Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Normative Foundation of the Corporate Responsibility to Respect: A Critical Analysis

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Business, Human Rights and the Environment: The Evolving Agenda

  • 681 Accesses

Abstract

The normative foundation of the corporate responsibility to respect is one of the most controversial aspects of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs), but at the same time one of the most fascinating features of John G. Ruggie’s carefully-crafted constructivist paradigm. Ruggie defined the responsibility to respect as a baseline responsibility that exists independently of States’ duties and that is part of a company’s ‘social licence’ to operate. While the state duty to protect is grounded in international human rights law, the normative basis for the corporate responsibility to respect, under the UNGPs, is defined by the non-legal concept of ‘societal expectations’. Firstly, this chapter explains the rationale that led Ruggie, a constructivist international relations scholar, to adopt this approach. Secondly, it presents a critique to this approach. Finally, the chapter argues that the current negotiations for an international binding treaty might represent an opportunity to strengthen the foundational coherence of the business and human rights paradigm.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 89.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    OHCHR 2011 (‘UNGPs’).

  2. 2.

    Commission on Human Rights 2006, para 70.

  3. 3.

    Ruggie 2013, p 91.

  4. 4.

    Commission on Human Rights 2003. See Chap. 1 in this book.

  5. 5.

    Backer 2010, p 43; UNGA 2010, p 1.

  6. 6.

    Commission on Human Rights 2006, para 59.

  7. 7.

    Ruggie 2007, para 36.

  8. 8.

    Ibid., para 44.

  9. 9.

    Henkin 1999, p 25.

  10. 10.

    Ruggie 2007, paras 36–37.

  11. 11.

    Ruggie 2008, para 23.

  12. 12.

    Ibid.

  13. 13.

    Ibid., paras 54–55.

  14. 14.

    Ibid.

  15. 15.

    Ruggie 2009, para 46.

  16. 16.

    Ruggie 2013, pp 91–92.

  17. 17.

    Ibid., 93.

  18. 18.

    Ruggie 2009, para 46. See also Ruggie 2013, p 91.

  19. 19.

    Ruggie 2013, p 93.

  20. 20.

    Ruggie 2009, para 47; Ruggie 2013, pp 92–93.

  21. 21.

    Ruggie 2009, para 47; Ruggie 2008, para 54; Ruggie 2013, pp 91–93.

  22. 22.

    Ruggie 2010, para 55.

  23. 23.

    UNGPs, para 11.

  24. 24.

    Ibid., Commentary to para 12.

  25. 25.

    Jackson 2013, p 74.

  26. 26.

    Finnemore and Sikkink 1998, p 887.

  27. 27.

    Ibid., p 897.

  28. 28.

    Ibid.

  29. 29.

    According to Rawls, even though there are ‘considerable differences in citizens’ conceptions of justice’, overlapping (as opposed to strict) consensus is possible when all sides ‘believe that however much their conceptions of justice differ, their views support the same judgment in the situation at hand’ (Rawls 1971). Ruggie aimed at achieving a ‘common political judgement’ in favour of the UNGPs’ framework.

  30. 30.

    Chernoff 2007, p 69.

    See, for example, Ruggie 1997, 1998. Ruggie’s particular theoretical perspective has been defined ‘holistic’ social constructivism because it studies the domestic and the international systems (and their interactions) as aspects of a single global social order. Ruggie and Friedrich Kratochwil are considered the leading proponents of this approach (Price and Reus-Smit 1998, p 269).

  31. 31.

    Chernoff 2007, p 68.

  32. 32.

    Ruggie 1998, p 875.

  33. 33.

    ‘Social constructivism rests on an irreducibly intersubjective dimension of human action’ (ibid., p 856).

  34. 34.

    Finnemore and Sikkink 2001; Price and Reus-Smit 1998, p 274.

  35. 35.

    Ruggie 1998, p 869.

  36. 36.

    Ibid.

  37. 37.

    Ibid., p 879.

  38. 38.

    Ibid., p 874.

  39. 39.

    See also Risse, Ropp and Sikkink: ‘[w]hile ideas are usually individualistic, norms have an explicit intersubjective quality because they are collective expectations. The very idea of ‘proper’ behavior presupposes a community able to pass judgements on appropriateness’ (Risse et al 1999, p 7).

  40. 40.

    Ruggie 2009, para 47.

  41. 41.

    Ruggie 2013, pp 91–92.

  42. 42.

    Deva 2012, p 104; López 2013, p 66.

  43. 43.

    Bilchitz 2013, pp 107, 121; Deva 2012, p 104; McCorquodale 2009.

  44. 44.

    McCorquodale 2009, p 392.

  45. 45.

    Deva notes ‘[i]t is highly likely that various constituents of society might differ from each other in terms of the nature and extent of corporate responsibilities’ (Deva 2012, p 104).

  46. 46.

    Ruggie 2009, para 46.

  47. 47.

    Kristensen notes: ‘while there may be a dawning recognition of the importance of human rights, companies are still confused about what their responsibilities actually are, and how they should go about implementing a systematic policy in the area’ (Kristensen 2005, p 381).

  48. 48.

    Bilchitz 2013, p 119.

  49. 49.

    McCorquodale 2009, p 392; Nolan 2013, pp 138, 158.

  50. 50.

    Cragg 2012, p 13.

  51. 51.

    Ibid., p 13; Bilchitz 2013, p 120; López 2013, p 65.

  52. 52.

    Archard 2004, pp 45, 48; Beiter 2006, p 81; Bilchitz 2013, p 121; Clapham 2006, p 511; De Schutter 2013, p 9; Keitner 2008, p 98; Tavernier 2006, pp 1, 20.

  53. 53.

    Bilchitz 2013, p 121.

  54. 54.

    Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, opened for signature on 23 May 1969, 331 (entered into force 27 January 1980).

  55. 55.

    Ruggie 2013, p 78.

  56. 56.

    It must be underlined that the hypothesis is not necessarily unrealistic, especially if one takes into consideration the different regional perceptions about how the goals of economic/industrial development and human rights/environmental protection should be balanced (Jackson 2013, p 73; Bilchitz 2013, pp 121–122). Competing social goals (e.g., full employment) may lead some societies to refuse or considerably reduce their support for an idea of responsibility to respect.

  57. 57.

    Ruggie 2009, para 2; Ruggie 2010, paras 2, 123.

  58. 58.

    Jackson 2013, 85 et seq.

  59. 59.

    Tasioulas 2013, p 2.

  60. 60.

    Ibid.

  61. 61.

    Jackson 2013, pp 77–78, 82.

  62. 62.

    Bilchitz, in this sense, distinguishes between ‘binding normativity’, defined as the source of bindingness of rules, and ‘moral normativity’, defined as the answer to the question of whether corporations ought to have binding human rights obligations (Bilchitz 2013, p 109).

  63. 63.

    Commission on Human Rights 2006, para 81.

  64. 64.

    Jackson 2013, p 58.

  65. 65.

    Commission on Human Rights 2006, para 81.

  66. 66.

    Jackson 2013, p 86.

  67. 67.

    According to him, ‘these rights should be treated as moral causes that speak to us directly, as one of those rare precepts that are self-evident’ (Etzioni 2010, p 187). Etzioni points out that treating human rights as self-evident ‘does not deny the value of examining their historical sources, nor the need to spell out what they entail; it merely contends that attempts to support human rights by inserting a foundation underneath them end up undermining their construction. Human rights stand tall on their own’ (ibid., pp 187–188). And also: ‘To hold that the normativity of human rights is self-evident does not involve the assumption that they are self-enforcing, self-implementing, or omnipotent’ (ibid., p 192).

  68. 68.

    Ibid., pp 189–190. It must be noted that Etzioni also rejects the idea that human rights’ normativity is founded in their link with human dignity, because ‘[l]ike other attempts to base the normativity of a given moral claim on its service to other causes, this endeavor ends up making the moral claim contingent’. Moreover, the concept of human dignity is open to subjective interpretations (ibid., p 189).

  69. 69.

    Cloots 2012; Rawls 1971, p 388.

  70. 70.

    In the words of Ruggie: ‘[t]he role of social norms and expectations can be particularly important where the capacity or willingness to enforce legal standards is lacking or absent altogether’ (Commission on Human Rights 2006, para 75).

