Abstract
The Special Representative to the UN Secretary General on Business and Human Rights (SRSG) has identified the State duty to protect against human rights abuses by non-State actors, including business, as one of the fundamental pillars of the Protect, Respect, Remedy Framework [Framework].1 The Framework ‘rests on differentiated but complementary responsibilities’, and comprises three ‘core principles’: the State duty to protect, the corporate responsibility to respect human rights, and the need for more effective access to remedies.2 However, the jurisdictional scope of the State duty to protect is disputed. According to the SRSG, international law provides that States are required to protect against human rights abuses by businesses ‘affecting persons within their territory or jurisdiction’.3
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
Obiora Chinedu Okafor, Critical Third World Approaches to International Law (TWAIL): Theory, Methodology, or Both? 10 Int. Community L. Rev. 371, 376 (2008) [hereinafter Okafor ICLR].
Obiora Chinedu Okafor, Newness, Imperialism and International Legal Reform in Our Time: A TWAIL Perspective, 43 OSGOODE HALL L.J. 176 (2005) [hereinafter, Okafor Newness]. See also Makau Mutua, What Is TWAIL, 94 AM. SOC’Y INT’L PROC. 31 (2000);Karen Mickelson, Taking Stock of TWAIL Histories, 10 INT’L COMMUNITY L. REV. 353 (2008).
Antony Anghie & B.S. Chimni, Third World Approaches to International Law and Individual Responsibility for Internal Conflict, 2 CHINESE J. INT’L L. 77 at 187 (2003).
Id. at 193.
Anne-Marie Slaughter & Steven R. Ratner, The Method is the Message, 36 STUD. TRANSNAT’L LEGAL POL’Y 239 at 248–249 (2004).
See, e. g., B.S. Chimni, An Outline of a Marxist Course on Public International Law, 17 LEIDEN J. INT’L L. 1, 19–20 (2004).
See further Sara L. Seck, Unilateral Home State Regulation: Imperialism or Tool for Subaltern Resistance? 46 OSGOODE HALL L. J. 565 (2008) [hereinafter Seck in OHLJ].
Balakrishnan Rajagopal, Counter-hegemonic International Law: rethinking Human Rights and Development as a Third World Strategy, 27 THIRD WORLD Q. 767 at 768 (2006).
SIGRUN I. SKOGLY, BEYOND NATIONAL BORDERS: STATES’ HUMAN RIGHTS OBLIGATIONS IN INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION (2006) [hereinafter SKOGLY, BEYOND BORDERS]; Sigrun I. Skogly & Mark Gibney, Transnational Human Rights Obligations, 24 HUM. RTS. Q. 781 (2002); Mark Gibney, Katarina Tomaševski & Jens Vedsted-Hansen, Transnational State Responsibility for Violations of Human Rights, 12 HARV. HUM. RTS. J. 267 (1999).
Sigrun I. Skogly & Mark Gibney, Economic Rights and Extraterritorial Obligations, in ECONOMIC RIGHTS: CONCEPTUAL, MEASUREMENT, AND POLICY ISSUES 267, 273 (Shareen Hertel & Lanse Minkler eds., 2007).
NICOLA M. C.P. JÄGERS, CORPORATE HUMAN RIGHTS OBLIGATIONS: IN SEARCH OF ACCOUNTABILITY 172, generally at 166–167, 169–172 (2002) [hereinafter JÄGERS]. For an environmental perspective, see BRIAN D. SMITH, STATE RESPONSIBILITY AND THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT: THE RULES OF DECISION 36, 41–43 (1988).
Shinya Murase, Perspectives from International Economic Law on Transnational Environmental Issues, 253 REC. DES COURS 287, 396–398 (1995).
See Sara L. Seck, Home State Obligations for the Prevention and Remediation of Transnational Harm: Canada, Global Mining and Local Communities 290–413 (Dec. 2007) (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Osgoode Hall Law School, York University) [hereinafter Seck PhD]. On what international human rights law can learn from international environmental law regarding the transnational scope of obligations, see also SKOGLY, BEYOND BORDERS, supra note 62, 49–54; John H. Knox, Diagonal Environmental Rights, in UNIVERSAL HUMAN RIGHTS AND EXTRATERRITORIAL OBLIGATIONS (Mark Gibney & Sigrun Skogly eds., 2010).
Emmanuel Roucounas, Non-State Actors: Areas of International Responsibility in Need of Further Exploration, in INTERNATIONAL RESPONSIBILITY TODAY: ESSAYS IN MEMORY OF OSCAR SCHACHTER 391, 398–399 (Maurizio Ragazzi ed., 2005) [hereinafter INTERNATIONAL RESPONSIBILITY TODAY];and R. Pissolo Mazzzeschi, The Marginal Role of the Individual in the ILC’s Articles on State Responsibility 14 ITALIAN Y.B. INT’L L. 39, 47 (2004).
James Crawford & Simon Olleson, The Continuing Debate on a UN Convention on State Responsibility, 54 INT’L COMP. L.Q. 959, 968 (2005). See also David D. Caron, The ILC Articles on State Responsibility: The Paradoxical Relationship Between Form and Authority, 96 AM. J. INT’L L. 857 (20021).
See, e. g., Sara L. Seck, Strengthening Environmental Assessment of Canadian Supported Mining Ventures in Developing Countries, 11 J. ENVT’L L. & PRAC. 1 (2001).
See, e. g., Sara L. Seck, Environmental Harm in Developing Countries Caused by Subsidiaries of Canadian Mining Corporations: The Interface of Public and Private International Law, 37 CAN. Y.B. INT’L L. 139 (1999).
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2011 Sara L. Seck
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Seck, S.L. (2011). Conceptualizing the Home State Duty to Protect Human Rights. In: Buhmann, K., Roseberry, L., Morsing, M. (eds) Corporate Social and Human Rights Responsibilities. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230294615_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230294615_2
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-31185-9
Online ISBN: 978-0-230-29461-5
eBook Packages: Palgrave Business & Management CollectionBusiness and Management (R0)