Abstract The current economic growth model relies heavily on the supply chains in the Global South. Despite creating economic opportunities, these supply chains are problematic as they contribute to the exploitation of the intersectional vulnerabilities of the workers, leading to the violation of their labour rights and other human rights. As the post-growth ideas take root in the Global North, this chapter explores how the existing post-growth theories have addressed the issues of economic globalization and supply chains in the Global South. Against this backdrop, the chapter critiques the current state of labour rights within supply chains from a Global South perspective. Building on this critique, it develops an alternative vision of the labour rights and supply chains that is responsive to the needs and aspirations of the Global South, based on the model of differentiated degrowth.

In the context of ongoing debates concerning the reform of the investor-State dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanism, this article critiques the widely-accepted approach that seeks to fit international human rights law (IHRL) into the existing structure of ISDS and argues that IHRL should at least be treated as ‘primus inter pares’ vis-à-vis international investment law. Testing ISDS on the touchstone of the human rights to equality, non-discrimination, and an effective remedy, the authors demonstrate that ISDS is incompatible with IHRL. Considering various structural and systemic problems, abolishing ISDS is perhaps the only normatively sound solution to address this incompatibility with IHRL. However, as this may not be politically feasible in the near future, this article articulates eight principles for a human-rights compatible international dispute settlement mechanism. We argue that these principles should inform the current efforts to reform the ISDS mechanism to avoid the risk of making only cosmetic changes.

AbstractMandatory human rights due diligence (HRDD) laws in the European Union (EU) – both enacted and in the making – seem to be a promising tool to harden soft international standards in the business and human rights (BHR) field, the most prominent of these being the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs). This article develops a two-layered critique of mandatory HRDD laws. It problematizes the very concept of HRDD as articulated by the UNGPs. I will argue that due to various conceptual, operational and structural limitations, HRDD alone will not bring the desired changes for rightsholders, because this process does not address various asymmetries of power between corporations and affected communities. The second layer of critique concerns the content of mandatory HRDD laws enacted in France, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Norway and Germany. Assessing these laws vis-à-vis six preconditions required to protect effectively people and the planet from business-related harms, it is clear that these mandatory HRDD laws are half-hearted attempts to tame business-related human rights abuses and hold the relevant corporate actors accountable. In addition to developing more ambitious mandatory HRDD laws in future, states should employ a range of additional regulatory tools that pay greater attention to achieving outcomes, drawing red lines in certain situations, and promoting access to remedy and corporate accountability.

This policy brief assesses the business and human rights (BHR) landscape in Hong Kong, a major Asian financial centre. The assessment is done against the backdrop of the Covid-19 pandemic and the enactment of the National security Law, both of which developments have created unique challenges for Hong Kong’s BHR journey. It makes practical recommendations for the Hong Kong government, companies and industry associations, civil society organisations and trade unions, and other actors to promote business respect for human rights.

After the unanimous endorsement of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs) by the Human Rights Council in June 2011, human rights due diligence (HRDD) has become a common currency widely embraced among stakeholders operating in the business and human rights (BHR) field. The UNGPs envisage HRDD to be the primary tool for businesses to identify, prevent, mitigate and account for adverse impacts of their activities on internationally recognized human rights.

This column analyses the current process in the UN Human Rights Council to negotiate an international legally binding instrument to regulate, in international human rights law, the activities of transnational corporations and other business enterprises. It does so in the context of two previous attempts at the UN level to adopt binding rules for (multinational) corporations and the continued inability of international soft standards as well as hard rules at the national level in States in ensuring that businesses take their human rights responsibilities seriously. It is argued that an international treaty is desirable as part of a regulatory ecosystem to promote respect of human rights by business enterprises and to strengthen corporate accountability for human rights abuses. While the treaty should build on and complement the existing international soft standards, it should also try to fill some of the regulatory gaps that these standards might not ever be able to fill.

