claim were to succeed, it would disrupt internationally agreed norms that permit countries to have different standards of protection. This Article provides a detailed analysis of Eli Lilly’s case of first impression. In so doing, the Article offers both an explanation of why Eli Lilly’s claims should be rejected, as well as a prediction of other likely impending threats to domestic regulation of public health that intersect with the interests of pharmaceutical companies. This Article ultimately proposes specific language to incorporate in pending agreements to forestall the predicted harms.","PeriodicalId":106035,"journal":{"name":"Human Rights & the Global Economy eJournal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2014-08-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125837209","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
type="graphical" xml:id="gpol12199-abs-0002"> The HLPF faces enormous institutional challenges. Its mandate is vast, but its legal authority and resources are highly constrained. In these circumstances, orchestration is the best available governance strategy.
{"title":"The High-Level Political Forum on Sustainable Development: Orchestration by Default and Design","authors":"Kenneth W. Abbott, Steven Bernstein","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2443973","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2443973","url":null,"abstract":"type=\"graphical\" xml:id=\"gpol12199-abs-0002\"> The HLPF faces enormous institutional challenges. Its mandate is vast, but its legal authority and resources are highly constrained. In these circumstances, orchestration is the best available governance strategy.","PeriodicalId":106035,"journal":{"name":"Human Rights & the Global Economy eJournal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2014-05-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127182387","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Human rights protection mechanisms are based on the state’s commitment to respect, protect and/or promote a series of rights. When one speaks about human rights violations’ punishments, the first image that comes to mind is the execution of human rights court rulings. However, there are other less explored informal mechanisms that generate negative consequences (“punishments”) after human rights violations. There are actors who react to human rights violations in a non-coordinated but systematic way. This paper addresses the following question: Do multinational corporations punish or reward human rights violations? To answer this question, I first discuss the literature analyzing the consequences of human rights violations on foreign direct investment (FDI). Second, I examine the effect of human rights violations on FDI inflows between 2000 and 2011 and present descriptive data illustrating the past five-year trend.
{"title":"Other Forms of Punishment of Human Rights Violations: The Case of Foreign Direct Investment","authors":"Ana Carolina Garriga","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2271128","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2271128","url":null,"abstract":"Human rights protection mechanisms are based on the state’s commitment to respect, protect and/or promote a series of rights. When one speaks about human rights violations’ punishments, the first image that comes to mind is the execution of human rights court rulings. However, there are other less explored informal mechanisms that generate negative consequences (“punishments”) after human rights violations. There are actors who react to human rights violations in a non-coordinated but systematic way. This paper addresses the following question: Do multinational corporations punish or reward human rights violations? To answer this question, I first discuss the literature analyzing the consequences of human rights violations on foreign direct investment (FDI). Second, I examine the effect of human rights violations on FDI inflows between 2000 and 2011 and present descriptive data illustrating the past five-year trend.","PeriodicalId":106035,"journal":{"name":"Human Rights & the Global Economy eJournal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2014-05-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124377791","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In the long battle against corruption, the last 20 years or so has yielded a number of international legal and institutional initiatives -- most notably, the OECD Bribery Convention and the UN Convention Against Corruption; regional anti-corruption conventions (in both Africa and the Americas); and the Financial Action Task Force; as well as a swathe of political responses, from G8 and G20 statements and UN resolutions, to civil society campaigns and organizations such as Transparency International and the World Economic Forum’s Partnering Against Corruption Initiative. In terms specifically of human rights, however, the response has not progressed far beyond baseline analyses of the negative human rights impacts of corruption and calls for that much to be recognized in efforts designed to combat corruption. What, in particular, is missing is any concerted effort to assess what precisely international human rights law could do to promote those efforts and what tangible added value a human rights approach might offer. The proposal advanced in this paper is intended to fill that gap. While it takes the form of an international human rights law instrument, it is nevertheless meant to supplement these other responses, not to replace or oppose them. What I am suggesting is that there ought to be recognized a specific, free-standing human right combatting corruption -- that is a "right to freedom from corruption" (RFFC) -- at the level of international law. As such, and like all international human rights laws, it would demand implementation in domestic jurisdictions, while providing normative guidance and supervision at the international level. This paper outlines (i) why we need such a new right, (ii) what form it should take and (iii) whether it would work in practice.
{"title":"A New Human Right to Freedom from Corruption","authors":"David Kinley","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2393205","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2393205","url":null,"abstract":"In the long battle against corruption, the last 20 years or so has yielded a number of international legal and institutional initiatives -- most notably, the OECD Bribery Convention and the UN Convention Against Corruption; regional anti-corruption conventions (in both Africa and the Americas); and the Financial Action Task Force; as well as a swathe of political responses, from G8 and G20 statements and UN resolutions, to civil society campaigns and organizations such as Transparency International and the World Economic Forum’s Partnering Against Corruption Initiative. In terms specifically of human rights, however, the response has not progressed far beyond baseline analyses of the negative human rights impacts of corruption and calls for that much to be recognized in efforts designed to combat corruption. What, in particular, is missing is any concerted effort to assess what precisely international human rights law could do to promote those efforts and what tangible added value a human rights approach might offer. The proposal advanced in this paper is intended to fill that gap. While it takes the form of an international human rights law instrument, it is nevertheless meant to supplement these other responses, not to replace or oppose them. What I am suggesting is that there ought to be recognized a specific, free-standing human right combatting corruption -- that is a \"right to freedom from corruption\" (RFFC) -- at the level of international law. As such, and like all international human rights laws, it would demand implementation in domestic jurisdictions, while providing normative guidance and supervision at the international level. This paper outlines (i) why we need such a new right, (ii) what form it should take and (iii) whether it would work in practice.","PeriodicalId":106035,"journal":{"name":"Human Rights & the Global Economy eJournal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2014-02-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131468746","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2014-01-25DOI: 10.1163/15718107-08303004
Radu Mareş
Some of the emblematic cases of corporate-related infringements of human rights have appeared in unstable and violence-ridden zones, including armed conflict and other contexts with lower levels of conflict, internal disturbances, widespread violence and latent tensions. Businesses have been involved in different ways, as direct perpetrators, accomplices or mere trading partners. This article tracks the issue of conflict-affected areas as elaborated in the United Nations (UN) Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights during the Special Representative’s mandate (2005–2011) and the post-mandate period of 2011–2014, especially by looking at the UN Working Group on business and human rights and the emerging National Action Plans. Conflict was a theme of high priority during John Ruggie’s UN mandate but lost visibility in the post-2011 period. What could explain this change? This article analyses in depth the relevant provisions in the UN Guiding Principles, particularly Principle 7, and how stakeholders have responded to the Special Representative’s policy recommendations. The results of this analysis indicate that, contrary to appearances, Principle 7 is not merely an operational, context-specific principle limited to conflict-affected zones where the host state is incapacitated by conflict; rather Principle 7 should be seen as a foundational principle about gross abuses, about the responsibilities of home states to act preventively and reactively when ‘their’ companies are involved in gross abuses in conflict-affected areas and beyond.
{"title":"Corporate and State Responsibilities in Conflict-Affected Areas","authors":"Radu Mareş","doi":"10.1163/15718107-08303004","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15718107-08303004","url":null,"abstract":"Some of the emblematic cases of corporate-related infringements of human rights have appeared in unstable and violence-ridden zones, including armed conflict and other contexts with lower levels of conflict, internal disturbances, widespread violence and latent tensions. Businesses have been involved in different ways, as direct perpetrators, accomplices or mere trading partners. This article tracks the issue of conflict-affected areas as elaborated in the United Nations (UN) Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights during the Special Representative’s mandate (2005–2011) and the post-mandate period of 2011–2014, especially by looking at the UN Working Group on business and human rights and the emerging National Action Plans. Conflict was a theme of high priority during John Ruggie’s UN mandate but lost visibility in the post-2011 period. What could explain this change? This article analyses in depth the relevant provisions in the UN Guiding Principles, particularly Principle 7, and how stakeholders have responded to the Special Representative’s policy recommendations. The results of this analysis indicate that, contrary to appearances, Principle 7 is not merely an operational, context-specific principle limited to conflict-affected zones where the host state is incapacitated by conflict; rather Principle 7 should be seen as a foundational principle about gross abuses, about the responsibilities of home states to act preventively and reactively when ‘their’ companies are involved in gross abuses in conflict-affected areas and beyond.","PeriodicalId":106035,"journal":{"name":"Human Rights & the Global Economy eJournal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2014-01-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116860701","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2013-12-05DOI: 10.4337/9781783472420.00037
Philip S. Yu
This chapter examines the human rights threats posed by those digital copyright enforcement measures that have been incorporated into both domestic laws and international agreements. It begins by providing an overview of the various human rights that have been implicated by these measures. The chapter then briefly discusses those specific measures that have been deemed highly threatening from a human rights standpoint. Although these measures were drawn largely from international agreements, most notably the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), many of them originate in domestic laws in either the European Union or the United States. This chapter concludes with two case studies. The first study focuses on the so-called "graduated response" system, which has been introduced in Chile, France, Ireland, South Korea, Taiwan and the United States and explored in New Zealand and the United Kingdom. This study illustrates the specific challenges brought about by one of the most draconian copyright enforcement measures ever created for the internet. The second study focuses on the active push by copyright holders and their supportive governments for provisions in ACTA that promote greater enforcement of intellectual property rights in the digital environment. This study highlights the systemic human rights challenges posed by non-multilateral trade agreements.
{"title":"Digital Copyright Enforcement Measures and Their Human Rights Threats","authors":"Philip S. Yu","doi":"10.4337/9781783472420.00037","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4337/9781783472420.00037","url":null,"abstract":"This chapter examines the human rights threats posed by those digital copyright enforcement measures that have been incorporated into both domestic laws and international agreements. It begins by providing an overview of the various human rights that have been implicated by these measures. The chapter then briefly discusses those specific measures that have been deemed highly threatening from a human rights standpoint. Although these measures were drawn largely from international agreements, most notably the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), many of them originate in domestic laws in either the European Union or the United States. This chapter concludes with two case studies. The first study focuses on the so-called \"graduated response\" system, which has been introduced in Chile, France, Ireland, South Korea, Taiwan and the United States and explored in New Zealand and the United Kingdom. This study illustrates the specific challenges brought about by one of the most draconian copyright enforcement measures ever created for the internet. The second study focuses on the active push by copyright holders and their supportive governments for provisions in ACTA that promote greater enforcement of intellectual property rights in the digital environment. This study highlights the systemic human rights challenges posed by non-multilateral trade agreements.","PeriodicalId":106035,"journal":{"name":"Human Rights & the Global Economy eJournal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2013-12-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122320092","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：