Sara L. Seck

Environmental Harm in Developing Countries Caused by Subsidiaries of Canadian Mining Corporations: The Interface of Public and Private International Law

This 1999 publication examines home state responsibility for transnational environmental harm from the perspective of both private and public international law, using Canadian mining internationally as a case study.

Conceptualizing the Home State Duty to Protect Human Rights

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

Collective Responsibility and Transnational Corporate Conduct

The merits of corporate criminal liability as opposed to individual liability for corporate wrong-doing have been frequently debated at the domestic level in many jurisdictions and regulatory contexts. In international human rights law recent debates have focused upon whether corporations can bear direct obligations for violations of international law. This is particularly contentious where the conduct at issue falls short of violating the egregious norms of international criminal law. This chapter first examines legal and philosophical debates over collective responsibility of corporate entities in the domestic context. Next, the 2008 UN Protect, Respect, Remedy Framework for Business and Human Rights is presented, which identifies both the state duty to protect rights and the corporate responsibility to respect rights as two of three differentiated but complementary pillars. The chapter concludes by suggesting that any study of collective responsibility for transnational corporate conduct must consider both the collective responsibility of corporations and the collective responsibility of states. By drawing upon insights from other contributors to this volume, the chapter reveals the blind spots of international law that shield the collective responsibility of home states, despite the significance of their role as institutional agents of the global economic order.

Business, human rights and the IBA Climate Justice Report

The 2014 Climate Justice Report by the International Bar Association (IBA) makes many recommendations designed to contribute to the fight against climate change. One important step forward is its explicit recognition of the responsibility of business to respect human rights affected by climate change. This commentary explores the extent to which the IBAs approach to this issue aligns with the business responsibility to respect human rights as described in the 2011 United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. The commentary also considers other international standards that incorporate business responsibilities for human rights in order to determine whether sufficient guidance has yet emerged for businesses to effectively address human rights and climate concerns.