  71. 71.

    International Commission of Jurists 2008, p 16. The International Commission of Jurists has noted that ‘as societal expectations develop and expand, so too will the expectations placed on the reasonable person by the law of civil remedies, and the requirements of careful conduct today, will always be higher than they were yesterday’ (ibid.).

  72. 72.

    The International Commission of Jurists specifies that: ‘[t]he reasonable person conceived of by the law of civil remedies does not represent the lowest common denominator, but instead is a responsible, careful actor, “a good member of society”’ (ibid.).

  73. 73.

    Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted on 10 December 1948, UN Doc A/810 at 71, Preamble; Bilchitz 2013, p 113.

  74. 74.

    Lane 2004, pp 145, 149.

  75. 75.

    Jägers 2002, p 39. See also: Bilchitz 2013, p 112; Deva 2014, p 5; Jackson 2013, p 95; Ratner 2001, pp 443, 472. The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights has expressed itself as follows: ‘[g]iven that individual rights inhere simply by virtue of a person’s humanity, each American State is obliged to uphold the protected rights of any person subject to its jurisdiction’ (Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACmHR), Coard et al v the United States, 29 September 1999, Case 10.951, Report No. 109/99, para 37. Emphasis added).

  76. 76.

    Commission on Human Rights 2006, para 19.

  77. 77.

    De Schutter analyses four possible options for the new treaty: ‘(i) to clarify and strengthen the states’ duty to protect human rights, including extraterritorially; (ii) to oblige states, through a framework convention, to report on the adoption and implementation of national action plans on business and human rights; (iii) to impose direct human rights obligations on corporations and establish a new mechanism to monitor compliance with such obligations; and (iv) to impose duties of mutual legal assistance on states to ensure access to effective remedies for victims harmed by transnational operations of corporations’ (De Schutter 2016, p 41).

  78. 78.

    The use of the term ‘responsibility’ to respect is disputable, in that it can be argued that, whether enforceable at the international level or solely at the national level, corporations do have human rights duties. See, on this point: Deva 2012, p 103; McCorquodale 2009, p 391.

  79. 79.

    OEIGWG 2021; OHCHR 2015; Treaty Alliance 2019.

  80. 80.

    In favour of the imposition of (at least some) international human rights obligations on corporations, see Bernaz and Pietropaoli 2020; Bilchitz 2013, pp 110 et seq; Clapham 2006, pp 76 et seq (founding his position on the ‘effectiveness principle’); Weissbrodt 2008, pp 373, 377; Praust 2002, pp 1242 et seq; Jägers 2002, pp 36 et seq.

  81. 81.

    On the problems of enforcement, see: Martens and Seitz 2016, p 28; Bilchitz et al. undated, p 8. See also Vázquez 2005, pp 927, 930.

  82. 82.

    Bilchitz et al. undated, pp 6–7; McCorquodale undated.

  83. 83.

    Bernaz and Pietropaoli 2020; Ratner 2001, pp 482–483.

  84. 84.

    Bilchitz 2016, pp 203, 207–208.

  85. 85.

    Ibid., p 208.

  86. 86.

    For a review of this debate, see, for example, Dumberry 2004, p 103.

  87. 87.

    Cutler observes: ‘The implications of treating corporations and individuals as objects and not as subjects are deeply troubling empirically and normatively. [...] while transnational corporations and private business associations may be objects at law (de jure), they are, in fact, operating as subjects (de facto )’ (Cutler 2003, p 249).

  88. 88.

    Bantekas 2004, pp 309, 347; Bernaz and Pietropaoli 2020; Conforti 2010, pp 22–23 (talking in general about ‘the individual’, as natural or legal persons); Ramasastry 2002, p 96. In Jägers’ words: ‘Not to recognise some form of legal personality of MNCs provides these entities with an excuse to avoid responsibilities towards society regarding human rights’ (Jägers 1999, pp 259, 270). Kamminga and Zia-Zarifi argue that ‘[i]nternational legal personality of corporations points toward growth of a complementary system of law that fills the penumbra of existing State-centred international law and facilitates, as well as regulates, activity by, through, and with sovereign States and their citizens’ (Kamminga and Zia-Zarifi 2000, p 6). Cassese did not take a definite stance on the matter, but he noted that the States’ position denying any form of international legal subjectivity to corporations is increasingly challenged by the need to hold those actors accountable for violations of certain international norms (Cassese 2006, pp 192–193).

