治理多中心主义——企业与人权规制中没有政府的等级与秩序

L. Backer
{"title":"治理多中心主义——企业与人权规制中没有政府的等级与秩序","authors":"L. Backer","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2373734","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Globalization has produced a growing number of governance regimes beyond the reach of the domestic legal orders of states. These systems sometimes collide when their overlapping areas of competence lead to contradictory decisions or mutual obstruction. Is it possible to manage these collisions to produce order among colliding systems with no normative center, and if so, what may be the role of law for the solution of collision problems, and how does that role relate to non-legal regimes, what may be the role of non-legal approaches to a solution, and how do they relate to law, and what might concrete solutions look like? The purpose of this essay is to consider the issue of collision within one of its most interesting nexus points — in the elaboration of governance frameworks touching on the human rights impacts of economic activity by states, enterprises and individuals. That elaboration produces collisions between the state, international public and private organizations (enterprises and civil society actors), each with their distinct governance regimes. The thesis is that the development of governance regimes for the human rights impacts of economic activity suggests the way in which non-legal approaches play a crucial role in the creation of structures within which the collisions of polycentric governance, its necessary anarchic character, can be managed (but not ordered), and consequently the way in which law (and its principles of hierarchy and unitary systemicity) plays a less hegemonic role, that is, the way in which law has less to contribute toward the governance problem thus posed. The thesis is explored by considering the way in which the management of anarchy and the collision of governance regimes are being attempted through the operationalization of the United Nations Guiding Principles for Business and Human Rights, and the three pillar framework from which it arose (state duty to protect, corporate responsibility to respect, and effective remedies for adverse effects of human rights), and its incorporation into the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises. Part I considers the structures and premises of the emerging governance framework built into the Guiding Principles, and its points of collision with law based systems. Part II then considers the ramifications of collision, and the possibilities for systemic equilibrium. The emerging framework suggests a constitutional framework within which fracture and polycentric co-existence, of short duration, appear to be emerging as the stable state.","PeriodicalId":107878,"journal":{"name":"SRPN: Globalization (Sustainability) (Topic)","volume":"113 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2014-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Governance Polycentrism -- Hierarchy and Order Without Government in Business and Human Rights Regulation\",\"authors\":\"L. Backer\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.2373734\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Globalization has produced a growing number of governance regimes beyond the reach of the domestic legal orders of states. These systems sometimes collide when their overlapping areas of competence lead to contradictory decisions or mutual obstruction. Is it possible to manage these collisions to produce order among colliding systems with no normative center, and if so, what may be the role of law for the solution of collision problems, and how does that role relate to non-legal regimes, what may be the role of non-legal approaches to a solution, and how do they relate to law, and what might concrete solutions look like? The purpose of this essay is to consider the issue of collision within one of its most interesting nexus points — in the elaboration of governance frameworks touching on the human rights impacts of economic activity by states, enterprises and individuals. That elaboration produces collisions between the state, international public and private organizations (enterprises and civil society actors), each with their distinct governance regimes. The thesis is that the development of governance regimes for the human rights impacts of economic activity suggests the way in which non-legal approaches play a crucial role in the creation of structures within which the collisions of polycentric governance, its necessary anarchic character, can be managed (but not ordered), and consequently the way in which law (and its principles of hierarchy and unitary systemicity) plays a less hegemonic role, that is, the way in which law has less to contribute toward the governance problem thus posed. The thesis is explored by considering the way in which the management of anarchy and the collision of governance regimes are being attempted through the operationalization of the United Nations Guiding Principles for Business and Human Rights, and the three pillar framework from which it arose (state duty to protect, corporate responsibility to respect, and effective remedies for adverse effects of human rights), and its incorporation into the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises. Part I considers the structures and premises of the emerging governance framework built into the Guiding Principles, and its points of collision with law based systems. Part II then considers the ramifications of collision, and the possibilities for systemic equilibrium. The emerging framework suggests a constitutional framework within which fracture and polycentric co-existence, of short duration, appear to be emerging as the stable state.\",\"PeriodicalId\":107878,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"SRPN: Globalization (Sustainability) (Topic)\",\"volume\":\"113 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2014-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"SRPN: Globalization (Sustainability) (Topic)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2373734\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"SRPN: Globalization (Sustainability) (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2373734","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

全球化产生了越来越多的治理制度,超出了各国国内法律秩序的范围。当这些系统重叠的权限领域导致相互矛盾的决策或相互阻碍时,这些系统有时会发生冲突。是否有可能管理这些冲突,在没有规范中心的冲突系统之间产生秩序?如果有可能,法律在解决冲突问题方面可能扮演什么角色?这个角色与非法律制度有什么关系?解决问题的非法律途径可能扮演什么角色?它们与法律有什么关系?具体的解决方案可能是什么样子?本文的目的是在其最有趣的连接点之一考虑冲突问题——在阐述涉及国家、企业和个人经济活动对人权影响的治理框架时。这种阐述导致了国家、国际公共和私人组织(企业和民间社会行动者)之间的冲突,每个组织都有自己独特的治理机制。本文的论点是,经济活动对人权影响的治理制度的发展表明,非法律途径在创建结构中发挥关键作用的方式,在这种结构中,多中心治理的冲突,其必要的无政府性质,可以被管理(但不是有序的),因此,法律(及其等级和统一系统的原则)发挥较少霸权作用的方式,即:法律对由此提出的治理问题贡献不大的方式。本文通过考虑通过实施《联合国工商业与人权指导原则》来尝试管理无政府状态和治理制度冲突的方式,以及由此产生的三大支柱框架(国家保护的义务、企业尊重的责任和对人权不利影响的有效补救)来探讨这一问题。并将其纳入经济合作与发展组织的《跨国企业准则》。第一部分考虑了构建在指导原则中的新兴治理框架的结构和前提,以及它与基于法律的制度的冲突点。第二部分则考虑碰撞的后果,以及系统平衡的可能性。正在形成的框架暗示了一个宪政框架,在这个框架中,分裂和多中心共存的短期状态似乎正在成为稳定状态。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Governance Polycentrism -- Hierarchy and Order Without Government in Business and Human Rights Regulation
Globalization has produced a growing number of governance regimes beyond the reach of the domestic legal orders of states. These systems sometimes collide when their overlapping areas of competence lead to contradictory decisions or mutual obstruction. Is it possible to manage these collisions to produce order among colliding systems with no normative center, and if so, what may be the role of law for the solution of collision problems, and how does that role relate to non-legal regimes, what may be the role of non-legal approaches to a solution, and how do they relate to law, and what might concrete solutions look like? The purpose of this essay is to consider the issue of collision within one of its most interesting nexus points — in the elaboration of governance frameworks touching on the human rights impacts of economic activity by states, enterprises and individuals. That elaboration produces collisions between the state, international public and private organizations (enterprises and civil society actors), each with their distinct governance regimes. The thesis is that the development of governance regimes for the human rights impacts of economic activity suggests the way in which non-legal approaches play a crucial role in the creation of structures within which the collisions of polycentric governance, its necessary anarchic character, can be managed (but not ordered), and consequently the way in which law (and its principles of hierarchy and unitary systemicity) plays a less hegemonic role, that is, the way in which law has less to contribute toward the governance problem thus posed. The thesis is explored by considering the way in which the management of anarchy and the collision of governance regimes are being attempted through the operationalization of the United Nations Guiding Principles for Business and Human Rights, and the three pillar framework from which it arose (state duty to protect, corporate responsibility to respect, and effective remedies for adverse effects of human rights), and its incorporation into the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises. Part I considers the structures and premises of the emerging governance framework built into the Guiding Principles, and its points of collision with law based systems. Part II then considers the ramifications of collision, and the possibilities for systemic equilibrium. The emerging framework suggests a constitutional framework within which fracture and polycentric co-existence, of short duration, appear to be emerging as the stable state.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Globalization and Female Economic Participation in MINT and BRICS countries Digital Media Discourse on the Blockage of Huawei by the US Government 2019 World Pensions Forum Held in EU Capital Before G7 Summit Impact of additional equity capital on bank funding costs: Australian evidence Monetary Policy and Financial System Resilience
×
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