A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE POTENTIAL AND LIMITS OF THE UN GUIDING PRINCIPLES ON BUSINESS AND HUMAN RIGHTS IN ASSISTING NGOs AND OTHER CIVIL SOCIETY ACTORS IN PREVENTING AND ADDRESSING BUSINESS-RELATED HUMAN RIGHTS
Keywords:
UN GUIDING PRINCIPLES, HUMAN RIGHTS, CIVIL SOCIETYAbstract
The 1990s was termed as the “golden age” era that witnessed a corporate globalization wave and a robust emergence of multinational companies with exponential profit maximisation, growth and expansion drive. However, some of these multinational companies with prestigious global brands were censured for exploiting sweatshops and profiting from bonded labour.i The need to regulate multinational companies, mitigate human exploitation for profit and engender transparency and accountability in labour force utility by businesses and states led to the clamour by affected individuals and communities for an effective human rights protection. For several decades,ii the United Nations have attempted unsuccessfully to regulate multinational corporations. However, in 2011, the UN Human Rights Council adopted the “Guiding Principles” on business and human rights for implementation by states and businesses. The guiding principles, which is established on three pillars “Protect, Respect and Remedy” emphasises that states have the duty to protect against human rights violations, companies are responsible for respecting human rights and victims of human right violations must have access to effective remedies and redress.iii This essay evaluates the objective and avenues of achieving the UN Guiding Principles (UNGPs), its potential and limits, and the protection of the rights of people with disability in UK and other regions amidst other group(s) by states and businesses.
Downloads
References
i
John Gerard Ruggie, Just Business: Multinational Corporations and Human Rights (first edn, W.W. Norton &
Company 2013) 9
ii Tagi Sagafi-nejad, The UN and Transnational Corporations: From Code of Conduct to Global Compact
(Indiana University Press, 2008)
iii John Gerard Ruggie, Just Business: Multinational Corporations and Human Rights (first edn, W.W. Norton &
Company 2013) 13;
iv John Gerard Ruggie and John F. Sherman, The Concept of ‘Due Diligence’ in the UN Guiding Principles on
Business and Human Rights: A Reply to Jonathan Bonnitcha and Robert McCorguodale (Oxford University
Press, 2017) 921; John Gerard Ruggie and John F. Sherman, ‘The Concept of ‘Due Diligence’ in the UN
Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights: A Reply to Jonathan Bonnitcha and Robert McCorguodale’
(2017) The European Journal of International Law
v Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein, ‘Ethical Pursuit of Prosperity’ (2015) 23 Law Society Gazette <
https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/commentary-and-opinion/ethical-pursuit-of-prosperity/5047796.article> accessed
10 March 2020; Rachel Davis, ‘The UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights and ConflictAffected Areas: States Obligations and Business Responsibilities’ (2012) International Review of the Red Cross
vi For more information see < https://www.businesshumanrights.org/sites/default/files/documents/Comparative%20UN%20Global%20compact%20and%20UNGP.
pdf> accessed 10 March 2020; Emeka Duruigbo, ‘Corporate Accountability and Liability for International
Human Rights Abuses: Recent Changes and Recurring Challenges (2008) Northwestern Journal of International
Human Rights
vii Advocates for International Development, ‘The UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights: A
Guide for the Legal Profession’ (A4ID, 1 July 2013) 1 < http://www.a4id.org/wpcontent/uploads/2016/04/A4ID-Business-and-Human-Rights-Guide-2013-web.pdf> accessed 10 March 2020
viii OECD, 2011 Update of the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises (OECD, 25 May 2011)
<https://www.oecd.org/daf/inv/mne/oecdguidelinesformultinationalenterprises.htm> accessed 10 March 2020;
Ulrike Hoessle, ‘Doing Business Right Five Years of United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and
Human Rights’ (2016) ResearchGate
ix ISO and OECD, Practical overview of the linkages between ISO 26000:2010, Guidance on social responsibility
and OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises (2011) (Post Publication Organization, 6th February 2017)
<http://iso26000.info/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/ISO-26000_and_OECD_Guidelines_MNE_PPO_v1.pdf>
accessed 10th March 2020; Ulrike Hoessle, ‘The UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights Context,
Content, Implementation and Prioritizing’ (2013) ResearcgGate
x European Commission, A Renewed EU strategy 2011–14 for Corporate Social Responsibility (EC, 25 October
2011)
<https://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2009_2014/documents/com/com_com(2011)0681_/com_com(2011)
0681_en.pdf> accessed 11 March 2020
xi Inter-American Court of Human Rights, 2015: para 224; The Ontario Superior Court of Justice mentioned the
UNGPs in dicta in Ontario Superior Court of Justice, 2013; High Court of South Africa, 2015.
