Business and Human Rights in the UN Special Procedures System

Abstract

This chapter analyses the way in which the thematic issue of business and human rights is addressed within the United Nations (UN) Special Procedures system, focussing in particular on the work of the UN Working Group on the Issue of Human Rights and Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises (WG). With an increase in human rights violations committed by non-state actors and a persistent gap in achieving redress for such violations, the business and human rights debate is gaining a new momentum and there are clear signs that we might be at a turning point. Negotiations for a binding treaty on business and human rights started in July 2015 and consolidated efforts towards the operationalisation of the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (GPs) have taken place at various levels and in an increasing number of States. UN Special Procedures often refer to the impacts of business activities on the realisation of human rights and are more vocal in criticising the way in which private non-state actors ensure the protection of international law, yet remain capable of avoiding direct accountability. Crucially, the negotiations of transnational international investment treaties, such as the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) between the United States and the European Union, have also recently encountered significant resistance from civil society and the wider public. As discussed in this chapter, this resistance has been often framed as a substantive part of the business and human rights debate, and as a call for social and environmental justice. It is thus important to understand how the Special Procedures system engages with this sui generis thematic issue at a crucial point in time. More importantly, this chapter reflects on broader questions which are particularly pertinent to the context of business and human rights. Do UN Special Procedures have a role in shaping the way in which changes occur in international human rights law? Can they support the creation of effective remedies for victims of human rights abuse, or can they actually unwillingly hinder or delay potential processes of change?