Suchergebnisse

All companies, regardless of the sector they belong to, can positively or negatively impact human rights. Governments are increasingly aware of the benefits that free trade brings their nations, which has led them to do whatever is necessaryto attract foreign investment, even if it means to act against the interests of their own people. The power relationship between corporations and states generates a tension derived from their nature: while the objective of states is the welfare ofits members, the purpose of corporations is profit. It is in the crack generated by the collision of powers and purposes between these two actors, that this article is intended to raise the discussion on the need to establish an international framework for corporate liability for human rights violations. To achieve its goal, the article will analyze the opportunities and obstacles raised by the exercise of extraterritorial jurisdiction in the American context and its relationship with the developments in the business and human rights field.

All companies, regardless of the sector they belong to, can positively or negatively impact human rights. Governments are increasingly aware of the benefits that free trade brings their nations, which has led them to do whatever is necessaryto attract foreign investment, even if it means to act against the interests of their own people. The power relationship between corporations and states generates a tension derived from their nature: while the objective of states is the welfare ofits members, the purpose of corporations is profit. It is in the crack generated by the collision of powers and purposes between these two actors, that this article is intended to raise the discussion on the need to establish an international framework for corporate liability for human rights violations. To achieve its goal, the article will analyze the opportunities and obstacles raised by the exercise of extraterritorial jurisdiction in the American context and its relationship with the developments in the business and human rights field.

The Council of the European Union (EU) recently reached a negotiating position ('mandate') on two significant elements of the 'reform' of the Common European Asylum System (CEAS). The vision hailed as a 'historic' agreement by national governments is a direct threat to the right to asylum. The Council not only maintains all structural flaws of the CEAS intact but proposes a quagmire of asylum procedures marred by unworkable, unnecessarily complex rules, that are in clear violation of key human rights standards.