Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T12:27:55.942Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

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

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 November 2016

Benjamin THOMPSON
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

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.

Keywords

alternative dispute resolutionhuman rights-based approachnon-judicial grievance mechanismsoperational-level mechanismstransformative remedy
Type
Articles
Information
Business and Human Rights Journal , Volume 2 , Issue 1 , January 2017 , pp. 55 - 85
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

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.

References

1 Human Rights Council, ‘Human Rights and Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises’, A/HRC/RES/17/4 (6 July 2011).

2 Human rights council, ‘Mandate of the Special Representative of the Secretary/General on the Issue of Human Rights and Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises’, A/HRC/RES/8/7 (18 June 2008).

3 Human Rights Council, ‘Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights: Implementing the United Nations “Protect, Respect and Remedy” Framework’, A/HRC/17/31 (21 March 2011) (Guiding Principles), Principle 22.

4 Ibid, Principle 29; Principle 31(h) Commentary; see also Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, ‘The Corporate Responsibility to Respect Human Rights: An Interpretive Guide’, HR/PUB/12/02 (Geneva, 2012), 68.

5 Guiding Principles, note 3, Principle 29 Commentary.

6 Ibid, Principle 31.

7 General Assembly, ‘Note by the Secretary-General Transmitting the Report of the Working Group on the Issue of Human Rights and Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises’, A/68/279 (7 August 2013), para 53.

8 Scheltema, Martijn, ‘Assessing the Effectiveness of Remedy Outcomes of Non-judicial Grievance Mechanisms’ (2013) 4 Dovenschmidt Quarterly 190 Google Scholar.

9 Human Rights Council, ‘Report of the Working Group on the Issue of Human Rights and Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises’, A/HRC/23/32 (14 March 2013), para 48.

10 Human Rights Council, ‘Report of the Working Group on the Issue of Human Rights and Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises’, A/HRC/26/25 (5 May 2014), para 41.

11 CSR Europe, ‘Assessing the Effectiveness of Company Grievance Mechanisms’ (12 December 2013), at 32, http://www.csreurope.org/sites/default/files/Assessing%20the%20effectiveness%20of%20Company%20Grievance%20Mechanisms%20-%20CSR%20Europe%20(2013)_0.pdf (accessed 29 June 2016).

12 ‘Note by Secretary-General’, note 7, para 41.

13 Vermijs, David, ‘Overview of Company–community Grievance Mechanisms’ in Emma Wilson and Emma Blackmore (eds.), Dispute or Dialogue? Community perspectives on company-led grievance mechanisms (London: IIED, 2013), 36 Google Scholar. See also Backer, Larry Catá, ‘From Guiding Principles to Interpretive Organizations: Developing a Framework for Applying the UNGPs to Disputes that Institutionalizes the Advocacy Role of Civil Society’ in César Rodríguez-Garavito (ed.), Business and Human Rights: Beyond the End of the Beginning (forthcoming)Google Scholar, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2501167 (accessed 29 June 2016).

14 In assessing the effectiveness of an operational-level mechanism from the perspective of the GPs, the OHCHR found that IHRL did not explicitly address the issue of the final settling of human rights related grievances against a company through a non-judicial mechanism and that there was no consistent practice amongst national or regional courts in relation to even state-based non-judicial mechanisms. OHCHR, ‘Re: Allegations regarding the Porgera Joint Venture remedy framework’ (Porgera Mine case) (July 2013), at 2, http://www.barrick.com/files/doc_downloads/Opinion-of-the-UN-Office-of-the-High-Commissioner-for-Human-Rights.pdf (accessed 29 June 2016).

15 Guiding Principles, note 3, Principle 31.

16 Scheltema, note 8, 190.

17 Guiding Principles, note 3, Principle 25 Commentary.

18 General Assembly Resolution 60/147, ‘Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law’, A/RES/60/147 (16 December 2005); UNWG 2014 Report, note 10, para 40; Porgera Mine case, note 14.

19 Guiding Principles, note 3, Principle 22 Commentary.

20 Ibid, Principle 31.

21 Basic Principles, note 18.

22 Ibid.

23 Guiding Principles, note 3, Principle 31(h); Interpretive Guide, note 4, 64.

24 Couillard, Valérie, ‘The Nairobi Declaration: Redefining Reparations for Women Victims of Sexual Violence’ (2007) 1 International Journal of Transitional Justice 444 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 450. However, the Basic Principles do imply the importance of some degree of participation through their emphasis on equal and effective access to justice, adequate, effective and prompt reparation and the right to truth. Leyh, Brianne Mcgonigle, ‘Victim-Orientated Measures at International Criminal Institutions: Participation and its Pitfalls’ (2012) 12 International Criminal Law Review 375 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 382.

25 Guiding Principles, note 3, Principle 31(h) Commentary; Interpretive Guide, note 4, 64.

26 UNWG 2014 Report, note 10, para 38; UNHRC Twenty Sixth Regular Session 10–27 June 2014, ‘International Expert Workshop (Toronto): “Business Impacts and Non-judicial Access to Remedy: Emerging Global Experience”’ (5 May 2014), A/HRC/26/25/Add.3 (Toronto Meeting), para 28.

27 UNWG 2014 Report, note 10, paras 8, 20(i).

28 Ibid, para 31.

29 Lukas, Karin, ‘Access to Justice through Company Complaint Mechanisms?’ in Tara Van Ho and Jernej Letnar Cernic (eds.), Human Rights and Business: Direct Corporate Accountability for Human Rights (Oisterwijk: Wolf Legal Publishers, 2015), 329 Google Scholar.

30 Ibid, 345.

31 Vermijs, note 13, 36.

32 Ibid.

33 Lukas, note 29, 346.

34 Lumerman, Pablo and Autrey, Duncan, ‘Chichigalpa Association for Life and Nicaragua Sugar Estates Ltd’ (ACCESS Case Story Series No.1 2013)Google Scholar.

35 Wilson, Emma, ‘Company-Led Approaches to Conflict Resolutions in the Forest Sector’, (The Forests Dialogue 2009), at 42 Google Scholar, https//:pubs.iied.org/pdfs/G02510.pdf (accessed 4 October 2016).

36 Rees, Caroline, ‘Mediation in Business-Related Human Rights Disputes; Objections, Opportunities and Challenges,’ Harvard Kennedy School Working paper No.56 (February 2010), at 5 Google Scholar, https://www.hks.harvard.edu/m-rcbg/CSRI/publications/workingpaper_56_rees.pdf (accessed 29 June 2016). Caroline Rees was not asserting that this is required under the GPs but elucidates on the potentials of non-judicial remedy.

37 Guiding Principles, note 3, Principle 22.

38 Ibid, Principle 31(h).

39 Rees, note 36, 5.

40 Ibid.

41 Wettstein, Florian, Multinational Corporations and Global Justice (Stanford: Stanford University Press 2009) 67 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, citing MacDonald, Margaret, ‘Natural Rights’ in Jeremy Waldron (ed.), Theories of Rights (Oxford: Oxford University Press 1984)Google Scholar.

42 Ibid, 50.

43 Ibid, 67.

44 UNWG 2014 Report, note 10, para 41.

45 Ibid; Toronto Meeting, note 26, para 34(e).

46 UNWG 2014 Report, note 10, para 37; Toronto Meeting, note 26, para 34(d).

47 Rees, note 36, 4.

48 Lukas, note 29.

49 Ibid, 333–7

50 Ibid 342–5.

51 Rees, note 36, 9.

52 Ibid.

53 Ibid, 7.

54 Knuckey, Sarah and Jenkin, Eleanor, ‘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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

55 Porgera Mine case, note 14, 1.

56 Ibid, 2.

57 Knuckey and Jenkin, note 54.

58 Ibid, 817.

59 Ibid.

60 Ibid.

61 Ibid, 804–16.

62 Human Rights Council, ‘Protect, Respect and Remedy: a Framework for Business and Human Rights’, A/HRC/8/5 (7 April 2008) (2008 Framework), para 92(a).

63 Human Rights Council, ‘Piloting Principles for Effective Company-Stakeholder Grievance Mechanisms: A Report of Lessons Learned’, A/HRC/17/31/Add.1 (21 March 2011), para 5. The full version of the project with case studies is: Caroline Rees, ‘Piloting principles for effective company-stakeholder grievance mechanisms: A report of lessons learned’ Harvard Kennedy School Corporate Social Responsibility Initiative (2011) (Pilot Project), 90.

64 Ibid, paras 22–75. A further criterion, that mechanisms be a source of continuous learning, was added.

65 Ibid, 11, 21.

66 Ibid, 15.

67 Ibid.

68 2008 Framework, note 62, para 95.

69 Pilot Project, note 63, 26.

70 Guiding Principles, note 3, Principle 31(h).

71 Burchardt, Tania and Vizard, Polly, ‘“Operationalizing” the Capability Approach as a Basis for Equality and Human Rights Monitoring in Twenty-first-century Britain’ (2011) 12:1 Journal of Human Development 91 Google Scholar, 92.

72 Chiappero-Martinetti, Enrica et al, ‘Operationalisation of the Capability Approach’ in Hans-Uwe Otto et al (eds.), Facing Trajectories from School to Work: Towards a Capability-Friendly Youth Policy in Europe (Springer, 2015) 119 Google Scholar.

73 Burchardt and Vizard, note 71, 92.

74 Guiding Principles, note 3, Principle 15.

75 Ibid, Principle 25 Commentary.

76 UNWG 2014 Report, note 10, para 41.

77 Interpretive Guide, note 4, 26, 64.

78 Ibid.

79 Guiding Principles, note 3, Principle 31(f).

80 Ibid, Principle 31 Commentary.

81 Knox, John H, ‘The Ruggie Rules: Applying Human Rights Law to Corporations’ in Radu Mares (ed.), The UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights: Foundations and Implementation (Martinus Nijhoff, 2012)Google Scholar.

82 Deva, Surya, ‘Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights: Implications for Companies’ (2012) 9:2 European Company Law 101 Google Scholar.

83 Sullivan, Rory and Hachez, Nicholas, ‘Human Rights Norms for Business: The Missing Piece of the Ruggie Jigsaw – The Case for Institutional Investors’, in Mares, note 81 Google Scholar.

84 Fiona Haines, Kate Macdonald and Samantha Balaton-Chrimes, ‘Contextualising the Business Responsibility to Respect: How Much Is Lost in Translation?’ in Mares, note 81.

85 Knox, note 81, 57.

86 Ibid, 55–7.

87 Guiding Principles, note 3, Principle 22 Commentary; Principle 31 Commentary.

88 Knox, note 81, 66.

89 Wilson, note 35, 44. See also Haines, Macdonald and Balaton-Chrimes, note 84, in which the authors discuss the difficulties in translating general human rights standards into specific business responsibilities in different contexts. They draw on studies in which context specific standards such as progressive realization provisions in private codes can be used by businesses to escape their duties.

90 CSR Europe, note 10, 39.

91 Ibid, 38.

92 Gready, Paul and Ensor, Jonathan, ‘Introdution’ in Paul Gready and Jonathan Ensor (eds.), Reinventing Development? Translating Rights-Based Approaches From Theory To Practice (London: Zed Books, 2005) 15–16 Google Scholar.

93 Uvin, Peter, Human Rights and Development (Kumarian Press, 2004) 131 Google Scholar.

94 Gready and Ensor, note 92, 18–19; Uvin, note 93, 123.

95 Gready and Ensor, note 92.

96 Uvin, note 93, 131.

97 UN Development Programme, ‘Human Development Report 1990: Concept and Measurement of Human Development’, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990) 11.

98 Wettstein, note 41, 101.

99 UN Development Programme, ‘Human Development Report 2000: Human Rights and Human Development’ (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000) 2.

100 Ibid.

101 For the HRBA’s incarnation as a capabilities-only approach, see the 1990 Development Report, note 97.

102 Nussbaum, Martha C, Frontiers of Justice: Disability, Nationality, Species Membership (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 2007) 291 Google Scholar.

103 Ibid, 295.

104 Sen, Amartya, ‘Human Rights and Capabilities’ (2005) 6:2 Journal of Human Development 151 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 163.

105 UN Development Group, ‘The Human Rights Based Approach to Development Cooperation: Towards a Common Understanding Among UN Agencies’, (2003) (Common Understanding), http://hrbaportal.org/the-human-rights-based-approach-to-development-cooperation-towards-a-common-understanding-among-un-agencies (accessed 5 May 2015).

106 Ibid.

107 Nora Götzmann, ‘Human Rights Impact Assessments: Conceptual and Practical Considerations in the Private Sector Context’, (2014) The Danish Institute of Human Rights Human Rights Research Papers No.2014/2 10, http://www.humanrights.dk/files/media/dokumenter/udgivelser/research/matters_of_concern_series/matters_of_concern_huri_and_impact_assessment_gotzmann_2014.pdf (accessed 29 June 2016).

108 Wilson, note 35.

109 Kaufmann, Jonathan and McDonnell, Katherine, ‘Community-Driven Operational-level Mechanisms’ (2015) 1:1 Business and Human Rights Journal 127 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 130.

110 As had been the previous approach taken prior to the Framework and the GPs: Human Rights Commission, ‘Norms on the Responsibilities of Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises with Regard to Human Rights’, E/CN.4/Sub.2/2003/12/Rev.2 (26 August 2003).

111 Ruggie, John, Just Business (New York: WW Norton & Company, 2013)Google ScholarPubMed.

112 Sen, Amartya, The Idea of Justice (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 2011) 357–358 Google Scholar; Sen, Amartya, ‘Elements of a Theory of Human Rights’ (2004) 32:4 Philosophy and Public Affairs 315 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

113 Ruggie, note 111, 96.

114 Human Rights Commission, ‘Summary of five multi-stakeholder consultations’, A/HRC/8/5/Add.1 (7 April 2008), para 173.

115 Corporate Social Responsibility Initiative, ‘Rights Compatible Grievance Mechanisms: A Guidance Tool for Companies and their Stakeholders’, Harvard Kennedy School of Government (January 2008), 1–2, 7.

116 Human Rights Commission, ‘What is a rights-based approach to development?’, cited in Siobhán Alice McInerney-Lankford, Human Rights Indicators in Development: An Introduction (World Bank Publications, 2010) 42; Common Understanding, note 105; Guiding Principles, note 3, Principle 31(f).

117 This requires that all people are treated equally and there is a focus on marginalized, disadvantaged, and excluded groups: Common Understanding, note 105. See also Guiding Principles, note 3, Principle 31(b) on equality and Principle 1 Commentary on particular attention being paid to vulnerable and marginalized groups.

118 OHCHR, ‘What is a rights-based approach to development?’, note 116; Guiding Principles, note 3, Principle 31(h) Commentary. See also Munro, Lauchlan T, ‘“The Human Rights Based Approach to Programming”: A Contradiction in Terms?’ in Sam Hickey and Diana Mitlin (eds.), Rights-Based Approaches to Development (Kumarian Press, 2009) 191 Google Scholar.

119 The Common Understanding stresses that when duty-bearers fail to observe human rights, they should be answerable to rights-holders before a competent court or adjudicator in accordance with the rules and procedures provided by law (Common Understanding, note 105). Likewise, the GPs require that businesses must co-operate with judicial mechanisms (Guiding Principles, note 3, Principle 22 Commentary).

120 Transparency is not expressly mentioned in the Common Understanding but is mentioned in various implementations: International Human Rights Network, ‘What are human rights based approaches?’ http://ihrnetwork.org/what-are-hr-based-approaches_189.htm (accessed 29 June 2016); OHCHR, ‘Good Governance’, http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Development/GoodGovernance/Pages/GoodGovernanceIndex.aspx, (accessed 29 June 2016); Australian Council for International Development, ‘Practice Note: Human Rights-Based Approach to Development’, (ACFID Practice Note Series, July 2010), https://acfid.asn.au/sites/site.acfid/files/resource_document/human-rights-based-approaches-to-development.pdf (accessed 29 June 2016). It is also mentioned in Guiding Principles, note 3, Principle 31(e). See also Arjun Sengupta, General Assembly, ‘Right to Development - Report of the Independent Expert’, A/55/150 (17 August 2000), 21–2.

121 Melish, Tara J and Meidinger, Errol, ‘Protect, Respect, Remedy and Participate: “New Governance” Lessons for the Ruggie Framework’ in Mares, note 81, 314 Google Scholar.

122 Common Understanding, note 105. It is clear, within development literature, that access to remedy may extend to administrative mechanisms, in addition to judicial mechanisms. Human Development Report 2000, note 99, 100.

123 Ibid.

124 Nussbaum, note 102, 87.

125 Pilot Project, note 63, 13–15.

126 Ibid, 19.

127 Human Development Report 2000, note 99, 16.

128 Uvin, note 93, 132, citing Amartya Sen, Development as Freedom (Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group, 2011) 230. For a critique of the HRBA’s approach to duty-bearers, see Wettstein, note 41, 113. For a description of how the HRBA has been used to identify the duties of different actors in practice, see Urban Jonsson, ‘A human rights-based approach to programming’ in Gready and Ensor, note 92, 52 and Munro, note 118, 196.

129 Guiding Principles, note 3, Principle 11. The SRSG was quick to reject the approach that businesses should have similar roles in the realization of human rights as states. He argued that a business performs a specialized function rather than the function of a state and that, by placing states and corporations as co-equal duty bearers, this could undermine a state’s duty to protect human rights. Human Rights Commission, ‘Interim Report of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the Issue of Human Rights and Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises’, E/CN.4/2006/97 (22 February 2006), paras 66–8.

130 Backer, Larry Catá, ‘From Institutional Misalignments to Socially Sustainable Governance: The Guiding Principles for the Implementation of the United Nations “Protect, Respect and Remedy” and the Construction of Inter-Systemic Global Governance’ (2012) 25 Global Business and Development Law Journal 69 Google Scholar, 137.

131 Guiding Principles, note 3, Principle 22 Commentary. Where the business itself has a business relationship with an entity that has caused an alleged impact, but has not contributed to it itself, it should to take measures to prevent the adverse impact (Principle 13(b); Principle 19 Commentary); the GPs do not require it to provide remedy for such impacts (Principle 22 Commentary). Mares, Radu, ‘“Respect” Human Rights: Concept and Convergence’ in Robert C Bird, Daniel R Cahoy and Darin Prenkert (eds.), Law, Business and Human Rights: Bridging the Gap (Cheltenham and Northampton MA: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2014) 14–15 Google Scholar.

132 For an in-depth discussion of the similarities and differences between theories of transformative remedy and the capabilities approach, see Fraser, Nancy, ‘Identity, Exclusion and Critique: A Response to Four Critics’ (2007) 6:3 European Journal of Political Theory 305 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Robeyns, Ingrid, ‘Is Nancy Fraser’s Critique of Theories of Distributive Justice Justified?’ (2003) 10:2 Constellations 538 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

133 Fraser, Nancy, ‘From redistribution to recognition? Dilemmas of justice in a “post-socialist age”’ [1995] New Left Review 68 Google Scholar, 82.

134 Ibid.

135 Liebenberg, Sandra, ‘Needs, rights and transformation: adjudicating social rights in South Africa: feature’ (2005) 6:4 ESR Review: Economic and Social Rights in South Africa 3 Google Scholar, 4.

136 Fraser, Nancy and Honneth, Axel, Redistribution or Recognition?: A Political-philosophical Exchange (Verso, 2003) 229 Google ScholarPubMed.

137 Liebenberg, note 135, 4.

138 Fraser, note 132, 319.

139 Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Case of González et al (‘Cotton Field’) v Mexico (2009) Series C No 205.

140 Cusack, Simone and Pusey, Lisa, ‘CEDAW and the Rights to Non-Discrimination and Equality’ (2013) 14 Melbourne Journal of International Law 1 Google Scholar, 10.

141 Ibid.

142 Cusack and Pusey, note 140.

143 General Recommendation 25, note 141, para 10.

144 Ibid, para 7.

145 General Recommendation 28, note 141, para 32.

146 Human Rights Commission, ‘Report of the Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women, its Causes and Consequences, Rashida Manjoo’, A/HRC/14/22 (23 April 2010), para 77.

147 Cotton Field, note 139.

148 Ibid, 464–589. See also, Manjoo, note 146, para 77.

149 Ibid, 450.

150 Ibid, 451; Rubio-Marín, Ruth and Sandoval, Clara, ‘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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 1084. For other discussions of the role of transformative remedy in the context of human rights, see Manjoo, note 146, paras 31, 58–66; Human Rights Council, ‘Common Violations of the Rights to Water and Sanitation’, A/HRC/27/55 (30 June 2014) 30; and Secretary-General’s Guidance Note on Reparations for Conflict-Related Sexual Violence (June 2014), http://www.unwomen.org/~/media/Headquarters/Attachments/Sections/News/Stories/FINAL%20Guidance%20Note%20Reparations%20for%20CRSV%203-June-2014%20pdf.pdf (accessed 29 June 2016).

151 Couillard, note 24, 450.

152 Interpretive Guide, note 4, 64.

153 Guiding Principles, note 3, Principle 29 Commentary (emphasis added).

154 Ibid, Principle 31(g) Commentary.

155 Guiding Principles, note 3, Principle 1.

156 Cotton Field, note 147, 451; Rubio-Marín and Sandoval, note 150, 1084.

157 Backer, note 130, 161. However, it is worth noting that the distinction between the social formation of discrimination and a business creating or exacerbating existing discrimination may, in practice, be artificial and inseparable (at 162).

158 Shelton, Dinah, Remedies in International Human Rights Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000) 7 Google Scholar.

159 Ibid.

160 Ibid.

161 Sen, Idea of Justice, note 112, 215.

162 Ibid, 220.

163 Ibid, 230.

164 UNWG 2014 Report, note 10, para 41.

165 Gready and Ensor, note 92, 10.

166 Jonsson, note 128, 48.

167 See Jonsson, Urban, ‘A Human Rights-based Approach to Programming’ in Paul Gready and Jonathan Ensor (eds.), Reinventing Development? Translating Rights-Based Approaches From Theory To Practice (London: Zed Books, 2005) 49 Google Scholar.

168 Galant, Ghalib and Parlevliet, Michelle, ‘Using rights to address conflict – a valuable synergy’ in Gready and Ensor, note 92, 111 Google Scholar.

169 Ibid, 111–17.

170 Haines, Macdonald and Balaton-Chrimes, note 84, 108.

171 Ibid, 115.

172 Rees, note 36, 7.

173 An example of the attempt to develop an operational-level mechanism that is truly owned by the community is a community-driven mechanism in Thilawa, one of Myanmar’s first Special Economic Zones. Kaufmann and McDonnell, note 109, operational-level.

174 ‘Getting It Right: Human Rights Impact Assessment Guide’, Phase A: Preparation – Step 5: Meet with the Community (2011), http://www.gaportal.org/resources/detail/getting-it-right-human-rights-impact-assessment-guide (accessed 30 June 2016).

175 Ibid.

176 Circle of Rights, ‘Economic Social and Cultural Rights Activism: A Training Resource – Part 2: Using the Manual in a Training Program’, http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/edumat/IHRIP/circle/part2/usingthemanual.htm (accessed 30 June 2016) [referenced as a potential resource for capacity-building in the Getting It Right Tool].

177 Ibid.

178 Ibid.

179 Pilot Project, note 63, 90.

180 Oxfam America, ‘Community voice in human rights impact assessments’, (July 2015) at 20, http://www.oxfamamerica.org/static/media/files/COHBRA_formatted_07-15_Final.pdf (accessed 29 June 2016).

181 Ibid.

182 Kaufmann and McDonnell, note 109, 132.

183 Guiding Principles, note 3, Principle 23(a).

184 Ibid, Principle 3(a).

185 Ibid, Principle 31(f).

186 Lukas, note 29, 346.

187 For an example of community perspectives on the implementation of the effectiveness of the GPs, see Fulton, Taylor et al, ‘What is Remedy for Corporate Human Rights Abuses? Listening to Community Voices, A Field Report’ [2015] Columbia School of International and Public Affairs, 29–44 Google Scholar.

188 ACCESS Facility Expert Meeting Report, ‘Sharing experiences and finding practical solutions regarding the implementation of the UNGP’s effectiveness criteria in grievance mechanisms’, (17 July 2014) (Hague Meeting) at 10, http://accessfacility.org/expertmeeting-April2014 (accessed 30 June 2016).

189 Gallant and Parlevliet, note 168, 114.

190 Ibid.

191 Ibid.

192 CSR Initiative, note 115, 9.

193 Burchardt and Vizard, note 73, 92.

194 Knuckey and Jenkin, note 54, 816.

195 Chiappero-Martinetti, Enrica et al, ‘Operationalisation of the Capability Approach’ in Hans-Uwe Otto et al (eds.), Facing Trajectories from School to Work: Towards a Capability-Friendly Youth Policy in Europe (Springer, 2015), 119 Google Scholar.

196 Wettstein, note 41.

197 Burchardt and Vizard, note 73, 92.

198 Ibid, 92.

199 Ibid, 96.

200 Burchardt, Tania, ‘Monitoring inequality: putting the capability approach to work’ in Gary Craig, Tania Burchardt and David Gordon (eds.), Social Justice and Public Policy: Seeking Fairness in Diverse Societies (Bristol: Policy Press, 2008), 205 Google Scholar.

201 Burchardt and Vizard, note 73, 100.

202 Burchardt, Tania and Vizard, Polly, ‘Developing a Capability List: Final Recommendations of the Equalities Review Steering Group on Measurement’, Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion Case/121 (April 2007), at 39 Google Scholar, http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/6217/1/Developing_a_capability_list_Final_Recommendations_of_the_Equalities_Review_Steering_Group_on_Measurement.pdf (accessed 29 June 2016).

203 Burchardt and Vizard, note 73, 101.

204 Deliberative research is a participatory approach where participants reach conclusions based on the provision of information and public reasoning. Burchardt, Tania, ‘Deliberative research as a tool to make value judgements’ (2014) 14:3 Qualitative Research 1CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 5.

205 Burchardt and Vizard, note 73, 103.

206 Ibid, 106.

207 Ibid.

208 Porgera Mine case, note 14, 1.

209 Barrick Gold Corporation, ‘Violence against women: Framework of remediation initiatives for the Porgera Joint Venture in Papua New Guinea’ (22 March 2013), 3 (note 6), http://www.barrick.com/files/porgera/Letter-to-UN-High-Commissioner.pdf (accessed 29 June 2016).

