scholarly journals Maximising available resources: Equality and human rights proofing Irish fiscal policy

2017 ◽  
Vol 65 (3) ◽  
pp. 59-80
Author(s):  
Mary P. Murphy
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Fiscal Policy ◽  
Public Discourse ◽  
Developing Nations ◽  
Policy Outcomes ◽  
National Plan ◽  
Business And Human Rights ◽  
Policy Statements ◽  
Human Rights Norms ◽  
Available Resources

AbstractThe paper examines various rationales for applying equality and human rights proofing mechanisms to fiscal policy. The principle of using available resources to the maximum to progressively realise human rights, and not to erode the revenue capacity of developing nations to do likewise, is at the heart of emerging human rights norms. To date, Irish budgetary processes and major policy statements such as the Commission on Taxation or the draft outline National Plan on Business and Human Rights Strategy have not engaged with the principles of maximising available resources or extraterritoriality. Proofing fiscal policy is also relevant from the perspective of fiscal welfare where taxation instruments, traditionally used as a revenue-gathering mechanism, are increasingly used as distributional mechanisms to achieve policy outcomes in pensions, health, housing and employment, with important equality and distributive dimensions, particularly from gender, age and socioeconomic perspectives. A number of practical institutional mechanisms and evaluative questions can guide equality and human rights proofing of fiscal policy, but commitments to maximise resources to realise rights also need to be promoted through a public discourse which sees taxation as potential investment in society rather than a burden or cost on the economy.

scholarly journals The UN 'Norms on the Responsibility of Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises with Regard to Human Rights': A Requiem

2012 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 5 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pini Pavel Miretski ◽  
Sascha-Dominik Bachmann
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Transnational Corporations ◽  
Global Business ◽  
Unsuccessful Attempt ◽  
Business And Human Rights ◽  
Adverse Impacts ◽  
Guiding Principles ◽  
Business Enterprises ◽  
Human Rights Norms ◽  
Alternative Solutions

On 11 June 2011, the United Nations Human Rights Council endorsed the ‘Guiding Principles for Business and Human Rights’ as a new set of guiding principles for global business designed to provide a global standard for preventing and addressing the risk of adverse impacts on human rights linked to business activity. This outcome was preceded by an earlier unsuccessful attempt by a Sub-Commission of the UN Commission on Human Rights to win approval for a set of binding corporate human rights norms, the so called ‘Norms on the Responsibilities of Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises with Regard to Human Rights’. This article identifies and discusses the reasons why the Norms eventually failed to win approval by the then UN Commission on Human Rights. This discussion assists an understanding of the difficulties in establishing binding ‘hard law’ obligations for transnational corporations with regard to human rights within the wider framework of international law. It elucidates the possible motives as well as the underlying rationale which led first to the adoption and then the rapid abandoning of the Norms. The discussion also sheds light on the future of the voluntarism of business human rights compliance, on the likelihood of finding alternative solutions, and finally on the rationale for, and effect of, the ‘Guiding Principles for Business and Human Rights’.

Investor Obligations for Human Rights

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Barnali Choudhury
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Corporate Responsibility ◽  
International Investment ◽  
International Investment Law ◽  
Business And Human Rights ◽  
International Investment Agreements ◽  
Human Rights Movement ◽  
Investment Law ◽  
Human Rights Norms ◽  
Investment Agreements

Abstract Despite progress being made in the business and human rights field in defining corporate responsibility for human rights, defining foreign investors roles vis-à-vis human rights remains mainly stagnant. The idea that businesses have responsibility for human rights is well ensconced in global norms and is based on society's expectations of business in the 21st century. Yet despite this widespread recognition, international investment law is silent on the matter. This leaves a disconnect between the norms dictating the corporate responsibility for human rights in public international law and those found in international investment law. One way to better align progress in the business and human rights movement with international investment law is to introduce investor obligations for human rights. These obligations can be located both in investment treaties as well as in non-treaty sources. Moreover, investment arbitration provides multiple entrypoints for tribunals to consider such obligations, for example through counterclaims, jurisdictional claims, or admissibility claims, among others. Two primary benefits arise from introducing investor obligations for human rights. First, it can act as vehicle by which business and human rights norms, generally, can be enforced. Second, and more importantly, introducing investor obligations for human rights can help to better contextualize the interpretation of IIAs. Introducing such obligations can be used to remind tribunals that international investment law operates in a system that includes non-investment concerns such as human rights. Considering such obligations, in and of themselves, however, are unlikely to prompt wider changes in international investment law. Nevertheless, including investor obligations in international investment law may prompt tribunals to give more balanced interpretations to international investment agreements. This can work towards ensuring that international investment law serves its ultimate aim of promoting a state’s development.

Addressing the compliance gap? UN initiatives to benchmark the human rights performance of states and corporations

2015 ◽  
Vol 41 (5) ◽  
pp. 925-945 ◽  
Author(s):  
JAMES HARRISON ◽  
SHARIFAH SEKALALA
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Comparative Analysis ◽  
Global Governance ◽  
Significant Role ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
Business And Human Rights ◽  
International Human ◽  
Guiding Principles ◽  
Human Rights Norms

AbstractThis article examines under what conditions benchmarking and associated measurement initiatives produced by UN human rights actors could, and should, play a role in promoting compliance with international human rights norms. It is organised around a comparative analysis of UN benchmarking initiatives for states and corporations. With regard to states, the article argues that ideological misgivings and technical limitations have so far triumphed over aspirations that indicators and benchmarks might play a significant role in increasing compliance with international human rights norms. With regard to corporations, we find that measuring human rights performance has been framed by the recent UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights using a much more expansive and less quantitative set of benchmarks. These latter benchmarks do not appear to be creating conditions under which the human rights performance of corporations is effectively interrogated, and as a result there is a danger of superficial legitimation. Comparative analysis of these two initiatives reveals some of the tensions inherent in utilising benchmarking in transnational efforts to achieve human rights compliance. It also allows us to contribute to broader debates about the quantification of performance and its potential and limitations as a tool of global governance.

scholarly journals Stemming the Flow of Corporate Human Rights Abuses: Incorporating the Ruggie Report in the Common Law Doctrine of Foreign Judgment Enforcement

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Erin Matariki Carr
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Multinational Corporations ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Modern Society ◽  
Developing Nations ◽  
Human Rights Abuses ◽  
Business And Human Rights ◽  
Human Rights Abuse ◽  
The Common ◽  
Foreign Judgment

<p>The eminent case of Aguinda v Chevron Corporation, currently in its twentieth year of litigation, represents a growing phenomenon in international commercial litigation between multinational corporations and victims of human rights abuse from developing nations. In 2011 Aguinda awarded approximately US$18 billion against Chevron for extreme environmental and human rights abuse from oil contamination in the Amazon region of Ecuador. Chevron has removed its assets from Ecuador’s jurisdiction leaving the plaintiffs without remedy. This paper traces Aguinda to Canada where the plaintiffs’ action in Yaiguaje to enforce the judgment to satisfy their debt is stayed. This paper critiques this decision of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice as being unprincipled and failing to consider the wider implications of its decision on the struggle for developing nations to remedy human rights abuses by multinational corporations. This paper argues that the common law doctrine of foreign judgment enforcement must evolve to reflect the needs of modern society. The paper does this by incorporating the “Protect, Respect and Remedy: A Framework for Business and Human Rights” report released by the United Nations in 2011.</p>

scholarly journals National Action Plans on Business and Human Rights: an Experimentalist Governance Analysis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Claire Methven O’Brien ◽  
John Ferguson ◽  
Marisa McVey
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Stakeholder Participation ◽  
Problem Definition ◽  
Vulnerable Groups ◽  
Action Plans ◽  
Business And Human Rights ◽  
Governance Theory ◽  
Governance Analysis ◽  
Experimentalist Governance ◽  
Human Rights Norms

AbstractNational Action Plans (NAPs) on business and human rights are a growing phenomenon. Since 2011, 42 such plans have been adopted or are in-development worldwide. By comparison, only 39 general human rights action plans were published between 1993 and 2021. In parallel, NAPs have attracted growing scholarly interest. While some studies highlight their potential to advance national compliance with international norms, others criticise NAPs as cosmetic devices that states use to deflect attention from persisting abuses and needed regulation. In response to wider critiques of international human rights norms, and their failure to exact universal state compliance, experimentalist governance theory highlights the dynamic, dialogic and iterative character of human rights implementation as well as the role of stakeholders. In this article, we apply experimentalist governance theory to evaluate the role and character of business and human rights NAPs. Rather than attempting to evaluate NAPs’ ultimate consequences for rights-holders, which appears premature, we focus on NAPs processes. Specifically, we analyse NAPs processes in twenty-five states against five experimentalist governance criteria relating to (i) stakeholder participation; (ii) agreement on a broad problem definition; (iii) local contextualisation; (iv) monitoring and peer review and (v) periodic revision and learning. According to our findings, NAPs on business and human rights in most states demonstrate resemblance to the traits of experimentalist governance. In particular, our analysis points to the emergence of relatively sophisticated and demanding institutional governance mechanisms within NAPs — including the institutionalisation of complex deliberative processes. Nevertheless, our paper also identifies some significant shortcomings in NAPs, related to the lack of inclusion of vulnerable groups and the lack of explicit indicators and targets.

Introduction

2019 ◽  
pp. 1-30
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Fiscal Policy ◽  
Public Goods ◽  
The State ◽  
Fiscal Consolidation ◽  
The Public ◽  
Goods And Services ◽  
Human Rights Norms ◽  
Setting Parameters

This introductory chapter illustrates some of the linkages between tax and human rights. Taxation affects which resources stay in private versus public hands, which activities are encouraged or discouraged, how much is available to the state, and who pays for and receives the public goods and services the state provides. Human rights, in turn, inform not only how tax policy should be made, but what policies are permissible, when, and why, setting parameters for the revenue-raising objectives and distributive effects of taxation, as well as the processes by which tax laws are adopted and implemented. In short, tax affects the realization of human rights in all countries—developed and developing alike—through its role in resource mobilization, redistribution, regulation, and representation. The chapter provides an overview of the volume’s contents and discusses how the policy of fiscal consolidation underpins many of the phenomena examined in those contributions. It then identifies some of the key ways in which human rights norms should feature in future debates over fiscal policy.

scholarly journals Stemming the Flow of Corporate Human Rights Abuses: Incorporating the Ruggie Report in the Common Law Doctrine of Foreign Judgment Enforcement

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Erin Matariki Carr
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Multinational Corporations ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Modern Society ◽  
Developing Nations ◽  
Human Rights Abuses ◽  
Business And Human Rights ◽  
Human Rights Abuse ◽  
The Common ◽  
Foreign Judgment

<p>The eminent case of Aguinda v Chevron Corporation, currently in its twentieth year of litigation, represents a growing phenomenon in international commercial litigation between multinational corporations and victims of human rights abuse from developing nations. In 2011 Aguinda awarded approximately US$18 billion against Chevron for extreme environmental and human rights abuse from oil contamination in the Amazon region of Ecuador. Chevron has removed its assets from Ecuador’s jurisdiction leaving the plaintiffs without remedy. This paper traces Aguinda to Canada where the plaintiffs’ action in Yaiguaje to enforce the judgment to satisfy their debt is stayed. This paper critiques this decision of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice as being unprincipled and failing to consider the wider implications of its decision on the struggle for developing nations to remedy human rights abuses by multinational corporations. This paper argues that the common law doctrine of foreign judgment enforcement must evolve to reflect the needs of modern society. The paper does this by incorporating the “Protect, Respect and Remedy: A Framework for Business and Human Rights” report released by the United Nations in 2011.</p>

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document