This chapter provides critical insights on politics in India over unconstitutional constitutional amendments. Constitutional law scholars should pay greater attention to such informal ways of amendment, because governments are using innovative tools to bypass limits on their power to amend the Constitution. One example of constitutional politics is provided by agrarian reforms aimed at the redistribution of land which were underpinned by the quest for economic justice and equality of status and opportunity. A challenge to the constitutional validity of these government measures triggered the politics of supremacy: whether the government or the judiciary should be the final arbiter of the appropriateness of the tools employed to bring social revolution. The August 2019 actions of the Indian government vis-a-vis the special status of Jammu and Kashmir under Article 370 could again be analysed from the perspective of the politics of supremacy and legitimacy.

The degraded state of the natural commons indicates that the institutions, organizations, and governance mechanisms through which we regulate our impact on the natural environment are fragmented and insufficient. This Voices asks: to what extent can environmental law integrate the UN Sustainable Development Goals and hold nations accountable for missed sustainability targets?

There is a growing consensus that businesses should respect human rights, but there is lesser consensus on why they should do so. This chapter will critically examine two prominent justifications of the why question: the ‘social expectations’ logic which underpins the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, and the business case for human rights. As an alternative, I will argue that businesses should respect human rights as a matter of principle, simply because they are in a ‘position’ to violate human rights. This would require humanizing business by revisiting the very purpose of business, making substantial changes in laws governing corporations, and managing expectations of shareholders. Otherwise, we might continue to scratch only the surface of the problem of deeply-entrenched culture of corporate irresponsibility and impunity for human rights abuses.

In recent years, various approaches to transnational regulation of business conduct have evolved as an alternative to the command-and-control model focusing on conduct of domestic businesses and the soft law approach of international human rights law to regulate corporations. On reviewing the potential of five such approaches (i.e., polycentric governance, extraterritorial regulation, proposed international treaty, reform of corporate laws, and rebalancing of trade-investment agreements), this article makes two arguments. First, although polycentric governance is critical to fill regulatory deficits of state-based regulation, this approach should not ignore or weaken further the role and relevance of states in regulating businesses, given the dynamic relation between state-based and other regulatory approaches. Second, greater attention should be paid to nonhuman rights regulatory regimes to change the corporate culture, which tends to externalize human rights issues. The increasing focus on the role of corporate laws and trade-investment agreements should be seen in this context.

COVID-19 has affected the full range of human rights, though some rights holders have experienced a disproportionate impact. This has triggered debate about the respective obligations and responsibilities of states and business enterprises under international human rights law. Against this backdrop, this article examines critically whether the “protect, respect and remedy” framework operationalised by the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights is “fit for the purpose” to deal with the COVID-19 crisis. I argue that while the UNGPs’ framework provides a good starting point, it is inadequate to bring transformative changes to overcome deep-rooted socio-economic problems exposed by this pandemic. Realising human rights fully would not only require harnessing the potential of states’ tripartite obligations, but also move beyond limiting the responsibility of businesses to respect human rights.

Abstract What should be the interface of the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs) with other regulatory regimes in the business and human rights (BHR) universe? This article explores this issue in relation to two specific contexts. First, the interface of ‘social norm’ with evolving ‘legal norms’: relation of Pillar II of the UNGPs and mandatory human rights due diligence (HRDD) laws as well as parent companies’ direct duty of care for negligence. Second, the interface of ‘soft norms’ and evolving ‘hard norms’: how the UNGPs should inform the proposed BHR treaty. It is argued that legal norms should align with Pillar II only in a ‘loose manner’. They should draw from and build on the HRDD concept under Pillar II, but not be constrained by it, because a hard alignment of Pillar I laws with Pillar II could undercut the independent but complementary status of the two pillars. Moreover, the UNGPs should serve only as a ‘starting point’ and not the ‘end point’ in the evolution of other hard or soft norms in the future. Such an approach would be desirable because the UNGPs alone are unlikely to be enough to challenge or confront the existing structure of irresponsibility and inequality.