Abstract
This article assesses the efficiency of non-judicial grievance mechanisms in providing victims of corporate human rights violations with improved access to remedy. As no such mechanism is currently available, this article formulates a proposal for a new mechanism in the form of a corporate responsibility ombudsman, which would offer a great deal of flexibility as well as being an inexpensive, expeditious and informal manner of dealing with such issues. The article argues in favour of utilizing states’ regulatory arsenal to improve victims’ access to remedy extraterritorially. Based on recent international developments, I elaborate approaches to human rights due diligence regulation and export credit financing by means of two corporate responsibility ombudsman proposals. In relation to these proposals, I divide the effectiveness criteria of Principle 31 of the United Nations Guiding Principles into three main categories: empowerment, investigation and enforcement. Since obtaining sufficient evidence is of paramount to those seeking remedies for violations of corporate responsibility, states should bestow quasi-judicial powers on corporate responsibility ombudsmen to achieve efficiency, which could also create legitimacy. This article provides decision-makers and scholars with insights into how access to remedy could be synchronized with the momentum of human rights due diligence legislation in the European Union and beyond.
Highlights
Extraterritorial legal solutions to tackle conduct by multinational companies that has an adverse impact on human rights are urgently needed, because at least four billion people are excluded from the benefit of the rule of law and have no access to the essential protections and opportunities that domestic law should provide.[1]
The last few years have seen rapid legal developments in this area owing to the introduction of the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGP) in 2011.4 Based on the UNGP, human rights due diligence (HRDD) legislation is gaining momentum in the European Union (EU).[5,6]
As for the ombudsman’s mandate and functions, the OHCHR Remedy Project recommends that a state-based non-judicial mechanism should adopt and implement the procedures and practices necessary to ensure that parties to a complaint or dispute receive adequate and timely information, and have adequate opportunity to comment on each piece of evidence during the process
Summary
Extraterritorial legal solutions to tackle conduct by multinational companies that has an adverse impact on human rights are urgently needed, because at least four billion people are excluded from the benefit of the rule of law and have no access to the essential protections and opportunities that domestic law should provide.[1]. The last few years have seen rapid legal developments in this area owing to the introduction of the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGP) in 2011.4 Based on the UNGP, human rights due diligence (HRDD) legislation is gaining momentum in the European Union (EU).[5,6] The UNGP comprises a three pillar structure: states have a duty to protect human rights and provide access to remedy, and companies have a responsibility to respect human rights. Using non-judicial mechanism as a response to limited access to remedy in the sphere of business and human rights
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