  89. 89.

    Authors denying the international legal personality of corporations include: Brownlie 2003, p 65; Abi-Saab 1987, pp 549, 570; Malanczuk 1997, p 102; Nowrot 1993, p 4; Rigaux 1991, pp 121, 129; Tomuschat 2003, p 91; Sanders 1982, pp 281, 295; Arzt and Lukashuk 1995, pp 61, 75; Baade 1980, pp 3, 8; Hobe and Kimminich 2004, p 158; Booysen 2003, p 55.

  90. 90.

    On the topic, see Jägers 2002, pp 22 et seq.

  91. 91.

    Higgins 1994, pp 49–50; Van Hoof 1998, pp 47, 53. Clapham states: ‘It is possible to move beyond the self-imposed formalistic legal problem of subjectivity and concentrate on capacity’ (Clapham 2006, p 77).

  92. 92.

    Friedman 1964, pp 70–71; Higgins 1994, p 50.

  93. 93.

    Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, Article 31, see n 54 above.

  94. 94.

    Ibid.

  95. 95.

    Hulme 2016, p 1281.

  96. 96.

    Ibid., pp 1315, 1305–1307. This expansive power has become evident in the ‘object and purpose’ interpretation given by the Appeal Body of the WTO in the Shrimp Turtle case (World Trade Organisation, Appellate Body Report, United States - Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products, Dispute Settlement, 21 November 2001, WTO Doc. WT/DS58/AB/R (Shrimp Turtle Case)), but also in the expansive reading of Fair and Equitable Treatment clauses given by several investment arbitration tribunals in light of the object and purpose of investment treaties as reflected in their preambles (Hulme 2016, pp 1307 et seq, pp 1312 et seq). A similar positive power of preambles also emerges from some International Court of Justice’s decisions (ibid., p 1324–1330), and can be discerned in the Golder judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, where, by referring to the Convention’s preamble, the right to access to court was read into Article 6(1) in light of the context, object and purpose of the treaty (ECtHR, Golder v The United Kingdom, 21 February 1975, App. No. 4451/70, para 34).

  97. 97.

    Bilchitz 2016, pp 205–206.

  98. 98.

    OEIGWG 2021, Preamble.

  99. 99.

    Bernaz and Pietropaoli 2020, p 210.

References

  • Abi-Saab G M (1987) The International Law of Multinational Corporations: A Critique of American Legal Doctrines. In: Snyder F E, Sathirathai S (eds) Third World Attitudes Toward International Law: An Introduction. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden, pp 549–574.

    Google Scholar 

  • Archard D (2004) Welfare Rights as Human Rights and the Duties of Organisations. In: Campbell T, Miller S (eds) Human Rights and the Moral Responsibilities of Corporate and Public Sector Organisations. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Berlin, pp 45–59.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Arzt D E, Lukashuk I I (1995) Participants in International Legal Relations. In: Damrosch L F, Danilenko G M, Mullerson R (eds) Beyond confrontation: International law for the Post-Cold War Era. Westview Press, Boulder, pp 155–176.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baade H W (1980) The Legal Effects of Codes of Conduct for Multinational Enterprises. In: Horn N (ed) Legal Problems of Codes of Conduct for Multinational Enterprises. Kluwer, Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Backer L C (2010) On the Evolution of the United Nations ‘Protect-Respect-Remedy’ Project: The State, the Corporation and Human Rights in a Global Governance Context. Santa Clara Journal of International Law 9(1):37–80.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bantekas I (2004) Corporate Social Responsibility in International Law. Boston University International Law Journal 22:309–346.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beiter K D (2006) The Protection of the Right to Education by International Law. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bernaz N, Pietropaoli I (2020) Developing a Business and Human Rights Treaty: Lessons from the Deep Seabed Mining Regime Under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Business and Human Rights Journal 5(2):200–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bilchitz D (2013) A chasm between ‘is’ and ‘ought’? A critique of the normative foundations of the SRSG’s Framework and the Guiding Principles. Human Rights Obligations of Business – Beyond the Corporate Responsibility to Respect? Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 107–137.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bilchitz D (2016) The Necessity for a Business and Human Rights Treaty. Business and Human Rights Journal 1(2):203–227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bilchitz D, Lopez C, Deva S (undated) Corporations and Human Rights: Do They Have Obligations? Treaty Initiative ESCR-Net. https://www.escr-net.org/sites/default/files/corporations_and_human_rights-_do_they_have_obligations.pdf. Accessed 6 May 2021.

  • Booysen H (2003) Principles of International Trade Law as a Monistic System. Interlegal.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brownlie I (2003) Principles of Public International Law. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cassese A (2006) Diritto Internazionale. Il Mulino, Bologna.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chernoff F (2007) Theory and Metatheory in International Relations – Concepts and Contending Accounts. Palgrave MacMillan, London.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Clapham A (2006) Human Rights Obligations of Non-State Actors. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Cloots A S (2012) The UN Guiding Principles and the US Kiobel case – The limits of the human rights discourse on corporate human rights violations. Draft paper presented at the ‘Research Workshop on Business and Human Rights’, London School of Economics and Political Science.

    Google Scholar 

  • Commission on Human Rights (2003) UN Draft Norms on the Responsibilities of Transnational Corporations and other Business Enterprises with regard to human Rights’, UN Doc., E/CN.4/Sub.2/2003/12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Commission on Human Rights (2006) Interim Report of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the Issue of Human Rights and Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises, UN Doc. E/CN.4/2006/97.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conforti B (2010) Diritto Internazionale, 8th edn. Editoriale Scientifica.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cragg W (2012) Ethics, Enlightened Self-Interest, and the Corporate Responsibility to Respect Human Rights: A Critical Look at the Justificatory Foundations of the UN Framework. Business Ethics Quarterly 22(1):9–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cutler A C (2003) Private Power and Global Authority. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • De Schutter O (2013) Economic, Social and Cultural Rights as Human Rights: An Introduction. CRIDHO Working Paper 2013/2. http://cridho.uclouvain.be/documents/Working.Papers/CRIDHO-WP2013-2-ODeSchutterESCRights.pdf. Accessed 4 May 2021.

  • De Schutter O (2016) Towards a New Treaty on Business and Human Rights. Business and Human rights Journal 1(1): 41–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deva S (2012) Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights: Implications for Companies. European Company Law 19(2):101–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deva S (2014) The Human Rights Obligations of Business: Reimagining the Treaty Business. Paper presented at the Workshop on ‘Human Rights and Transnational Corporations: Paving the Way for a Legally Binding Instrument’, Permanent Missions of Ecuador and South Africa to the UN, Geneva. https://media.business-humanrights.org/media/documents/files/media/documents/reimagine_int_law_for_bhr.pdf. Accessed 4 May 2021.

  • Dumberry P (2004) L’Entreprise, Sujet de Droit International? Retour sur la Question à la Lumière des Développements Récents du Droit International des Investissements. Revue Générale de Droit International Public 108(1):103–122.

    Google Scholar 

  • Etzioni A (2010) The Normativity of Human Rights is Self-evident. Human Rights Quarterly 32(1):187–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finnemore M, Sikkink K (1998) International Norm Dynamics and Political Change. International Organization 52(4):887–917.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finnemore M, Sikkink K (2001) Taking stock: the constructivist research program in international relations and comparative politics. Annual Review of Political Science 4(1):391–416.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friedman W (1964) The changing structure of international law. Columbia University Press, New York City.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henkin L (1999) The Universal Declaration at 50 and the Challenge of Global Markets. Brooklyn Journal of International Law 25(1):18–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Higgins R (1994) Problems and Process – International Law and How We Use It. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hobe S, Kimminich O (2004) Einfuhrung in das Völkerrecht, 8th edn. A. Francke Verlag, Tübingen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hulme M H (2016) Preambles in treaty interpretation. University of Pennsylvania Law Review 164(5):1281–1343.

    Google Scholar 

  • International Commission of Jurists (2008) Corporate Complicity & Legal Accountability. Vol. 3: Civil Remedies http://www.icj.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/Corporate-complicity-legal-accountability-vol3-publication-2009-eng.pdf. Accessed 4 May 2021.

  • Jackson K T (2013) Rethinking Economic Governance: A Naturalistic Cosmopolitan Jurisprudence. Boston College International and Comparative Law Review 36(1):39–120.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jägers N (1999) The Legal Status of the Multinational Corporation Under International Law. In: Addo MK (ed) Human Rights Standards and the Responsibility of Transnational Corporations. Kluwer Law International, Berlin, pp 259–270.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jägers N (2002) Corporate Human Rights Obligations: in Search of Accountability. Intersentia, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kamminga M T, Zia-Zarifi S (2000) (eds) Liability of Multinational Corporations Under International Law. Kluwer Law International, Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keitner C (2008) Conceptualizing complicity in alien tort cases. Hastings Law Journal 60:61–104.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kristensen R A (2005) A place to stand upon – The development of a human rights compliance assessment for companies. Zeitschrift für Wirtschafts- und Unternehmensethik 6(3):380–389.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lane M (2004) Autonomy as a Central Human Right and its Implications for the Moral Responsibilities of Corporations. In: Campbell T, Miller S (eds) Human Rights and the Moral Responsibilities of Corporate and Public Sector Organisations. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Berlin, pp 145–163.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • López C (2013) ‘The ‘Ruggie process’: from legal obligations to corporate social responsibility? In: Deva S, Bilchitz D (eds) Human Rights Obligations of Business – Beyond the Corporate Responsibility to Respect? Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 58–77.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Malanczuk P (1997) Akehurst’s Modern Introduction to International Law, 7th edn. Routledge, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martens J, Seitz K (2016) The Struggle for a UN Treaty – Towards global regulation on human rights and business. Global Policy Forum. https://rosalux.nyc/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/RLS-NYC_struggle_for_a_un_treaty_EN.pdf. Accessed 6 May 2021.

  • McCorquodale R (undated) Principles for an Internationally Legally Binding Instrument on TNC and other Business Enterprises with respect to Human Rights OHCHR. http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/WGTransCorp/Session1/McCorquodaleIGWGPanel060715.pdf. Accessed 6 May 2021.

  • McCorquodale R (2009) Corporate Social Responsibility and International Human Rights Law. Journal of Business Ethics 87:385–400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nolan J (2013) The corporate responsibility to respect human rights: soft law or not law? In: Deva S, Bilchitz D (eds) Human Rights Obligations of Business – Beyond the Corporate Responsibility to Respect? Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 138–161.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Nowrot K (1993) New Approaches to the International Legal Personality of Multinational Corporations – Towards a Rebuttable Presumption of Normative Responsibilities. European Society of International Law. https://esil-sedi.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Nowrot.pdf. Accessed 6 May 2021.

  • OEIGWG (2021) Legally binding instrument to regulate, in international human rights law, the activities of transnational corporations and other business enterprises (Third Revised Draft). https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/WGTransCorp/Session6/LBI3rdDRAFT.pdf. Accessed 15 October 2021.

  • OHCHR (2011) Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights: Implementing the United Nations ‘Protect, Respect and Remedy’ Framework, UN Doc. A/HRC/17/31. https://www.ohchr.org/documents/issues/business/a-hrc-17-31_aev.pdf. Accessed 13 April 2021.

  • OHCHR (2015) (DRAFT) Report on the first session of the Open-ended intergovernmental working group on transnational corporations and other business enterprises with respect to human rights. Human Rights Council General Assembly. http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/WGTransCorp/Session1/Draftreport.pdf. Accessed 6 May 2021.

  • Praust J (2002) The Reality of Private Rights, Duties, and Participation in the International Legal Process. Michigan Journal of International Law 25(4):1229, 1242–1249.

