Abstract
ABSTRACT Due to barriers to remedy through national and international legal fora, nonjudicial mechanisms (NJMs) are very often the only options for victims of transnational business-related human rights abuses (TBHRA) to seek remedy, even for serious and gross violations. Yet, it has been well-established that NJMs have been largely ineffective in providing access to remedy. Based on an assumption that improving the effectiveness of NJMs will result in better remedy outcomes for rightsholders, a variety of prescriptions have been put forth to make NJMs more effective. However, through a two-step empirical analysis of cases involving serious instances of TBHRA handled by the National Contact Points for the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, this article demonstrates that, even when operating effectively, NJMs are unequipped to provide certain forms of remedy and are particularly ill-suited to provide remedy proportional to serious instances of TBHRA. This article therefore advocates for a more nuanced understanding of the degrees of various forms of remedy and what NJMs are truly capable of providing, in order to better situate NJMs within the overall remedial architecture and to aid selection of the appropriate forum.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
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.