Complicity

Since 2011, the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs) have provided a conceptual framework and common language for business and human rights. The UNGPs set an expectation that business enterprises will respect human rights, states will protect against human rights violations connected to business activity, and affected individuals will have access to effective remedy. A typical business and human rights (BHR) course covers most, if not all, of the principal issues addressed by the UNGPs. This chapter summarizes the history and provisions of the UNGPs, highlights key issues surrounding their implementation, and describes approaches for introducing the UNGPs to BHR students.

Human rights are the central concern of the subject matter for most business and human rights (BHR) teachers and students. Effective BHR teaching introduces international human rights standards, their definition, and their relevance for business. Key topics for BHR courses include the sources of international human rights standards, the definition of specific human rights in international legal instruments, the human rights responsibilities of different actors under international law, and how human rights standards are enforced. This chapter provides a broad overview for introducing human rights to BHR students who have not studied the topic previously.

The Nuremberg tribunal was the expression and the beginning of states' recognition of their duty to prosecute genocide and other gross human rights violations. It was a first step towards fulfillin...

Business activities in Ethiopia by both multinational and national companies are under growing scrutiny. Ongoing court cases in Kenya against Meta (formerly Facebook) for allegedly helping fuel the two-year deadly conflict in northern Ethiopia, increased reports of alleged poor labour conditions in apparel factories in industrial parks, and allegations of land grabbing by commercial agribusiness are some examples. The existing research and practice approaches the issue of private sector accountability predominantly from corporate social responsibility (CSR) perspective. The CSR landscape itself is regulated in a fragmented manner. In contexts lacking well-developed CSR frameworks, a growing body of research examines the promise of a newly evolving Business and Human Rights (BHR) paradigm. To date, there is a dearth of scholarly and policy discussion employing the term ‘business and human rights’ in Ethiopia, attesting the status of the field in academic and public discourse. This article presents a modest attempt at exploring the status of business and human rights law and practice in Ethiopia. By analysing relevant laws and reviewing selected practical cases, the article identifies salient issues, opportunities, and challenges toward developing and enforcing business and human rights standards.

INTRODUCTION Despite significant opposition from developed countries, the United Nations (UN) Human Rights Council in June 2014 adopted Resolution 26/9 to establish an open-ended intergovernmental working group (OEIGWG) with a mandate ‘to elaborate an international legally binding instrument to regulate, in international human rights law, the activities of transnational corporations and other business enterprises’. The mandate of the OEIGWG ‘shall be to elaborate an international legally binding instrument to regulate, in international human rights law, the activities of transnational corporations and other business enterprises’. The first two sessions of the OEIGWG were to be ‘dedicated to conducting constructive deliberations on the content, scope, nature and form of the future international instrument’. The OEIGWG held its first session in July 2015 in Geneva, and the second session in October 2016. Out of several themes that emerged from the first session of the OEIGWG, the one thing which stood out was that developed countries – where most of the transnational corporations (TNCs) have been incorporated historically – did not want to see any binding international rules in the business and human rights (BHR) field, despite their full support for the corporate responsibility to respect human rights under the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (GPs). Most of these countries did not participate in the first session or boycotted it after the first day. The developed countries – non-participation in the first sessions, as well as their general opposition to the current treaty process, embodies several strands: that the ‘footnote’ of Resolution 26/9 arbitrarily excludes local/domestic companies from the purview of the treaty; that a discussion about the treaty will break the consensus built by the adoption of the GPs; and that the treaty discussion will divert attention from implementing the GPs through national action plans or otherwise. The European Union and some other developed countries participated in the second session of the OEIGWG held in October 2016 only after a ‘footnote’ in the programme of work provided that the discussions in the session ‘can include TNCs as well as all other business enterprises’. This participation was, however, mostly symbolic and superficial, rather than the sign of a deep engagement with, or support for, the current treaty process.

Economic Sanctions Against Human Rights Violations

The article is devoted to the issue of human rights protection in the field of business within the framework of the UN. It was found that states have, in accordance with international human rights law, an obligation to protect everyone within their territory and/or jurisdiction from human rights violations committed by commercial enterprises. This obligation means that states must have effective laws and regulations to prevent and remedy business-related human rights violations and ensure access to effective remedies for those whose rights have been violated. Corporate responsibility for the observance of human rights exists regardless of the ability or willingness of states to fulfill their duty to protect human rights. Regardless of context, states and businesses retain these distinct but complementary responsibilities. When a business enterprise violates human rights, States must ensure that affected people have access to an effective remedy through the court system or other legitimate non-judicial process. For their part, companies are expected to establish effective grievance mechanisms for any individuals or communities affected by or involved in their activities. the main duty to protect human rights rests with the state. This is the main duty of the state not only according to the UN Convention, but also as stipulated by various human rights documents. The state must take measures that will allow to effectively guarantee and implement human rights and human rights standards in its countries. Furthermore, it is envisaged that this protection should extend to human rights violations committed by third parties, including businesses or corporate entities. By setting that the protection of human rights is a fundamental responsibility of the state, the Guiding Principles remain consistent with international law, as human rights treaties and conventions are binding on states and not on non­state actors. In addition, states should clearly state the expectation that all commercial enterprises located within their territory and/or jurisdiction respect human rights throughout their operations.

Restrictions on international trade imposed by States in response to alleged violations of human rights in other States have been the source of controversy for many years. It has been contended that such trade measures violate international law. Arguments as to the illegality of such measures have included that they: - Constitute unlawful intervention or interference in the internal affairs of sovereign States; - Involve impermissible exercises of extra-territorial jurisdiction; and - Violate treaty obligations such as those imposed under the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization (WTO Agreement). This dissertation addresses the question - when (if ever) will it be in accordance with international law for a State or group of States to adopt trade measures in order to coerce another State (the State) to comply with its international obligations to ensure respect for human rights? My thesis can be summarised as three propositions: 1. In relation to human rights related trade measures that are not subject to the rules contained in the WTO Agreement or similar rules in other treaties, international law is generally permissive. International rules prohibiting intervention and the exercise of extra-territorial jurisdiction are not generally violated by human rights related trade measures. Legal restrictions on the resort to such trade measures may arise under human rights treaties and related rules of general international law, but the extent of these restrictions is limited by the scope of the particular human rights obligations; 2. In relation to human rights related trade measures that are subject to the rules contained in the WTO Agreement or similar rules in other treaties, there is less scope to lawfully impose human rights related trade measures. The scope to lawfully impose such measures, however, remains significant. Notwithstanding concerns about possible negative consequences for the multilateral trading system that might flow from recognition of an entitlement to impose human rights related trade measures, there is significant legal support for interpreting the WTO Agreement consistently with such an entitlement. In addition, the jurisprudence of panels and the WTO Appellate Body provides a basis for concluding that concerns expressed about negative consequences are overstated; 3. Distinct criteria against which to assess the merits of proposals for varying the entitlement of States to impose human rights related trade measures can be derived from international human rights standards and conceptions of the international rule of law. Fidelity to international human rights standards and rule of law criteria will minimise the extent to which legal justification might be provided for trade measures that invoke human rights concerns but which are predominantly motivated by a desire to protect producers within the States imposing the measures from economic competition from producers in the target State.

The article deals with the formation process, the current state and perspectives of the relationship between states that do not respect human rights and basic freedoms. Such states pose a danger to the stable development of international relations and fruitful cooperation between states, and ultimately to international peace and security. The modern world is characterized by the fact that the expansion of human and citizen rights occurs as a result of the development of norms of both national and international law. This bilateral process helps mutual enrichment of legislation and allows raising the bar of human rights to a new level. Speaking of security, the world still ignores the real protection of human rights, replacing it with a formal one. The principle of respect for human rights has a direct and inverse relationship with international and national security: states that systematically abuse human rights are recognized as initiators of aggression. And external aggression itself contradicts the interests of both the aggressor state itself and its population. Aggression entails the application of serious international sanctions, which will hit its citizens hard, in particular, and will also entail a serious restriction of civil rights. And vice versa: an improvement in the situation in the field of human rights protection reduces the probability of an aggressive war. The refusal of a separate state to fulfill the requirements of the corresponding principles of respect for human rights does not cancel their importance for international and national security, and does not eliminate the negative consequences that such a refusal would entail. The attack of the Russian Federation led to serious and massive violations of human rights and international humanitarian law, which had catastrophic consequences for the exercise of almost all human rights in Ukraine. But over the past two decades, the Russian authorities have systematically violated and restricted basic freedoms within their own state, closed down independent mass media, and banned peaceful protests in the country. And the war in Ukraine entails a further deterioration of the state of human rights in Russia: now a new iron curtain is being lowered there, behind which the authorities oppose the exercise of civil rights and a free and independent civil society.

The article by Étienne Roy Grégoire, Marc-André Anzueto, Bonnie Campbell, Mélisande Séguin and Nancy R Tapias Torrado uses the concept of an ‘extractive normative ecosystem’ to account for the interactions between the various norms, discourses and policies governing the relationship between extractive industries and local communities. It argues that the exploitation of natural resources significantly alters social relations and exacerbates the risks of human rights violations, particularly in the context of globalisation. The article critiques traditional approaches to Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and Business and Human Rights (BHR), and highlights the need for an ecosystem approach to understand the complex relationships between different regulatory regimes, including state laws, indigenous legal systems and international law. The text is divided into four sections: the theoretical implications of the ecosystem paradigm, recent legal developments in business and human rights due diligence legislation in Europe and Canada, the potential of applying an ecosystemic approach to the extractive sector, and a conclusion highlighting the challenges faced by communities affected by extractivism.

Human Rights are a set of rights that are essentially inherent in humans. This right is natural, cannot be contested or taken away, and applies universally. Violations of human rights occur if these rights are taken away or challenged by other parties. The field of human rights violations is very broad, covering various rights possessed by humans, including in this case regarding land in the agrarian sector. Violations of human rights in the agrarian sector are basically similar to violations of human rights in other fields, the difference being the object of the right that gives rise to the human rights violation. In this case, the object in question is land in the agrarian sector. Indonesian national law and international law have slightly different perspectives regarding human rights violations in the agrarian sector. The difference is regarding control over the agrarian sector. National law has independent rights over the agrarian sector within its territory without interference from other parties outside the country, including international law. However, this form of violation of human rights, even in the agrarian sector, remains the subject of international law, as is the universal principle held by human rights law. To provide protection of rights in the agrarian sector, Indonesian national law applies the provisions of the 1945 Constitution, Law Number 39 of 1999 concerning Human Rights, and Law Number 5 of 1960 concerning Basic Agrarian Principles Regulations. Meanwhile, international law applies Convention Number 169 of the International Labor Organization (ILO), as well as the United Nations Declarations on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). Therefore, this writing aims to explain the point of view of how Indonesian national law views human rights violations in the agrarian sector through domestic regulations, as well as how international law through international instruments views human rights violations in the agrarian sector. This writing was also prepared based on normative juridical sources through Indonesian national regulations and related to international instruments. Human Rights are a set of rights that are essentially inherent in humans. This right is natural, cannot be contested or taken away, and applies universally. Violations of human rights occur if these rights are taken away or challenged by other parties. The field of human rights violations is very broad, covering various rights possessed by humans, including in this case regarding land in the agrarian sector. Violations of human rights in the agrarian sector are basically similar to violations of human rights in other fields, the difference being the object of the right that gives rise to the human rights violation. In this case, the object in question is land in the agrarian sector. Indonesian national law and international law have slightly different perspectives regarding human rights violations in the agrarian sector. The difference is regarding control over the agrarian sector. National law has independent rights over the agrarian sector within its territory without interference from other parties outside the country, including international law. However, this form of violation of human rights, even in the agrarian sector, remains the subject of international law, as is the universal principle held by human rights law. To provide protection of rights in the agrarian sector, Indonesian national law applies the provisions of the 1945 Constitution, Law Number 39 of 1999 concerning Human Rights, and Law Number 5 of 1960 concerning Basic Agrarian Principles Regulations. Meanwhile, international law applies Convention Number 169 of the International Labor Organization (ILO), as well as the United Nations Declarations on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). Therefore, this writing aims to explain the point of view of how Indonesian national law views human rights violations in the agrarian sector through domestic regulations, as well as how international law through international instruments views human rights violations in the agrarian sector. This writing was also prepared based on normative juridical sources through Indonesian national regulations and related to international instruments.

The article is devoted to the study of population in international law, its concept, categories, and legal status. Special attention is paid to the analysis of the current legal framework regulating legal relations regarding different categories of population in international law. The article examines key aspects of determining the legal status of population, including classification, citizenship, human rights, and special categories of persons. In the context of globalization and growing migration processes, issues of effective regulation of the legal status of different categories of population become increasingly relevant. This is achieved through the development of international conventions, implementation of international standards into national legislation, and introduction of special mechanisms to protect the rights of vulnerable groups. The article separately addresses the problem of determining the legal status of such categories of population as refugees, stateless persons, and others. The balance between state sovereignty and compliance with international human rights standards is critically important for ensuring effective protection of population rights. The international experience of states and the practice of international organizations that have implemented modern mechanisms for protecting the rights of various categories of population are analyzed, including specialized UN institutions, regional human rights protection systems, and bilateral interstate agreements. Adaptation of these practices by different states is an important direction in the development of international law, considering trends toward the universalization of human rights standards. The article offers specific recommendations for improving the international legal regulation of population status. These include the development of international mechanisms for human rights protection, harmonization of national legislation with international standards, strengthening state responsibility for violations of population rights, and improving the effectiveness of international institutions involved in protecting the rights of different categories of population. Special attention is paid to creating effective international procedures that minimize the risks of human rights violations. The conclusion is made that the implementation of these changes will contribute to ensuring effective protection of the rights of various categories of population, which, in turn, will enhance compliance with international human rights standards on a global scale.

Human rights have been neglected in the normative discourse on corporate responsibility due to a propensity to defer to attorneys in legal problems and a relatively charitable orientation. This contributed to the propensity to mostly avoid challenging the state's dominating position in the human rights debate. In this study, one of the many aspirational goals included in the United Nations' Agenda 2030 is the recognition of the significance of the private sector as a partner in the effort to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Such a discourse known as business and human rights (BHR), has grown over the last two decades. It has impacted how we think about corporate responsibility and how firms are held responsible for the human rights breaches they create. In this research concerns have been raised over the fact that Agenda 2030 does not adequately address the growing discourse on private-sector accountability, putting the advancement of this field in jeopardy. We will discuss, how accurately do the Sustainable Development Goals represent the continuing discussion over BHR? Is there any gap between the discourse on sustainable development and the discourse on BHR rights affecting the execution of the SDGs, corroborating reservations that there is a divide between sustainable development and the discourse on BHR rights? Is there that much difference between the two arguments, and how much of a difference does it make if there is? This study is based on qualitative research. we analyzing statutes, local and international laws, protocols, conventions, treaties and reports for the accomplishment of this work. The use of legal tools to promote business and human rights emphasis on the fact that "international legal tools must and will play a role in the continuous growth of the business and human rights framework" is something that has always been made clear. It does not, however, support a single comprehensive agreement. As opposed to this, he views legal instruments as "well-built precision tools" that target certain subject matters and governance shortcomings in the areas of business and human rights. Highlighting logistical difficulties and maybe anticipating that such discussions might be used as an "excuse" by states to block the GP implementation process, a request to begin fresh treaty negotiations was made in the UN Human Rights Council.

The right to rebel is a neglected topic in international law. The reasons for this lack of interest are to be found in the centrality of States as subjects of international law and their understandable reluctance to address non-State violence in terms of right. This approach is reflected in the tendency to look at opposition groups as illegitimate, frequently labeling them as terrorists. However, non-State armed groups are highly heterogeneous and their aims and motivations to use violence should matter at the international law level. This paper argues that the responsibility to protect (R2P) could provide the theoretical basis for the right to rebel against gross and systematic violations of human rights. The R2P doctrine maintains that each State bears the primary responsibility to protect the population within its borders; when it fails to do so, this responsibility is shared with the international community. In extreme circumstances, and where authorized by the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), foreign States may use force in order to stop gross and systematic violations of human rights. If international law accepts forcible interventions by States into the internal affairs of other States in order to guard against gross human rights violations, why should it negate the right of the victims of such violations to mount a resistance of its own? International law has increasingly addressed the use of force by States within their borders. International humanitarian law (IHL) regulating non-international armed conflicts (NIACs) is now a fully developed field of studies. On the other hand, State violence in peaceful times has been taken away from the domaine reservee: the respect of international human rights law (IHRL) does matter at the international level, as confirmed by the R2P doctrine. Both R2P and the increasing attention for the respect of human rights by governments are in line with a top-down approach that pervades nearly all fields of international law. States are the central subjects at the international level; what happens within their borders might affect their legitimacy in the eyes of their peers, inter alia, but in no way does it grant a right to rebel to non-state actors within those borders. This paper challenges this traditional top-down approach. Several scholars have demonstrated that non-State actors can become subjects of specific branches of international law, such as IHL and IHRL. Now may be the time to take a step further and recognize a more active role for non-State actors. Victims of heinous human rights violations should not be passive subjects, waiting for foreign States to react to violations of their human rights: granting them rights would be pointless without a related right to defend and protect them. International law would thus regulate both state and non-State violence, and the latter would be legitimate at least when directed to stop massive and systematic human rights violations. This article is organized as follows. First, it focuses on the attempts of international law to address the right to rebel. Generally speaking, international law does not prohibit, nor expressly allow rebellions. Nevertheless, the right to rebel has been at the center of an animated debate through the centuries; furthermore, it has been object of codification at the domestic, regional, and international level. This paper then examines the ways in which the R2P doctrine could operate as legal basis for the right to rebel against human rights violations. Finally, it investigates what could mean, in practice, to recognize a right to rebel, especially with regard to foreign interventions.

Business and human rights (BHR) has been taught as an academic discipline and field of practice for thirty years.1 Since the first courses at business schools, law schools, and schools of public policy in North America and Western Europe, BHR curricula have proliferated worldwide. BHR course content has expanded to include new international standards, such as the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs); tools for corporate accountability; 2 and examples from the growing body of corporate BHR practice. BHR pedagogy has evolved to embrace multidisciplinary teaching techniques, from business case studies to legal drafting exercises and experiential role plays.3 BHR teaching is taking place in every region, from Africa and Asia to the Middle East and Latin America. Over 350 individuals teach the subject in some form at more than 200 institutions in 45 countries.4 More than 100 universities have added BHR courses to their curricula in the past decade alone. BHR is also taught outside traditional university settings in dedicated workshops and training programmes for professionals, academics and students.5