{"id":17687,"date":"2022-06-20T10:00:00","date_gmt":"2022-06-20T08:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/voelkerrechtsblog.org\/?p=17687"},"modified":"2022-10-21T12:51:33","modified_gmt":"2022-10-21T10:51:33","slug":"framing-business-human-rights","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/voelkerrechtsblog.org\/de\/framing-business-human-rights\/","title":{"rendered":"Framing Business & Human Rights?"},"content":{"rendered":"

Business and human rights (BHR), as an emerging field of modern law and legal research, is at an inflection point. On the one hand, its most prominent set of norms, the 2011 UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs)<\/a>, are widely accepted by leading institutions worldwide and recognised as having contributed to progress in this field. On the other hand, with a focus on remediating transnational corporate human rights abuses, governments and civil society organisations (CSO) are currently drafting a treaty<\/a> within an Open-Ended Intergovernmental Working Group<\/a> (OEIGWG).<\/p>\n

This negotiation process within the UN was established in 2014 and holds\u00a0a mandate from the UN Human Rights Council \u2018to elaborate an international legally binding instrument to regulate, in international human rights law, the activities of transnational corporations and other business enterprises\u2019 (UN HRC. Res. 26\/9<\/a>). Throughout its seven sessions, the OEIWGW has sought to consider the \u2018content, scope, nature and form of the future international instrument\u2019 and negotiated draft texts, the most recent being the Third Revised Draft<\/a>.\u00a0While the negotiation process was widely welcomed by CSOs,\u00a0the mandate and proposed drafts were met with diplomatic opposition<\/a>, particularly by Western industrialised States. It is against this backdrop that the first-ever joining of the U.S. delegation to the OEIGWG meetings in October 2021 was received with much interest. While reiterating its opposition to the treaty in its current draft, the Biden administration expressed<\/a>\u00a0openness to exploring alternative routes to the\u00a0current OEIGWG draft, including explicitly \u201ca legally binding framework agreement\u201d that would build on the\u00a0UNGPs.<\/p>\n

Framework agreements are a particular\u00a0type<\/a> of treaty, that establish key objectives and a system of governance but leave details to be determined in the future by an agreed-on mechanism. While the idea of opting for a framework-designed approach for the BHR treaty had been considered<\/a> by the OEIGWG and discussed<\/a> by academic experts \u2013 including a formulated draft text<\/a> by a leading scholar from 2020, the recent US proposition gave it a whole new impetus. Perceived by some as a distraction from existing efforts to create a binding treaty in the field, others regard\u00a0the idea for a framework convention as offering a (more) promising and realistic route to improve the protection of human rights globally.<\/p>\n

With this introductory note, we are thrilled to present our Symposium in cooperation with\u00a0World Comparative Law (WCL)<\/a>. The aim of this Symposium is to discuss the ongoing OEIGWG process and to dare a curious examination of a possible framework convention as an alternative approach to regulating business in the field of human rights. It intends to explore regulatory potentials, challenges, benefits, and downsides of a conventional treaty (as currently proposed by the OEIGWG) and a framework-style convention (as recently suggested by the U.S. delegation). With this selection of contributions with a broad range of perspectives, we hope to open the debate to a wider public and enable States to make sound choices.<\/p>\n

Giulia Botta<\/a>\u00a0<\/strong>kicks off our Symposium. Taking stock\u00a0of the first UNGPs decade, she outlines the need for more policy coherence and for a mandatory international standard.\u00a0Giulia Botta explores the potential\u00a0opportunities\u00a0and possible structure of a BHR framework convention and\u00a0helps us navigate the intricacies of the BHR treaty processes.<\/p>\n

Jonathan Klaaren<\/strong><\/a>\u00a0believes that there is a necessity to\u00a0acknowledge the short arm of the law and the long arm of economics. In his\u00a0blog post,\u00a0he explains\u00a0why the\u00a0fast-growing and distinctively African variety of competition regulation is well-suited for implementation complementing\u00a0BHR\u00a0framework agreements,\u00a0strengthening the argument for their adoption.<\/p>\n

Lucas Roorda<\/strong><\/a> approaches the BHR treaty drafting process from the perspective of private international law, focusing on the aspect of jurisdiction. He argues that the rule-based approach of the current OEIGWG draft, aiming at harmonisation, may create more problems than it resolves. By consequence, he suggests reframing the current OEIGWG draft as a framework agreement and including an explicit commitment to additional protocols addressing specific barriers to remedy.<\/p>\n

Claire\u00a0Methven O’Brien<\/a><\/strong>, building on previous work, advocates for a framework convention, that should be broad in scope, flexible and responsive. Against the backdrop of evolving approaches to regulating corporate human rights due diligence, and recent developments in the domain of \u2018Environment Social and Governance\u2019 (ESG) investment, she strives to demonstrate that norms and techniques of BHR regulation remain emergent and unstable. Consequently, she identifies a risk of obsolescence, when opting for a prescriptive international scheme.<\/p>\n

Tara Van Ho<\/strong><\/a> argues\u00a0that the USA is\u00a0engaged in counter-diplomacy\u00a0and\u00a0calls\u00a0on\u00a0States to continue negotiating\u00a0based on\u00a0the\u00a0Third OEIGWG Draft.\u00a0She sketches\u00a0the primary issues a BHR treaty needs to address, considers\u00a0the progress that has been made towards meeting these\u00a0needs\u00a0within the current draft treaty,\u00a0and finally indicates\u00a0how\u00a0a framework convention would undermine this progress.\u00a0She suggests that\u00a0there is little reason to tempt States such as the US back to the negotiating table, as they will not ratify any kind of BHR treaty for reasons that\u00a0lay with their domestic political and legal system.<\/p>\n

Nils Grohmann<\/strong><\/a> explores the potential of a possible framework convention in BHR under the aspect of monitoring and enforcement. Drawing on an analysis of the European Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities (FCNM) and the core UN human rights treaties, he makes concrete treaty-design suggestions that should be included in a framework convention to guarantee effective oversight.<\/p>\n

Fl\u00e1via do Amaral Vieira<\/strong><\/a> highlights that\u00a0in a\u00a0world\u00a0dominated by corporate governance,\u00a0civil society acts as an important counter\u00a0to corporate capture,\u00a0understood as\u00a0the power\u00a0connecting\u00a0States and\u00a0transnational\u00a0corporations.\u00a0She\u00a0argues that the effort that civil society actors have invested in the\u00a0OEIGWG\u00a0process would be rendered futile\u00a0if there were a shift away from the envisaged conventional treaty to a framework convention.<\/p>\n

Larry Cat\u00e1 Backer<\/strong><\/a> addresses the challenges that a polycentric regulatory ecology poses for treaty-making. Informed by the analysis of previous initiatives, he identifies the broad contours of the challenges of treaty-making in the area of BHR. He argues that a framework-based approach offers the opportunity to both recognise the need to incorporate the larger architecture of business, human rights, and sustainability, and to develop the structures within which this coordination can be given form.<\/p>\n

We are pleased to conclude our introductory remarks with the announcement of a special treat for our readers: We invited two renowned scholars, Surya Deva\u00a0<\/strong>and\u00a0Claire\u00a0Methven O’Brien,<\/strong> who are rather emblematic for different approaches and convictions regarding Business and Human Rights for a written double interview<\/strong><\/a>. We are very much looking forward to a lively exchange on opposing positions!<\/p>\n

We wish all readers an inspiring read and look forward to comments!<\/p>\n

Dear authors, the floor is yours \u2026<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Business and human rights (BHR), as an emerging field of modern law and legal research, is at an inflection point. On the one hand, its most prominent set of norms, the 2011 UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs), are widely accepted by leading institutions worldwide and recognised as having contributed to progress […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":21,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[6639],"tags":[7129,7128,7127],"authors":[5534,6030,3574],"article-categories":[3572],"doi":[],"class_list":["post-17687","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized","tag-framework-convention","tag-open-ended-intergovernmental-working-group","tag-un-guiding-principles-for-business-and-human-rights","authors-anna-sophia-tiedeke","authors-justine-batura","authors-michael-riegner","article-categories-symposium"],"acf":{"subline":"Introducing the Symposium on a Framework Agreement as an Alternative Regulatory Proposal"},"meta_box":{"doi":"10.17176\/20220620-153101-0"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/voelkerrechtsblog.org\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/17687","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/voelkerrechtsblog.org\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/voelkerrechtsblog.org\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/voelkerrechtsblog.org\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/21"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/voelkerrechtsblog.org\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=17687"}],"version-history":[{"count":11,"href":"https:\/\/voelkerrechtsblog.org\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/17687\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":18556,"href":"https:\/\/voelkerrechtsblog.org\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/17687\/revisions\/18556"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/voelkerrechtsblog.org\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=17687"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/voelkerrechtsblog.org\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=17687"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/voelkerrechtsblog.org\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=17687"},{"taxonomy":"authors","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/voelkerrechtsblog.org\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/authors?post=17687"},{"taxonomy":"article-categories","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/voelkerrechtsblog.org\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/article-categories?post=17687"},{"taxonomy":"doi","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/voelkerrechtsblog.org\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/doi?post=17687"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}