欧洲强制性人权尽职调查法:权利持有人的海市蜃楼?

IF 1.3 2区 社会学 Q1 LAW Leiden Journal of International Law Pub Date : 2023-02-22 DOI:10.1017/S0922156522000802
S. Deva
{"title":"欧洲强制性人权尽职调查法:权利持有人的海市蜃楼?","authors":"S. Deva","doi":"10.1017/S0922156522000802","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Mandatory human rights due diligence (HRDD) laws in the European Union (EU) – both enacted and in the making – seem to be a promising tool to harden soft international standards in the business and human rights (BHR) field, the most prominent of these being the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs). This article develops a two-layered critique of mandatory HRDD laws. It problematizes the very concept of HRDD as articulated by the UNGPs. I will argue that due to various conceptual, operational and structural limitations, HRDD alone will not bring the desired changes for rightsholders, because this process does not address various asymmetries of power between corporations and affected communities. The second layer of critique concerns the content of mandatory HRDD laws enacted in France, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Norway and Germany. Assessing these laws vis-à-vis six preconditions required to protect effectively people and the planet from business-related harms, it is clear that these mandatory HRDD laws are half-hearted attempts to tame business-related human rights abuses and hold the relevant corporate actors accountable. In addition to developing more ambitious mandatory HRDD laws in future, states should employ a range of additional regulatory tools that pay greater attention to achieving outcomes, drawing red lines in certain situations, and promoting access to remedy and corporate accountability.","PeriodicalId":46816,"journal":{"name":"Leiden Journal of International Law","volume":"36 1","pages":"389 - 414"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-02-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"9","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Mandatory human rights due diligence laws in Europe: A mirage for rightsholders?\",\"authors\":\"S. Deva\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/S0922156522000802\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract Mandatory human rights due diligence (HRDD) laws in the European Union (EU) – both enacted and in the making – seem to be a promising tool to harden soft international standards in the business and human rights (BHR) field, the most prominent of these being the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs). This article develops a two-layered critique of mandatory HRDD laws. It problematizes the very concept of HRDD as articulated by the UNGPs. I will argue that due to various conceptual, operational and structural limitations, HRDD alone will not bring the desired changes for rightsholders, because this process does not address various asymmetries of power between corporations and affected communities. The second layer of critique concerns the content of mandatory HRDD laws enacted in France, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Norway and Germany. Assessing these laws vis-à-vis six preconditions required to protect effectively people and the planet from business-related harms, it is clear that these mandatory HRDD laws are half-hearted attempts to tame business-related human rights abuses and hold the relevant corporate actors accountable. In addition to developing more ambitious mandatory HRDD laws in future, states should employ a range of additional regulatory tools that pay greater attention to achieving outcomes, drawing red lines in certain situations, and promoting access to remedy and corporate accountability.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46816,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Leiden Journal of International Law\",\"volume\":\"36 1\",\"pages\":\"389 - 414\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-02-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"9\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Leiden Journal of International Law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0922156522000802\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Leiden Journal of International Law","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0922156522000802","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 9

摘要

欧盟(EU)的强制性人权尽职调查(HRDD)法律——无论是已经颁布的还是正在制定的——似乎是一种很有前途的工具,可以强化商业与人权(BHR)领域的软国际标准,其中最突出的是联合国商业与人权指导原则(UNGPs)。本文从两个层面对强制性HRDD法律进行了批判。它使联合国指导方针所阐述的人权保护的概念本身出现问题。我认为,由于各种概念、操作和结构上的限制,HRDD本身不会给权利持有人带来期望的变化,因为这一过程没有解决公司和受影响社区之间的各种权力不对称。第二层批评涉及法国、荷兰、瑞士、挪威和德国颁布的强制性HRDD法律的内容。根据-à-vis有效保护人类和地球免受商业危害所需的六个先决条件来评估这些法律,很明显,这些强制性的HRDD法律是遏制与商业有关的侵犯人权行为并追究相关企业行为者责任的半心半心的尝试。除了在未来制定更有雄心的强制性人权dd法律外,各国还应采用一系列额外的监管工具,更加注重取得成果,在某些情况下划定红线,促进获得补救和企业问责。
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
Mandatory human rights due diligence laws in Europe: A mirage for rightsholders?
Abstract Mandatory human rights due diligence (HRDD) laws in the European Union (EU) – both enacted and in the making – seem to be a promising tool to harden soft international standards in the business and human rights (BHR) field, the most prominent of these being the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs). This article develops a two-layered critique of mandatory HRDD laws. It problematizes the very concept of HRDD as articulated by the UNGPs. I will argue that due to various conceptual, operational and structural limitations, HRDD alone will not bring the desired changes for rightsholders, because this process does not address various asymmetries of power between corporations and affected communities. The second layer of critique concerns the content of mandatory HRDD laws enacted in France, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Norway and Germany. Assessing these laws vis-à-vis six preconditions required to protect effectively people and the planet from business-related harms, it is clear that these mandatory HRDD laws are half-hearted attempts to tame business-related human rights abuses and hold the relevant corporate actors accountable. In addition to developing more ambitious mandatory HRDD laws in future, states should employ a range of additional regulatory tools that pay greater attention to achieving outcomes, drawing red lines in certain situations, and promoting access to remedy and corporate accountability.
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
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
6.70%
发文量
67
期刊最新文献
International law in the minds: On the ideational basis of the making, the changing, and the unmaking of international law BinaryTech in motion: The sexgender in the European Court of Human Rights jurisprudence Rewriting the law of international organizations: Whither the Asia Pacific? Beyond the machinery metaphors: Towards a theory of international organizations as machines The Committee on the Rights of the Child and Article 12: Applying the Lundy model to treaty body recommendations
×
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