xii (2016) BCSC 1856
xiii Beata Faracik, Implementation of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (European
Union, 2017) 27-31
xiv The Economist, ‘The Road from Principles to Practice: Today’s Challenges for Business in Respecting
Human Rights’ (The Economist Intelligent Unit Limited, 16 March 2015) <
https://eiuperspectives.economist.com/strategy-leadership/road-principles-practice> accessed 12 March 2020
xv UNDESA and DSPD, ‘Toolkit on Disability for Africa: The Right of Persons with Disabilities to Work’
(UNDESA, 10 February 2017) 3-4 <https://www.un.org/development/desa/disabilities/news/dspd/toolkit-ondisability-for-africa.html> accessed 20 March 2020
xvi UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, art. 27
xvii Universal Declaration of Human Rights, art. 23; and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and
Cultural Rights, Art. 6
xviii Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania 1977, art 11
xix Constitution of the Republic of Malawi 1994, art 13
xx UNDESA and DSPD, ‘Toolkit on Disability for Africa: The Right of Persons with Disabilities to Work’
(UNDESA, 10 February 2017) 7 <https://www.un.org/development/desa/disabilities/news/dspd/toolkit-ondisability-for-africa.html> accessed 20 March 2020
xxi John Zarocostas, ‘Disabled Still Face Hurdles in Job Market’ (The Washington Times, 4 December 2005)
<https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2005/dec/4/20051204-112759-1170r/> accessed 21 March 2020
xxii United Nations, Employing Persons with Disabilities: Fears and Realities (UNDPI/2486 Fact Sheet 2, 2007)
5-6
xxiii see the case of Araya v. Nevsun Resources Ltd (2016) BCSC 1856.
xxiv BBC News, ‘DWP says it is ‘Shocked’ by its own Disability Tribunal Record’ (BBC Panorama, 9 March
2020) <https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-51756783> accessed 20 March 2020
xxv Ibid
xxvi Financial Times, ‘Still Afraid of the Wheelchair’ (London, 2 April 2003)
xxvii Ibid
xxviii Rhiannon Suter, Susan Scott-Parker and Simon Zadek, ‘Realising Potential: Disability Confidence Builds
Better Business’ (Employers’ Forum on Disability, 2007) 4
rticle=1465&context=gladnetcollect> accessed 21 March 2020
xxix United Nations, Employing Persons with Disabilities: Fears and Realities (UNDPI/2486 Fact Sheet 2, 2007)
5
xxx Emily Haves, Disability in the UK: Rights and Policy Debate on 28 June 2018 (House of Lords Library,
2018) 1
xxxi International Labour Organization Convention on Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment (Disabled
Persons) No. 159, art. 1
xxxii UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities 2008.
xxxiii Tanyatorn Tongwaranan, ‘Employment quotas for the disabled don't always work’ (Bangkok Post, 18 July
2016 <https://www.bangkokpost.com/business/1038277/employment-quotas-for-the-disabled-dont-alwayswork> accessed 21 March 2020
xxxiv Section 33 of the Persons with Disabilities Quality of Life Promotion Act BE 2550, 2007.
xxxv Bangkok Post, ‘Work for Dignity’ (Bangkok, 24 March 2002)
xxxvi Bangkok Post, ‘The Disadvantaged: Repair Firm Finds Disabled Workers Good for Trade’ (Bangkok, 19
August 2002)
xxxvii (2017) UKSC 51
xxxviii Ministry of Justice, ‘Tribunal Statistics Quarterly: July to September 2019’ (GOV.UK, 13 December 2019)
<https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/tribunal-statistics-quarterly-july-to-september-2019> accessed 22
March 2020
xxxix Disability Rights UK, ‘Large Increase in Disability Employment Discrimination Cases’ (London, 20 January
2020) <https://www.disabilityrightsuk.org/news/2020/january/large-increase-disability-employmentdiscrimination-cases> accessed 22 March 2020
xl Catherine Putz, Disability and Employment, UK: 2019 (Office for National Statistics, 2 December 2019) 4
employmentuk/2019> accessed 20 March 2020
xli Catherine Putz, Disability and Employment, UK: 2019 (Office for National Statistics, 2 December 2019) 5
employmentuk/2019> accessed 20 March 2020
xlii Catherine Putz, Disability and Employment, UK: 2019 (Office for National Statistics, 2 December 2019) 5
employmentuk/2019> accessed 20 March 2020
xliii Andrew Powell, People with Disabilities in Employment (Briefing Paper, No. 7540, 2020) 3-12
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
License Terms
Ownership and Licensing:
Authors of research papers submitted to any journal published by The Law Brigade Publishers retain the copyright of their work while granting the journal specific rights. Authors maintain ownership of the copyright and grant the journal the right of first publication. Simultaneously, authors agree to license their research papers under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-SA 4.0) License.
License Permissions:
Under the CC BY-SA 4.0 License, others are permitted to share and adapt the work, even for commercial purposes, provided that appropriate attribution is given to the authors, and acknowledgment is made of the initial publication by The Law Brigade Publishers. This license encourages the broad dissemination and reuse of research papers while ensuring that the original work is properly credited.
Additional Distribution Arrangements:
Authors are free to enter into separate, non-exclusive contractual arrangements for distributing the published version of the work (e.g., posting it to institutional repositories or publishing it in books), provided that the original publication by The Law Brigade Publishers is acknowledged.
Online Posting:
Authors are encouraged to share their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on personal websites) both prior to submission and after publication. This practice can facilitate productive exchanges and increase the visibility and citation of the work.
Responsibility and Liability:
Authors are responsible for ensuring that their submitted research papers do not infringe on the copyright, privacy, or other rights of third parties. The Law Brigade Publishers disclaims any liability for any copyright infringement or violation of third-party rights within the submitted research papers.
