Session 11 Flashcards
Evolution of international law: Is a UN treaty on TNCs and human rights needed? (6 cards)
Which UN Group was/ is tasked to elaborate a legally binding instrument on B&HR?
An Open-ended Intergovernmental Working Group (OEIWG) by the Human Rights Council.
What is regulatory ritualism?
States avoid substantive compliance with (treaty) norms while superficially participating in associated institutions and procedures.
What kind of BHR treaty models are being discussed and how are they perceived?
A broad-spectrum single treaty - Potentially susceptible to empty, formalistic compliance, unlikely to attract widespread participation, and possibly providing a pretext that international regulation is sufficient, thereby hindering action on existing obligations.
A narrow-spectrum treaty on international crimes - Addressing only international crimes might lack practical and political viability and could also be vulnerable to formalistic compliance due to limited civil society engagement weakening accountability.
A declaratory instrument - Could clarify existing state duties but risks being a repetitive recitation, adding “more noise” to the human rights system without clear added regulatory value.
A framework convention focused on National Action Plans (NAPs) - Would involve broad state commitments to implement measures (referencing the UNGPs) via NAPs, potentially with future protocols on specific issues, and include peer review. While it might seem susceptible to ritualism, its proponents argue that it could promote substantive progress due to precedents like the WHO Tobacco Control Convention, existing support for NAPs, emphasis on national-level tailored rules, and potential for meaningful multi-stakeholder engagement.
How is a proposed binding instrument on BHR seen by feminist organizations?
As a historic opportunity to regulate TNCs, plug accountability gaps, and make women’s experiences and human rights visible and prioritized in corporate regulation.
What do feminists organizations advocate for in any upcoming binding instrument on BHR?
Explicit reference to women’s human rights, mandatory gender impact assessments, gender-sensitive justice mechanisms, and extraterritorial state obligations in the treaty.
Why did Ruggie opt for a soft law instrument rather than pursuing the Norms?
- The Norms did not include all human rights, included rights that were yet to be recognized and did not provide a basis for the in- or exclusion of rights. According to IHRL all human rights are equal, so deciding on any ‘core rights’ would be against the basic foundation of IHRL.
- No definition on the distinction between primary and secondary duty-holders.
- “Within the spheres of (businesses’) activity” was problematic
- A non-voluntary initiative that had not been approved by any intergovernmental body or ratified by any government
- Lots of opposition from states and businesses
