M.T. Kamminga

The Thematic Procedures of the UN Commission on Human Rights

It is not at all difficult to criticize the United Nations human rights programme on the grounds of inefficiency, hypocrisy, double standards and lack of imagination. But critics often tend to take a myopic view and overlook what has been achieved over a slightly longer period of time. One such development which has so far received little attention outside the small world of human rights activists and specialised diplomats is the emergence of the ‘thematic’ or issue-oriented response to human rights violations by the UN Commission on Human Rights.

Transnational Human Rights Litigation against Multinational Corporations Post-Kiobel

An evident flaw in international law is its failure to regulate the conduct of one of the world’s most powerful actors: the multinational corporation. Fred has long recognized this fact. In 2004, as the International Law Association’s Director of Studies, he ensured that the plenary session of the Association’s Berlin Conference was devoted to the theme Corporate Social Responsibility and International Law.1 This was then a far-sighted choice of topic. The following year UN SecretaryGeneral Kofi Annan appointed John Ruggie as his Special Representative on Business and Human Rights. In 2011, the UN Human Rights Council endorsed Ruggie’s Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights.2 The Guiding Principles remain the principal global framework applicable to corporations. They suggest that corporations have a moral responsibility towards society (“global standard of expected conduct”) but not a legal obligation to respect human rights.3 Fifty years after Wolfgang Friedmann first suggested that private corporations should be regarded as subjects of international law4 mainstream textbook writers can therefore legitimately maintain that corporations do not have international legal personality.5 Multinational corporations continue to be regulated merely under the domestic laws of the states in which they operate. The picture is similar when it comes to judicial remedies against abuses committed by multinational corporations. In the absence of international remedies, the only available remedies against corporate abuse are those under domestic law. The Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights therefore provide rather lamely that

Inter-State Accountability for Violations of Human Rights

Menno T. Kamminga challenges one of the cornerstones of classic international law: the presumption that states are entitled to exercise diplomatic protection only on behalf of their own nationals. Kamminga systematically reexamines this position, arguing that if a state violates its international human rights obligations, other states are entitled to exercise full protection on behalf of the victims, regardless of their nationality.