The third pillar of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs) is often considered the ‘forgotten pillar’,1 especially when compared with the first pillar, where some of the ‘governance gaps’ the State must address in order to comply with its duty to protect under international human rights law are developed with some level of detail. The same happens in relation to the second pillar, which proposes a practical approach for the proactive involvement of companies in the identification and management of the risks their activities and business relationships may produce on human rights.2 However, the third pillar is not necessarily ‘forgotten’, as it is based on one of the core rights of the international human rights regime. In this regard, not only are the various elements and procedures for access to justice developed within each country’s domestic law and within the international legal system, but they have also been subject to detailed studies by the international and regional human rights community.3 However, it is the least proactive pillar of the UN framework on business and human rights, and the one that faces the greatest challenges in terms of making a specific, substantive contribution in light of the vast existence of civil, criminal, administrative and constitutional proceedings in domestic jurisdictions.
{"title":"Corporate Liability for Human Rights Abuses in Latin American Courts: Some Recent Developments","authors":"Humberto Cantú Rivera, Miguel Barboza López","doi":"10.1017/bhj.2022.24","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/bhj.2022.24","url":null,"abstract":"The third pillar of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs) is often considered the ‘forgotten pillar’,1 especially when compared with the first pillar, where some of the ‘governance gaps’ the State must address in order to comply with its duty to protect under international human rights law are developed with some level of detail. The same happens in relation to the second pillar, which proposes a practical approach for the proactive involvement of companies in the identification and management of the risks their activities and business relationships may produce on human rights.2 However, the third pillar is not necessarily ‘forgotten’, as it is based on one of the core rights of the international human rights regime. In this regard, not only are the various elements and procedures for access to justice developed within each country’s domestic law and within the international legal system, but they have also been subject to detailed studies by the international and regional human rights community.3 However, it is the least proactive pillar of the UN framework on business and human rights, and the one that faces the greatest challenges in terms of making a specific, substantive contribution in light of the vast existence of civil, criminal, administrative and constitutional proceedings in domestic jurisdictions.","PeriodicalId":9399,"journal":{"name":"Business and Human Rights Journal","volume":"7 1","pages":"481 - 486"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2022-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47065857","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}
Abstract The ‘Going Out’ strategy that China began in 1999 escalated to a global level with the ‘Belt and Road Initiative’ in 2013. However, the lack of a clear international framework for corporate accountability accentuates the risks of human rights’ affectation by Chinese corporations, considering their controversial performance in Latin America. This article engages with the scholarly framework of international norm localization to analyze the enactment of Chinese business and human rights standards and their concrete application. This assessment relies on an extensive review of academic and policy research and the analysis of social conflicts around one of the largest copper mines in the region, Las Bambas, located in the highlands of Peru. The case shows that the main problem is not the lack of incorporation of business and human rights standards into national laws and the guidelines of companies’ home regulators, but the different ways they are interpreted by social actors on the ground. Local communities are not passive receptors of those norms but norm makers who appropriate them and provide new meanings in line with their self-determination. Chinese and national authorities and firms, therefore, need to engage with those norms from the perspective of local people.
{"title":"The Politics of Localizing Human Rights: Chinese Policies and Corporate Practices in Latin America","authors":"R. Merino","doi":"10.1017/bhj.2022.11","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/bhj.2022.11","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The ‘Going Out’ strategy that China began in 1999 escalated to a global level with the ‘Belt and Road Initiative’ in 2013. However, the lack of a clear international framework for corporate accountability accentuates the risks of human rights’ affectation by Chinese corporations, considering their controversial performance in Latin America. This article engages with the scholarly framework of international norm localization to analyze the enactment of Chinese business and human rights standards and their concrete application. This assessment relies on an extensive review of academic and policy research and the analysis of social conflicts around one of the largest copper mines in the region, Las Bambas, located in the highlands of Peru. The case shows that the main problem is not the lack of incorporation of business and human rights standards into national laws and the guidelines of companies’ home regulators, but the different ways they are interpreted by social actors on the ground. Local communities are not passive receptors of those norms but norm makers who appropriate them and provide new meanings in line with their self-determination. Chinese and national authorities and firms, therefore, need to engage with those norms from the perspective of local people.","PeriodicalId":9399,"journal":{"name":"Business and Human Rights Journal","volume":"7 1","pages":"439 - 460"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2022-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47884971","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}
{"title":"BHJ volume 7 issue 3 Cover and Back matter","authors":"","doi":"10.1017/bhj.2022.34","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/bhj.2022.34","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":9399,"journal":{"name":"Business and Human Rights Journal","volume":"7 1","pages":"b1 - b2"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2022-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43406275","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}
{"title":"BHJ volume 7 issue 3 Cover and Front matter","authors":"","doi":"10.1017/bhj.2022.33","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/bhj.2022.33","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":9399,"journal":{"name":"Business and Human Rights Journal","volume":" ","pages":"f1 - f6"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2022-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45326070","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}
This article intends to explore how the production of collective memory within transitional justice processes could be considered as a feasible avenue to advance the instrumentalization of the Access to Remedy Pillar of the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs). This account considers that collective memory is a fundamental component of transitional justice as the attainment of both victims reparation and national reconciliation require the emergence of a shared historical narrative that fixes an explanation as to the implications of violence on the trajectory of the affected society. Hence the current Colombian transitional justice project, and particularly certain social dialogue activities conducted by its Truth Commission (hereafter the Commission), are presented as an embryonic and non-exhaustive case study that serves as the starting point of further research on the matter.
{"title":"Access to Remedy and the Construction of Collective Memory: New Perspectives in the Realm of the Colombian Transitional Justice Project","authors":"M. Velásquez-Ruiz, Carolina Olarte-Bácares","doi":"10.1017/bhj.2022.5","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/bhj.2022.5","url":null,"abstract":"This article intends to explore how the production of collective memory within transitional justice processes could be considered as a feasible avenue to advance the instrumentalization of the Access to Remedy Pillar of the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs). This account considers that collective memory is a fundamental component of transitional justice as the attainment of both victims reparation and national reconciliation require the emergence of a shared historical narrative that fixes an explanation as to the implications of violence on the trajectory of the affected society. Hence the current Colombian transitional justice project, and particularly certain social dialogue activities conducted by its Truth Commission (hereafter the Commission), are presented as an embryonic and non-exhaustive case study that serves as the starting point of further research on the matter.","PeriodicalId":9399,"journal":{"name":"Business and Human Rights Journal","volume":"7 1","pages":"468 - 474"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2022-08-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42506855","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}
Abstract Exposure to the marketing of ultra-processed food and beverages has been proven to be detrimental to children’s health. This article explores this issue from a business and human rights perspective, with the purpose of understanding businesses’ responsibilities and states’ duties with respect to the deliberate marketing of ultra-processed products to children. To this end, this article refers to the three pillars of the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, as well as to international human rights law. Its analysis looks not only at the normative content of obligations, responsibilities and rights under international law, but also at their implementation and at current challenges within the Latin American context.
{"title":"Marketing Ultra-Processed Food and Beverages to Children in Latin America: Business Responsibilities and State Duties","authors":"Diana Guarnizo-Peralta","doi":"10.1017/bhj.2022.10","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/bhj.2022.10","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Exposure to the marketing of ultra-processed food and beverages has been proven to be detrimental to children’s health. This article explores this issue from a business and human rights perspective, with the purpose of understanding businesses’ responsibilities and states’ duties with respect to the deliberate marketing of ultra-processed products to children. To this end, this article refers to the three pillars of the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, as well as to international human rights law. Its analysis looks not only at the normative content of obligations, responsibilities and rights under international law, but also at their implementation and at current challenges within the Latin American context.","PeriodicalId":9399,"journal":{"name":"Business and Human Rights Journal","volume":"7 1","pages":"418 - 438"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2022-08-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44913118","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}
Abstract This article addresses the lack of clarity regarding obligations of state-owned enterprises in the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. Starting from the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights’ latest report on the topic, it develops the scope of human rights obligations for state-owned enterprises in the Americas, framing them in a systemic approach that calls for using both governance and regulatory tools to achieve respect for human rights. The article furthermore argues that there are good reasons for limiting the application of due diligence to the relationships with a company’s private business partners, excluding the relationship with its (public) owner where direct responsibility applies. Finally, the article spells out several specific issues that need to be addressed when assessing SOE human rights governance and shows that the enhanced human rights accountability of state-owned enterprises need not contradict a level playing field between public and private business.
{"title":"Inter-American Elements for a Systemic Approach to State-Owned Enterprises’ Human Rights Obligations","authors":"Judith Schönsteiner","doi":"10.1017/bhj.2021.57","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/bhj.2021.57","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This article addresses the lack of clarity regarding obligations of state-owned enterprises in the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. Starting from the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights’ latest report on the topic, it develops the scope of human rights obligations for state-owned enterprises in the Americas, framing them in a systemic approach that calls for using both governance and regulatory tools to achieve respect for human rights. The article furthermore argues that there are good reasons for limiting the application of due diligence to the relationships with a company’s private business partners, excluding the relationship with its (public) owner where direct responsibility applies. Finally, the article spells out several specific issues that need to be addressed when assessing SOE human rights governance and shows that the enhanced human rights accountability of state-owned enterprises need not contradict a level playing field between public and private business.","PeriodicalId":9399,"journal":{"name":"Business and Human Rights Journal","volume":"7 1","pages":"397 - 417"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2022-08-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48759514","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}
Danilo B. Garrido Alves, Daniela Arantes Prata, Camila Manfredini de Abreu
On 5 November 2015, the Fundão Dam collapsed, causing the most devastating tailings dam disaster to date. The dam was operated by Samarco S.A., a joint venture by Vale, Brazil’s biggest mining company, and BHP Billiton, the world’s largest mining company.1 Its tailings travelled down the Doce River for ca 700 kilometres until they reached the ocean, affecting 42 municipalities, two states, and thousands of communities along the way. The disaster caused myriad social, environmental and economic impacts: nineteen individuals were killed, and thousands endured physical or psychological harm; water resources and the soil were polluted; habitats were irreversibly destroyed; and the local economy suffered long-lasting damage. Traditional and indigenous communities were especially harmed, as their historical, social, religious and cultural relationships with their land led to even more profound harms.2
{"title":"A New Route for Redress in the Samarco Case? An Overview of the Simplified Indemnification System’s (Un)Lawfulness","authors":"Danilo B. Garrido Alves, Daniela Arantes Prata, Camila Manfredini de Abreu","doi":"10.1017/bhj.2021.59","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/bhj.2021.59","url":null,"abstract":"On 5 November 2015, the Fundão Dam collapsed, causing the most devastating tailings dam disaster to date. The dam was operated by Samarco S.A., a joint venture by Vale, Brazil’s biggest mining company, and BHP Billiton, the world’s largest mining company.1 Its tailings travelled down the Doce River for ca 700 kilometres until they reached the ocean, affecting 42 municipalities, two states, and thousands of communities along the way. The disaster caused myriad social, environmental and economic impacts: nineteen individuals were killed, and thousands endured physical or psychological harm; water resources and the soil were polluted; habitats were irreversibly destroyed; and the local economy suffered long-lasting damage. Traditional and indigenous communities were especially harmed, as their historical, social, religious and cultural relationships with their land led to even more profound harms.2","PeriodicalId":9399,"journal":{"name":"Business and Human Rights Journal","volume":"7 1","pages":"475 - 480"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2022-08-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42712034","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}
Public procurement is a process whereby the public sector buys from private suppliers the goods, services and works it needs to accomplish its functions. It aims to obtain the best ‘value for money’, ‘in a timely, economical and efficient manner’.1 This traditional procurement’s goal was re-defined by scholars and policymakers to give space to non-economic objectives through the so-called sustainable public procurement (SPP).2 SPP pursues economic, environmental and social objectives within the purchasing process.3 Therefore, ‘social’ is one of the three dimensions that makes sustainability possible, and human rights are the backbone of social sustainability.
{"title":"Is Latin America Missing the Links Between Procurement, Sustainability and Human Rights?","authors":"Laura Trevino Lozano","doi":"10.1017/bhj.2022.9","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/bhj.2022.9","url":null,"abstract":"Public procurement is a process whereby the public sector buys from private suppliers the goods, services and works it needs to accomplish its functions. It aims to obtain the best ‘value for money’, ‘in a timely, economical and efficient manner’.1 This traditional procurement’s goal was re-defined by scholars and policymakers to give space to non-economic objectives through the so-called sustainable public procurement (SPP).2 SPP pursues economic, environmental and social objectives within the purchasing process.3 Therefore, ‘social’ is one of the three dimensions that makes sustainability possible, and human rights are the backbone of social sustainability.","PeriodicalId":9399,"journal":{"name":"Business and Human Rights Journal","volume":"7 1","pages":"461 - 467"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2022-08-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48105450","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}
When evaluating the implementation of the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs), some may claim that the State’s duty to protect (Pillar 1) has been fulfilled with the adoption of National Action Plans; and that the corporate responsibility to respect human rights (Pillar 2) has been fulfilled by calls for companies to act responsibly through initiatives that seek to make them aware of social expectations. However, the effectiveness of both types of initiatives to bring about real changes in people’s lives is open to criticism. Access to remedy (Pillar 3) is notoriously the weaker pillar of the UNGPs.1 In Transterritorialidade – Uma Teoria de Responsabilização de Empresas por Violações aos Direitos Humanos (Transterritoriality – A Theory of Corporate Accountability for Human Rights Violations), Ana Claudia Ruy Cardia Atchabahian confronts this reality. The book is law-oriented and will mainly appeal to those with a legal background, perhaps less to a business audience. The theory presented is developed from the realization that Pillar 3 is neglected by both states and businesses. The author is on a quest for instruments that can ensure corporate accountability for human rights violations. First, the book presents the reasons for choosing access to remedy as a research topic; then it analyses existing instruments and initiatives to promote redress, and how they fall short of what is promised and desired. Finally, the author proposes her own theory, which revolves around the application of extraterritoriality, but in such a way that it increases the chances that the substantive law applied is victims-centred. The first chapter delivers the backdrop to Atchabahian’s concerns, namely the postWorld War II reconstruction of countries based on consumption, and the consequent dependence on companies that produce goods and services, which are attracted to countries in exchange for a portion of sovereignty. Investments, economic prosperity, and the possibility of consumption bring a sense of security that blinds people to the human and environmental costs of this arrangement. International law coping with this situation is fragmented, leading to insecurity that is reinforced by the actions of transnational corporations. States, voluntarily or not, fail to protect individuals. The author identifies this as a violation of Douzinas’ ‘ethics of alterity’, the ‘ethics before the being and the obligation before the others’ need or interest’ (p. 22). The response proposed is based on Amartya Sen’s ‘behavioural ethic’ (p. 22) whose normative framework arises from Gunther Teubner’s transnational or global law and the norms of international human rights law. Chapters 2 and 3 discuss corporate liability in existing initiatives, and their ability to produce redress. The UNGPs, the current UN process for drafting a treaty on business and human rights and domestic models (e.g., national action plans or specific legislation like the
在评估《联合国工商业与人权指导原则》的执行情况时，有些人可能会声称，通过《国家行动计划》，国家的保护义务（支柱1）得到了履行；企业尊重人权的责任（支柱2）已通过呼吁企业采取负责任的行动来履行，这些举措旨在让企业意识到社会期望。然而，这两类举措为人们的生活带来真正改变的有效性值得批评。众所周知，获得补救的途径（支柱3）是联合国大会较弱的支柱。1在跨地区——Uma Teoria de Responsabilização de Empresas por Violações aos Direitos Humanos（跨地区——侵犯人权行为的企业问责理论）中，Ana Claudia Ruy Cardia Atchabahian面临着这一现实。这本书以法律为导向，主要吸引那些有法律背景的人，也许不太吸引商业观众。所提出的理论是在认识到支柱3被国家和企业忽视的基础上发展起来的。提交人正在寻求能够确保公司对侵犯人权行为追究责任的文书。首先，本书介绍了选择补救途径作为研究主题的原因；然后分析了现有的促进补救的文书和举措，以及它们如何达不到承诺和期望。最后，作者提出了她自己的理论，该理论围绕着治外法权的适用，但其方式增加了适用的实体法以受害者为中心的可能性。第一章介绍了Atchabahian关注的背景，即二战后基于消费的国家重建，以及随之而来的对生产商品和服务的公司的依赖，这些公司被吸引到国家以换取部分主权。投资、经济繁荣和消费的可能性带来了一种安全感，使人们对这种安排的人力和环境成本视而不见。应对这种情况的国际法支离破碎，导致不安全，跨国公司的行动加剧了这种不安全。无论国家是否自愿，都未能保护个人。作者认为这违反了Douzinas的“互变伦理”、“存在之前的伦理和他人“需要或利益”之前的义务”（第22页）。提议的回应基于Amartya Sen的“行为伦理”（第22页），其规范框架源自Gunther Teubner的跨国或全球法以及国际人权法规范。第2章和第3章讨论了现有倡议中的公司责任及其产生补救的能力。UNGP，目前联合国起草商业和人权条约的程序，以及国内模式（例如，国家行动计划或具体立法，如
{"title":"Transterritorialidade – Uma Teoria de Responsabilização de Empresas por Violações aos Direitos Humanos, Ana Claudia Ruy Cardia Atchabahian (Lumen Juris, 2020)","authors":"Danielle Anne Pamplona","doi":"10.1017/bhj.2022.17","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/bhj.2022.17","url":null,"abstract":"When evaluating the implementation of the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs), some may claim that the State’s duty to protect (Pillar 1) has been fulfilled with the adoption of National Action Plans; and that the corporate responsibility to respect human rights (Pillar 2) has been fulfilled by calls for companies to act responsibly through initiatives that seek to make them aware of social expectations. However, the effectiveness of both types of initiatives to bring about real changes in people’s lives is open to criticism. Access to remedy (Pillar 3) is notoriously the weaker pillar of the UNGPs.1 In Transterritorialidade – Uma Teoria de Responsabilização de Empresas por Violações aos Direitos Humanos (Transterritoriality – A Theory of Corporate Accountability for Human Rights Violations), Ana Claudia Ruy Cardia Atchabahian confronts this reality. The book is law-oriented and will mainly appeal to those with a legal background, perhaps less to a business audience. The theory presented is developed from the realization that Pillar 3 is neglected by both states and businesses. The author is on a quest for instruments that can ensure corporate accountability for human rights violations. First, the book presents the reasons for choosing access to remedy as a research topic; then it analyses existing instruments and initiatives to promote redress, and how they fall short of what is promised and desired. Finally, the author proposes her own theory, which revolves around the application of extraterritoriality, but in such a way that it increases the chances that the substantive law applied is victims-centred. The first chapter delivers the backdrop to Atchabahian’s concerns, namely the postWorld War II reconstruction of countries based on consumption, and the consequent dependence on companies that produce goods and services, which are attracted to countries in exchange for a portion of sovereignty. Investments, economic prosperity, and the possibility of consumption bring a sense of security that blinds people to the human and environmental costs of this arrangement. International law coping with this situation is fragmented, leading to insecurity that is reinforced by the actions of transnational corporations. States, voluntarily or not, fail to protect individuals. The author identifies this as a violation of Douzinas’ ‘ethics of alterity’, the ‘ethics before the being and the obligation before the others’ need or interest’ (p. 22). The response proposed is based on Amartya Sen’s ‘behavioural ethic’ (p. 22) whose normative framework arises from Gunther Teubner’s transnational or global law and the norms of international human rights law. Chapters 2 and 3 discuss corporate liability in existing initiatives, and their ability to produce redress. The UNGPs, the current UN process for drafting a treaty on business and human rights and domestic models (e.g., national action plans or specific legislation like the","PeriodicalId":9399,"journal":{"name":"Business and Human Rights Journal","volume":"7 1","pages":"508 - 510"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2022-08-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47835890","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：