    Google Scholar 

  • Price R, Reus-Smit C (1998) Dangerous Liaisons? Critical International Theory and Constructivism. European Journal of International Relations 4(3):259–294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramasastry A (2002) Corporate Complicity: From Nuremberg to Rangoon: An Examination of Forced Labor Cases and Their Impact on the Liability of Multinational Corporations. Berkeley Journal of International Law 20(1):91–159.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ratner S R (2001) Corporations and human rights: a theory of legal responsibility. Yale Law Journal 111(3):443–545.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rawls J (1971) A theory of justice. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Harvard.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Rigaux F (1991) Transnational Corporations. In: Bedjaoui M (ed) International Law: Achievements and Prospects. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden, pp 121–134.

    Google Scholar 

  • Risse T, Ropp S C, Sikkink K (1999) The Power of Human Rights: International Norms and Domestic Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ruggie J G (1997) Constructing the World Polity: Essays on International Institutionalization. Routledge, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruggie J G (1998) What Makes the World Hang Together? Neo-utilitarianism and the Social Constructivist Challenge. International Organization 52(4): 855–885.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruggie J G (2007) Business and Human Rights: Mapping International Standards of Responsibility and Accountability for Corporate Acts – Report of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General (SRSG) on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises, UN Doc. A/HRC/4/035.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruggie J G (2008) Protect, Respect and Remedy: a Framework for Business and Human Rights – Report of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises, UN Doc. A/HRC/8/5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruggie J G (2009) Business and human rights: Towards operationalizing the ‘protect, respect and remedy’ framework – Report of the Special Representative of the Secretary- General on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises, UN Doc. A/HRC/11/13. https://undocs.org/en/A/HRC/11/13. Accessed 21 April 2021.

  • Ruggie J G (2010) Business and Human Rights: Further steps toward the operationalization of the ‘protect, respect and remedy’ framework, UN Doc. A/HRC/14/27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruggie J G (2013) Just Business – Multinational Corporations and Human Rights. W.W. Norton & Company, New York City.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanders P (1982) Codes of conduct and sources of law. In: Fouchard P, Kahn P, Lyon-Caen A (eds) Le droit des relations économiques Internationals – Études offertes à Berthold Goldman. Litec Droit Series. Librairies Techniques, Paris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tasioulas J (2013) Human Rights, Legitimacy, and International Law. The American Journal of Jurisprudence 58(1):1–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tavernier P (2006) L’identification des règles fondamentales, un problème résolu? In: Tomuschat C, Thouvenin J M (eds) The Fundamental Rules of the International Legal Order: ‘Jus Cogens’ and Obligations ‘Erga Omnes’. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden, pp 1–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tomuschat C (2003) Human Rights – Between Idealism and Realism. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Treaty Alliance (2019) Enhance the International Legal Framework to Protect Human Rights from Corporate Abuse. Global Policy Forum. https://www.globalpolicy.org/en/article/enhance-international-legal-framework-protect-human-rights-corporate-abuse. Accessed 6 May 2021.

  • UNGA (2010) Statement by Professor John Ruggie: Mandate of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the Issue of Human Rights and Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises. https://www.business-humanrights.org/en/latest-news/pdf-statement-by-professor-john-ruggie-to-un-general-assembly/ (accessed 4 May 2021).

  • Van Hoof G (1998) International Human Rights Obligations for Companies and Domestic Courts: An Unlikely Combination? In: Castermans-Holeman M C, Van Hoof G, Smith J (eds) The Role of the Nation-State in the 21st Century: Human Rights, International Organisations, and Foreign Policy: Essays in Honour of Peter Baehr. Kluwer Law International, Brussels.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vázquez C M (2005) Direct vs. Indirect Obligations of Corporations Under International Law. Columbia Journal of Transnational Law 43:927–959.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weissbrodt D (2008) Keynote Address: International Standard-Setting on the Human Rights Responsibilities of Business. Berkeley Journal of International Law 26(2):373–391.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Law Group, Wageningen University & Research, Wageningen, The Netherlands

    Chiara Macchi

Authors
  1. Chiara Macchi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Chiara Macchi .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 T.M.C. Asser Press and the author

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Macchi, C. (2022). The Normative Foundation of the Corporate Responsibility to Respect: A Critical Analysis. In: Business, Human Rights and the Environment: The Evolving Agenda. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-479-2_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-479-2_3

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague

  • Print ISBN: 978-94-6265-478-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-6265-479-2

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation