Skip to main content
×
Home
    • Aa
    • Aa

Determining Criteria to Evaluate Outcomes of Businesses’ Provision of Remedy: Applying a Human Rights-Based Approach

Abstract
Abstract

The UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (GPs) expect businesses to participate in operational-level, non-judicial mechanisms to address the grievances of communities affected by their activities. While there is guidance on operational-level grievance mechanisms as to what constitutes an effective process, inquiries into the effectiveness of outcomes have been met with less success. This article identifies three key incongruities within the GPs regarding effective outcomes: (1) the broader interpretation of remedy within the Remedy Pillar compared to the Respect Pillar; (2) the novelty of enforcing human rights through dialogue and engagement as opposed to adjudication; and (3) the difficulty in reconciling objective human rights standards with the subjective preferences of the parties. It then aims to resolve these issues by applying a human rights-based approach: examining how empowerment of communities can act as the founding basis for understanding whether an outcome is effective. It concludes by examining the working of the Porgera Mine mechanism from this perspective.

Copyright
Footnotes
Hide All
*

LLM; Lecturer and Research Assistant at Utrecht University. This article is based on an LLM thesis submitted to Utrecht University in July 2015. I would like to thank my thesis supervisors, Brianne McGonigle Leyh and Otto Spijkers, for their support and helpful comments on previous drafts. I would also like to thank Serge Bronkhorst from ACCESS Facility for his advice and ideas. Finally, I would like to thank the referees and the journal’s editors, in particular Surya Deva, for their in-depth comments. This article could not have been written if not for the input of these individuals.

Footnotes
Linked references
Hide All

This list contains references from the content that can be linked to their source. For a full set of references and notes please see the PDF or HTML where available.

Valérie Couillard , ‘The Nairobi Declaration: Redefining Reparations for Women Victims of Sexual Violence’ (2007) 1 International Journal of Transitional Justice 444

Brianne Mcgonigle Leyh , ‘Victim-Orientated Measures at International Criminal Institutions: Participation and its Pitfalls’ (2012) 12 International Criminal Law Review 375

Sarah Knuckey and Eleanor Jenkin , ‘Company-created remedy mechanisms for serious human rights abuses: a promising new frontier for the right to remedy?’ (2015) 19:6 The International Journal of Human Rights 801

Amartya Sen , ‘Human Rights and Capabilities’ (2005) 6:2 Journal of Human Development 151

Jonathan Kaufmann and Katherine McDonnell , ‘Community-Driven Operational-level Mechanisms’ (2015) 1:1 Business and Human Rights Journal 127

Amartya Sen , ‘Elements of a Theory of Human Rights’ (2004) 32:4 Philosophy and Public Affairs 315

Nancy Fraser , ‘Identity, Exclusion and Critique: A Response to Four Critics’ (2007) 6:3 European Journal of Political Theory 305

Ingrid Robeyns , ‘Is Nancy Fraser’s Critique of Theories of Distributive Justice Justified?’ (2003) 10:2 Constellations 538

Ruth Rubio-Marín and Clara Sandoval , ‘Engendering the Reparations Jurisprudence of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights: The Promise of the Cotton Field Judgment’ (2011) 33 Human Rights Quarterly 1062

Tania Burchardt , ‘Deliberative research as a tool to make value judgements’ (2014) 14:3 Qualitative Research 1

Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Business and Human Rights Journal
  • ISSN: 2057-0198
  • EISSN: 2057-0201
  • URL: /core/journals/business-and-human-rights-journal
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Keywords:

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 31
Total number of PDF views: 305 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 723 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between 7th November 2016 - 21st September 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.