210 Porgera Mine case, note 14.

211 For an in-depth description of the human rights issues related to the Porgera Mine (including the issues covered in the mechanism) see Human Rights Watch, ‘Gold’s Costly Dividend Human Rights Impacts of Papua New Guinea’s Porgera Gold Mine’ (February 2011), https://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/png0211webwcover.pdf (accessed 29 June 2016); Amnesty International, ‘Undermining Rights: Forced Evictions and Police Brutality Around the Porgera Gold Mine’ (January 2010), https://www.amnestyusa.org/sites/default/files/asa340012010eng.pdf (accessed 29 June 2016).

212 Guiding Principles, note 3, Principle 22 Commentary.

213 Ibid, Principle 31 Commentary. For a full discussion of how the mechanism deviates from the understanding of operational-level mechanisms as under the GPs, see Knuckey and Jenkin, note 54, 804.

214 Porgera Mine case, note 14, 10, 12–13.

215 Ibid, 12–13. For an in-depth discussion of the failings of the actual engagement with stakeholders, see Knuckey and Jenkin, note 54, 805–7.

216 Aftab, Yousuf, ‘Pillar III on the Ground: An Independent Assessment of the Porgera Remedy Framework’, Enodo Rights (January 2016), at 46 Google Scholar, http://enodorights.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/YAftab-Pillar-III-on-the-Ground-FINAL.pdf (accessed 28 August 2016).

217 Ibid, 55

218 Porgera Mine case, note 14, 8.

219 Ibid, 5.

220 Ibid, 8.

221 MWC raised this in its reply to the Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights. MWC, ‘Re: Allegations regarding the Porgera Joint Venture remedy framework’ (4 September 2013) at 2, http://miningwatch.ca/sites/default/files/letter_to_unhchr_re_porgera_opinion_2013-09-04_0.pdf (accessed 29 June 2016).

222 Ibid, 4; Porgera Mine Case, note 14, 2.

223 Porgera Mine Case, note 14, 11.

224 Ibid, 10. For an account of the difficulties in ensuring that women’s individual preferences were taken into account while avoiding unfair differentiation between different cases, see Aftab, note 216, 55–6.

225 Porgera Mine Case, note 14, 11.

226 Ibid. For an overview of the types of remedies offered, ‘A Framework of Remediation Initiatives in Response to Violence against Women in the Porgera Valley: Claims Process Procedures Manual’, at 6, http://www.barrick.com/files/porgera/Claims-Process-Procedures-Manual.pdf. There are substantial differences of opinion as to whether the remedies offered in the manual were offered in practice, Porgera Mine case, note 14, 12.

227 Aftab, note 216, 102. However, there is evidence to suggest that sexual abuse committed by security personnel continued. Valentina Stackl, ‘Survivors of Rape by Barrick Gold Security Guards Offered “Business Grants” and “Training” in Exchange for Waiving Legal Rights’ (21 November 2014), http://www.earthrights.org/media/survivors-rape-barrick-gold-security-guards-offered-business-grants-and-training-exchange (accessed 29 June 2016).

228 Ibid.

229 Claims Manual, note 226, 6.

230 Aftab, note 216, 107–8

231 OHCHR, ‘Rule-of-law tools for post-conflict states – Reparations programmes’ (Geneva, 2008), at 35, http://www.unrol.org/files/ReparationsProgrammes[1].pdf (accessed 29 June 2016).

232 Porgera Mine case, note 14, 8.

233 Ibid.

234 Burchardt and Vizard, note 73, 101.

235 MiningWatch, note 221.

236 Aftab, note 216, 26–7.

237 Albeit limited to not exacerbating structural injustices, see Section IV.A.

238 Knuckey and Jenkin, note 54, 815–16.

239 Vermijs, note 13. See also Backer, note 13.

240 Knuckey and Jenkin, note 54, 815–16.