Suchergebnisse

It was around the beginning of November 2006. I was reading a book by Prof. Koen De Feyter World Development Law where I first see the term 'indigenous peoples'. Two of the cases summarized in the book had taken my attention, i.e., the case of Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni indigenous community of Nicaragua, and Ogoni people of Nigeria. The cases were brought at different regional human right courts of America and Africa, respectively. However, both cases involved TNCs complicity in human rights violations of indigenous communities namely, Sol del Caribe S.A. (SOLCARSA) in Nicaragua, and Royal Shell in Nigeria. Both allegations were also brought against the respective states. I keep wondering why the TNCs escape liability which becomes the basic research question for this thesis. The thesis is a critical legal analysis of TNCs human rights liability from the perspective of indigenous peoples human rights violations. The study analyses the problematic situation of TNCs liability in existing state-centered system of international law. It observes the particular weakness of the current system of international law when the human rights victims of TNCs happened to be indigenous peoples. The study also analyses the effectiveness of different attempts made by international organization, corporations and civil society groups towards imposing human rights liability on TNCs. Despite the lack of legal bite and enforceability, the study founds the lack of sensitivity to indigenous peoples human rights in such emerging regulatory and voluntary initiatives which are categorized broadly as soft-laws, self-regulations and social initiatives. This study argues for a binding international law on TNCs as an ultimate solution, but it also equally argues for increased concern to indigenous peoples human rights as an indispensable issue in corporate human rights discourse. In this regard the thesis offers some general and transitional policy measures.

Today the majority of the armed conflicts around the world are fought between States and armed groups, rather than between States. This book brings significant new insight to the question of whether and when armed groups are bound by human rights law.

With the importance of non-State actors ever increasing, the traditional State-centric approach of international law is being put to the test. In particular, significant accountability lacunae have emerged in the field of human rights protection. To address these challenges, this book makes a case for extraterritorial due diligence obligations of States in international human rights law. It traces back how due diligence obligations evolved on the international plane and develops a general analytical framework making the broad and vague notion of due diligence more approachable. The framework is applied to different fields of international law which provides guidance on how due diligence obligations can be better conceptualized. Drawing inspiration from these developments, the book analyses how extraterritorial human rights due diligence obligations could operate in practice and foster global human rights protection.

International organizations are becoming increasingly powerful. Today, they affect the lives of individuals across the globe through their decisions and conduct. Consequently, international organizations are more capable of violating the human rights of individuals. But how can they be held to account for such violations? This book studies the procedural mechanisms that may hold international organizations to account for their human rights violations. It establishes a general framework for identifying, analyzing, and assessing the accountability mechanisms of international organizations. This general framework is then applied to three distinct cases: the EU's Common Security and Defence Policy missions, refugee camp administration by the UNHCR, and detention by the International Criminal Court. The overall conclusion is that none of the existing accountability mechanisms across the three cases fulfill the normative requirements set out in the general framework. However, there are significant variations between cases, and between different types of accountability mechanisms.

International organizations are becoming increasingly powerful. Today, they affect the lives of individuals across the globe through their decisions and conduct. Consequently, international organizations are more capable of violating the human rights of individuals. But how can they be held to account for such violations? This book studies the procedural mechanisms that may hold international organizations to account for their human rights violations. It establishes a general framework for identifying, analyzing, and assessing the accountability mechanisms of international organizations. This general framework is then applied to three distinct cases: the EU's Common Security and Defence Policy missions, refugee camp administration by the UNHCR, and detention by the International Criminal Court. The overall conclusion is that none of the existing accountability mechanisms across the three cases fulfill the normative requirements set out in the general framework. However, there are significant variations between cases, and between different types of accountability mechanisms

International organizations are becoming increasingly powerful. Today, they affect the lives of individuals across the globe through their decisions and conduct. Consequently, international organizations are more capable of violating the human rights of individuals. But how can they be held to account for such violations? This book studies the procedural mechanisms that may hold international organizations to account for their human rights violations. It establishes a general framework for identifying, analyzing, and assessing the accountability mechanisms of international organizations. This general framework is then applied to three distinct cases: the EU's Common Security and Defence Policy missions, refugee camp administration by the UNHCR, and detention by the International Criminal Court. The overall conclusion is that none of the existing accountability mechanisms across the three cases fulfill the normative requirements set out in the general framework. However, there are significant variations between cases, and between different types of accountability mechanisms.

Introduction -- The tort framework -- A tort-based approach to human rights damages -- The public law-private law distinction -- Human rights damages and "just satisfaction" : the "mirror" approach -- Interest-balancing approaches -- Other methods of limiting human rights damages -- Conclusion.

Human Rights Violations focuses on denials of human rights, with an emphasis on major assaults on rights. Particular attention is paid to events involving government and other large-scale abuses of rights.

The global business environment has changed rapidly in the past decades, but the human rights and business discourse has often lagged behind. At the international level, hard law regulations still seem decades away. United Nations initiatives such as the Guiding Principles and the UN Working Group on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises are more than a step in the right direction. However, they alone are insufficient to prevent violations and ensure victims receive justice. This edited book uses a broad and pluralistic understanding of direct human rights obligations, concentrating on legally enforceable standards. The enforceability can come directly from international law, through national legislation, or through non-state actors. The contributions engage both with the law as it is as well as the law as it needs to be developed. In doing so, the book challenges the current reticence to recognise direct human rights obligations of corporations by highlighting the various tools already available for remedying corporate human rights impacts while pushing for the development of further mechanisms

State responsibility in international law is considered one of the cornerstones of the field. For a long time it remained the exclusive responsibility system due to the primacy of States as subjects of international law. Its unique position has nonetheless been challenged by several developments both within and outside the international legal order, such as the rise of alternative responsibility ideas and practices, as well as globalization and its consequences. This book adopts a critical and holistic approach to the law of State responsibility and analyzes the functionality of the general rules of State responsibility in a changed international landscape characterized by the fragmentation of responsibility. It is argued that State responsibility is not equally relevant across the broad spectrum of international obligations, and that alternative constructions of responsibility, namely international criminal law and international liability, have increased in standing.

The issue of the responsibility of states for human rights violations is examined. The issues of the recognition of human rights violations were discussed at a recent roundtable meeting at the Center for International law and International Security of the Institute for Contemporary International Studies in Russia. Adapted from the source document.

This article examines how states and international organizations can be held to account for extraterritorial human rights violations. I develop and investigate the potential of what I call an "indirect accountability" mechanism. In indirect accountability relationships, accountability fora do not directly hold states and international organizations that commit extraterritorial human rights violations to account as these are frequently immune to direct accountability claims. Instead, they hold them to account indirectly by addressing accountability claims to an implicated third party, expecting that the third party will upload the accountability claims to the state or international organization. After conceptualizing the mechanism and its scope conditions, I conduct two brief qualitative case studies using the method of deductive process tracing to explore the potential of the mechanism. The first case study traces efforts to indirectly hold the United States to account for violating foreigners' privacy rights in the context of mass surveillance. The second case study traces attempts to indirectly hold the United Nations Security Council to account for violating the due process rights of blacklisted terror suspects. Both case studies provide support for the mechanism.