Vedanta Resources Plc and Another v. Lungowe and Others

In Vedanta v. Lungowe, the United Kingdom Supreme Court determined that civil claims for negligence brought by Zambian claimants against an English parent company (Vedanta) and its Zambian subsidiary (Konkola Copper Mines plc (KCM)) for damages experienced in Zambia can proceed in English courts. While framed as a domestic tort law case, the decision is significant for international efforts aimed at holding businesses accountable for their “negative impacts” on human rights. Writing for a unanimous Court, Lord Briggs's judgment hinged narrowly on the right of victims to access substantial justice. More broadly, Lord Briggs suggested that parent companies that hold themselves out in public disclosures as overseeing the human rights, environmental, social, or labor standards employed by their subsidiaries assume a duty of care to those harmed by the subsidiary. This suggestion has the potential to transform current corporate approaches to human rights due diligence and accountability.</jats:p

Deprioritizing Human Rights Will Not Protect Territorial Sovereignty (Blog entry; Just Security)

Переклад статті здійснений завдяки Катерині Бакай та Максиму Віщику.

The Mutual Fund Industry and the Protection of Human Rights

This article considers the appropriate application of the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGP) to the mutual funds industry. Mutual funds can impact human rights by financially supporting oppressive states or abusive companies. Given the indirect nature of such impacts, along with the exclusively external management of the funds, this article argues that a unique approach to implementing the UNGP is necessary for this industry. Divided into five parts, the article outlines the governance structure of mutual funds and the expectations on states and businesses in the UNGP, before assessing the appropriateness of applying current guidance for banks and other financial actors to mutual funds. The article concludes with practical recommendations for both fund managers and states on the implementation of the UNGP in this industry

Angels, Virgins, Demons, Whores: Moving Towards an Antiracist Praxis by Confronting Modern Investment Law Scholarship

Racism is not a natural phenomenon. Historically, it was socialised into global existence through intentional acts that have become embedded parts of the international legal order and domestic social systems. Rejecting racism and developing alternative anti-racist approaches similarly require intentionality. One area of concern for scholars is how our linguistic and framing choices perpetuate or reproduce racialised hierarchies. In this article, I employ I. Bennett Capers’s ‘Reading Black’ methodology to interrogate racialised narratives embedded in four contributions to modern international investment law debates. The purpose is not to condemn the individual authors but to identify how the socialisation and structures of racism continue to affect our scholarship. Premised on the belief that countering implicit, racialised biases is a normative good, I examine how it can also facilitate better scholarship. I offer suggestions that researchers and journals can take, individually and collectively, to develop antiracist praxes

Obligations of International Assistance and Cooperation in the Context of Investment Law

This Chapter considers states’ obligations to provide international assistance and cooperation (‘IAC’) for the protection and realisation of human rights in the context of international investment law (‘IIL’). It focuses on the obligations arising from Article 2(1) of the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (‘ICESCR’). This is only one potential avenue for establishing extraterritorial human rights obligations in the context of IIL, but it is one that has not yet been seriously considered. As this Chapter concludes, a more structured and fully developed understanding of what Article 2(1) requires of states has the potential to upend current approaches to the relationship between IIL and international human rights law (‘IHRL’). To date, scholarship has considered how ICESCR’s IAC obligations might inform the analysis of particular issues within IIL. As such, scholars have narrowly focused on the obligations of investors’ home states when developing and negotiating IIAs and when providing financial support to investors operating overseas, or to protect human rights by ensuring accountability for national investors that operate abroad. This Chapter starts from a different position, centring the demands of IAC and asking about their implications for IIL. By looking at what is broadly required of states with regard to IAC (Section 2) before outlining the impact IIL has on IHRL (Section 3) I set a foundation to assess the responsibility of negotiating states (Section 4). I am also able to reveal IAC obligations on third-party states in the context of IIL (Section 4). In this, I break novel ground. I conclude (Section 5) that the recognition of third-party obligations for IAC in the context of IIL has the potential to alter the existing relationship between IIL and IHRL, and raises further questions for scholars and practitioners

Defining the Relationships: “Cause, Contribute, and Directly Linked to” in the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights

According to the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, business owe remediation when they “cause” or “contribute to” a human rights impact, but not when they are only “directly linked to” it. These terms determine when a victim is entitled to seek remediation from a business, but they have largely been ignored in existing scholarship. This article investigates the meaning of “cause, contribute, and directly linked to”, revealing confusion and uncertainty before proposing a new system, built on existing authoritative guidance, for interpreting the terms and determining when businesses owe remediation for their human rights impacts

Business and Human Rights in Transitional Justice: Challenges for Complex Environments

In this Chapter, I review the expectations set out in the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights and authoritative guidance before discussing scholarship that suggests human rights due diligence is simply not enough in certain complex environments. I then scrutinize some of the most pertinent findings in transitional justice ('TJ'). In analysing the lessons from TJ, I argue that the overarching context of a complex environment may make it impossible for a business to comply with its responsibility to respect. In such circumstances, the only means to realise the responsibility is to leave the context fully. This presents a challenge for business and human rights ('BHR') as generally only foreign companies would have the luxury of leaving a context. This might call for the re-consideration of another assumption within BHR: that the UNGP apply equally to all businesses at all times

General Comment No. 24 (2017) on State Obligations Under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in the Context of Business Activities (CESCR)

The United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) took an unusual step in issuing its “General Comment No. 24 on State Obligations under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in the context of business activities.” Unlike most of CESCR's other General Comments, General Comment No. 24 does not tackle a specific right. Instead, it consolidates and elaborates the Committee's jurisprudence on states' obligations in the area of business and human rights, providing clarity on its approach to some of the most contentious issues within the field of business and human rights. This General Comment has the potential to have profound implications for the ongoing development of legal standards in the area of business and human rights, including implementation of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGP)