Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-02T22:26:07.828Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

ASSESSING THE FEASIBILITY OF A BUSINESS AND HUMAN RIGHTS TREATY

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 November 2016

Lee McConnell
Lee McConnell*
Affiliation:
[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In light of a recent shift in dialogue to hard law standards in the domain of business and human rights, this article provides an in-depth examination of the viability of a business and human rights treaty. It seeks to advance a valid theoretical model for a treaty that directly addresses non-State actors, explores the allocation of responsibility among multiple duty-bearers, and contemplates the scope, content, and enforcement of the potential obligations. By supplementing this analysis with analogies drawn from existing treaty regimes, the article aims to contribute positively to the normative development of international law in the field.

Keywords

business and human rightsformalisminternational human rightsinternational law-makinglegal analogylegal theorynon-State actorspure theory of law
Type
Articles
Information
International & Comparative Law Quarterly , Volume 66 , Issue 1 , January 2017 , pp. 143 - 180
Copyright
Copyright © British Institute of International and Comparative Law 2016 

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.)

References

1 UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (2011) HR/PUB/11/04; Little, S and Snider, L, ‘Examining the Ruggie Report: Can Voluntary Guidelines Tame Global Capitalism?’ (2013) 21 Critical Criminology 177–92Google Scholar.

2 Simons, P, ‘International Law's Invisible Hand and the Future of Corporate Accountability for Violations of Human Rights’ (2012) 3 Journal of Human Rights and the Environment 5–43 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Joseph, S, ‘Taming the Leviathans: Multinational Enterprises and Human Rights’ (1999) 46 NILR 174 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; De Schutter, O, ‘The Challenge of Imposing Human Rights on Corporate Actors’ in De Schutter, O (ed), Transnational Corporations and Human Rights (Hart Publishing 2006) 17–22 Google Scholar; Clapham, A, Human Rights Obligations of Non-State Actors (OUP 2006) 83 Google Scholar; Karavias, M, Corporate Obligations under International Law (OUP 2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Clapham, A, ‘Human Rights Obligations of Non-State Actors in Conflict Situations’ (2006) 88 IRRC 523 Google Scholar; Noortmann, M and Ryngaert, C (eds), Non-State Actor Dynamics in International Law: From Law-Takers to Law-Makers (Ashgate 2010)Google Scholar; Ronon, Y, Human Rights Obligations of Territorial Non-State Actors, (2013) 46 CornellIntlLJ 22–5Google Scholar.

3 De Schutter, O, ‘Towards a New Treaty on Business and Human Rights’ (2015) 1 BHRJ 41 Google Scholar; D Bilchitz, ‘The Necessity for a Business and Human Rights Treaty’ (30 November 2014) <http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2562760>; F Mégret, ‘Would a Treaty be all it is made up to be?’ (4 February 2015) <http://jamesgstewart.com/would-a-treaty-be-all-it-is-made-up-to-be/>; J Ruggie, ‘Get Real or We'll Get Nothing: Reflections on the First Session of the Intergovernmental Working Group on a Business and Human Rights Treaty’ <http://business-humanrights.org/en/get-real-or-well-get-nothing-reflections-on-the-first-session-of-the-intergovernmental-working-group-on-a-business-and-human-rights-treaty>; OHCHR, ‘Natural Resources Sector: UN Expert calls for binding Human Rights Treaty for Corporations’ (18 June 2015) <http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=16097>; S Deva, ‘Scope of the Legally Binding Instrument to Address Human Rights Violations Related to Business Activities’ (ESCR-Net & FIDH Treaty Initiative) <https:// www.escr-net.org/sites/default/files/scope_of_treaty.pdf>.

4 Human Rights Council ‘Republic of Ecuador: Statement on behalf of a Group of Countries at the 24th Session of the HRC, Transnational Corporations and Human Rights’ (Geneva, September 2013) <http://business-humanrights.org/media/documents/statement-unhrc-legally-binding.pdf>.

5 The resolution was adopted by 20 votes in favour, 13 abstentions and 14 against: Human Rights Council, ‘Elaboration of an International Legally Binding Instrument on Transnational Corporations and other Business Enterprises with Respect to Human Rights’ 26th Session (25 June 2014) UN Doc A/HRC/26/L.22/Rev.1.

6 Human Rights Council, ‘Report of the Open-Ended Intergovernmental Working Group on Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises with Respect to Human Rights’ (10 July 2015) <http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/WGTransCorp/Session1/Draftreport.pdf>.

7 Cely, N, ‘Balancing Profit and Environmental Sustainability in Ecuador: Lessons Learned From the Chevron Case’ (2014) 24 DukeEnvtL&Pol'yF 353 Google Scholar; Whytock, C, ‘Chevron-Ecuador Case: Three Dimensions of Complexity in Transnational Dispute Resolution’ (2012) 106 ASIL Proc 425 Google Scholar.

8 Aguinda v Chevron-Texaco, Case No 11-1150 (3 January 2012) (Appellate Panel, Ecuador) <http://chevrontoxico.com/assets/docs/2012-01-03-appeal-decision-english.pdf>; For Chevron's successful bilateral investment arbitration, see: Chevron Corporation and Texaco Petroleum Corporation v Republic of Ecuador, (First Interim Award, 25 January 2012) PCA Case No 2009-23 (UNCITRAL Rules) 16–17; The subsequent 2013 decision upheld the ruling, but lowered the damages payable: A Valencia, ‘Ecuador high court upholds Chevron Verdict, halves fine’ (Reuters, 13 November 2013) <http://ca.reuters.com/article/businessNews/idCABRE9AC0YY20131113>.

9 Chevron Corporation and Texaco Petroleum Corporation v Republic of Ecuador, (Order of the US District Court in the Republic of Ecuador v Stratus Consulting Inc, 29 May 2013) PCA Case No 2009-23 (UNCITRAL Rules); For US case documentation: International Treaty Arbitration <http://www.italaw.com/cases/257>.

10 Chevron Corp v Yaiguaje (2015) SCC 42.

11 MD Goldhaber, ‘The Global Lawyer: Will Chevron Lose in the Second Circuit?’ (The AmLaw Litigation Daily, 23 April 2015) <http://www.litigationdaily.com/id=1202724404971/The-Global-Lawyer-Will-Chevron-Lose-in-the-Second-Circuit?slreturn=20150729103702>.

12 Noyes, J and Smith, B, ‘State Responsibility and the Principle of Joint and Several Liability’ (1988) 13 YaleJIntlL 250 Google Scholar.

13 McCorquodale, R, ‘Beyond State Sovereignty: The International Legal System and Non-State Participants’ (2006) 8 International Law Review Colombia 122 Google Scholar; McCorquodale, R, ‘An Inclusive International Legal System’ (2004) 17 LJIL 447 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Clapham, , Human Rights Obligations (n 2) 61 Google Scholar; Higgins, R, Problems and Process: International Law and How We Use It (Clarendon Press 1994) 49 Google Scholar.

14 JE Nijman ‘Non-State Actors and the International Rule of Law: Revisiting the Realist Theory of International Legal Personality’ in Noortmann and Ryngaert (n 2) 93; Clapham, Human Rights Obligations (n 2) 3.

15 Domingo, R, ‘The Crisis of International Law’ (2009) 42 VandJTransnatlL 1551 Google Scholar; Acquaviva, G, ‘Subjects of International Law: A Power-Based Analysis’ (2008) 38 VandJTransnatlL 345 Google Scholar; van Creveld, M, The Rise and Decline of the State (CUP 1999) 336–414 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

16 Kennedy, D, ‘International Law and the Nineteenth Century: History of an Illusion’ (1998) 17 QLR 99 Google Scholar.

17 Portmann, R, Legal Personality in International Law (CUP 2010) 271 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kyriakakis, J ‘International Legal Personality, Collective Entities and International Crimes’ in Gal-Or, N, Ryngaert, C and Noortmann, M (eds), Responsibilities of the Non-State Actor in Armed Conflict and the Market Place: Theoretical and Empirical Findings (Brill 2015) 83 Google Scholar; Kammerhofer, J, ‘Non-State Actors from the Perspective of the Pure Theory of Law’ in d'Aspremont, J (ed), Multiple Perspectives on Non-State Actors in International Law (Routledge 2011) 54 Google Scholar; Kammerhofer, J, ‘The Benefits of the Pure Theory of Law for International Lawyers, or: What use is Kelsenian Theory’ (2006) 12 International Legal Theory 5 Google Scholar; Kammerhofer, J, Uncertainty in International Law: A Kelsenian Perspective (Routledge 2011)Google Scholar; d'Aspremont, J, Formalism and the Sources of International Law: A Theory of the Ascertainment of Legal Rules (OUP 2012)Google Scholar; d'Aspremont, J and Kammerhofer, J (eds), International Legal Positivism in a Post-Modern World (CUP 2015)Google Scholar.

18 Alston, P, ‘The “Not-a-Cat” Syndrome: Can the International Human Rights Regime Accommodate Non-State Actors?’ in Alston, P (ed), Non-State Actors and Human Rights (OUP 2005) 6 Google Scholar; Peters, A, Koechlin, L, Förster, T and Zinkernagel, G Fenner (eds), Non-State Actors as Standard Setters (CUP 2009) 14 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Josselin, D and Wallace, W (eds), Non-State Actors in World Politics (Palgrave Macmillan 2001) 3–4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; O'Connell, M, ‘Enhancing the Status of Non-State Actors through a Global War on Terror?’ (2005) 43 ColumJTransnatlL 437 Google Scholar.

19 Steinhoff, D, ‘Talking to the Enemy: State Legitimacy Concerns with Engaging Non-State Armed Groups’ (2010) 45 TexIntlLJ 308 Google Scholar; Rondeau, S, ‘Participation of Armed Groups in the Development of the Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts’ (2011) 93 IRRC 658 Google Scholar.

20 Legitimacy is defined as a feature of rules which induce compliance from their addressees: Franck, T, The Power of Legitimacy Among Nations (OUP 1990) 24 Google Scholar; Bodansky, D, ‘The Concept of Legitimacy in International Law’ in Wolfrum, R and Röben, V (eds), Legitimacy in International Law (Springer 2008) 313–15Google Scholar.

21 Koskenniemi, M, The Gentle Civiliser of Nations: The Rise and Fall of International Law 1870–1960 (CUP 2002) 204 Google Scholar; Franck, T, Fairness in International Law and Institutions (OUP 1998) 28 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; The Case of the SS ‘Lotus’ (France v Turkey) (1927) PCIJ (ser. A) No 10, 18.

22 Allott, P, Health of Nations: Society and Law Beyond the State (CUP 2002) 406 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Orakhelashvili, A, ‘The Origins of Consensual Positivism – Pufendorf, Wolff, and Vattel’ in Orakhelashvili, A (ed), Research Handbook on the Theory and History of International Law (Edward Elgar Publishing 2011) 93–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Domingo, R, ‘Gaius, Vattel, and the New Global Law Paradigm’ (2011) 22 EJIL 627 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

23 von Bernstorff, J, The Public International Law Theory of Hans Kelsen (CUP 2010) 15–43 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Nijman, J, The Concept of International Legal Personality: An Inquiry into the History and Theory of International Law (TMC Asser Press 2004) 110–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Murkens, J, From Empire to Union: Conceptions of German Constitutional Law since 1871 (OUP 2013) 19 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Koskenniemi (n 21) 441–2; Paz, R, A Gateway between a Distant God and a Cruel World: The Contribution of Jewish German-Speaking Scholars to International Law (Martinus Nijhoff 2012) 144–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

24 Portmann (n 17) 49–50; Gaja, G, ‘Positivism and Dualism in Dionisio Anzilotti’ (1992) 3 EJIL 127 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

25 Nijman, The Concept of International Legal Personality (n 23) 113.

26 Portmann (n 17) 70.

27 Grant, T, ‘Defining Statehood: The Montevideo Convention and its Discontents’ (1999) 37 ColumJTransnatlL 413 Google Scholar.

28 C Ryngaert, ‘Imposing International Duties on Non-State Actors and the Legitimacy of International Law’ in Noortmann and Ryngaert (n 2) 69–70; S Wheatley, ‘Democratic Governance beyond the State: The Legitimacy of Non-State Actors as Standard Setters’ in Peters et al. (n 18) 215–40; McCorquodale, R, ‘Non-State Actors and International Human Rights Law’ in Joseph, S and McBeth, A (eds), Research Handbook on International Human Rights Law (Edward Elgar Publishing 2010) 114Google Scholar.

29 Kleffner, J ‘The Applicability of International Humanitarian Law to Organised Armed Groups’ (2011) 93 IRRC 455 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

30 For a significantly expanded argument on this topic see: McConnell, L, Extracting Accountability from Non-State Actors in International Law (Routledge 2016)Google Scholar.

31 Allott (n 22) 83 para 3.26; Hume, D, A Treatise of Human Nature (first published 1738, Allman, 1817) Vol II, Bk III, Pt I, 154–72Google Scholar; Kant, I, The Critique of Pure Reason ([1781] NK Smith trans, Macmillan, 1963) 313Google Scholar.

32 Kelsen, H, General Theory of Law and State (first published 1945, Wedberg, A trans, Harvard University Press 1949) 123–4Google Scholar.

33 Kelsen, H, The Pure Theory of Law (Knight, M trans, 2nd edn, University of California Press 1970) 6Google Scholar.

34 Kelsen, General Theory of Law and State (n 32) 45.

35 ibid 189.

36 ibid 95–6.

37 Reparation for injuries suffered in the service of the United Nations (Advisory Opinion) ICJ Reports [1949] (hereafter Reparation).

38 ibid 179.

39 Kammerhofer, ‘Benefits’ (n 17) 36.

40 ‘The subjects of law in any legal system are not necessarily identical in their nature or in the extent of their rights’. Reparation (n 37) 178.

41 Paulson, SL, ‘Hans Kelsen's Doctrine of Imputation’ (2001) 14 Ratio Juris 47 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

42 Kelsen, H, Principles of International Law (Rinehart & Co 1952) 98Google Scholar.

43 Portmann (n 17) 175.

44 d'Aspremont, J, ‘The Doctrine of Fundamental Rights of States and the Functions of Anthropomorphic Thinking in International Law’ (2016) 4 CJICL 501 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Portmann (n 17) 177; Kelsen, Principles (n 42) 148–9.

45 Jackson, M, Complicity in International Law (OUP 2015) 13CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

46 Kelsen, Principles (n 42) 314.

47 Hall, S, ‘The Persistent Spectre: Natural Law, International Order and the Limits of Legal Positivism’ (2001) 12 EJIL 300 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Lloyd, D, The Idea of Law (rev edn, Penguin, 1981) 194Google Scholar.

48 Kelsen, Principles (n 42) 437–8.

49 Bernstorff (n 23) 115–16.

50 Kammerhofer, Uncertainty (n 17) 219.

51 Tur, R, ‘The Kelsenian Enterprise’ in Tur, R and Twining, W (eds), Essays on Kelsen (Clarendon Press 1986) 155Google Scholar; Ebenstein, W, The Pure Theory of Law (AM Kelley 1969) 32 Google Scholar.

52 Tur (n 51) 169.

53 Paulson, S, ‘The Neo-Kantian Dimension of Kelsen's Pure Theory of Law’ (1992) 12 OJLS 322–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bindreiter, U, Why Grundnorm? A Treatise on the Implications of Kelsen's Doctrine (Springer 2002) 24–8Google Scholar; Kelsen, H, ‘Causality and Imputation’ (1950) 61 Ethics 1CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

54 Paulson, ‘The Neo-Kantian Dimension’ (n 53); Hammer, S, ‘A Neo-Kantian Theory of Knowledge in Kelsen's Pure Theory of Law’ in Paulson, S and Litschewski-Paulson, B (eds), Normativity and Norms: Critical Perspectives on Kelsenian Themes (OUP 1999) 177–94Google Scholar.

55 Paulson, ‘The Neo-Kantian Dimension’ (n 53) 332 (original emphasis); on Kelsen and the ‘legal point of view’: Raz, J, The Authority of Law ([1979] 2nd edn, OUP 2009) 140–5Google Scholar.

56 Hart, H, The Concept of Law (2nd edn, Clarendon Press 1961) 81 Google Scholar.

57 ibid.

58 d'Aspremont, J, Nollkaemper, A, Plakokefalos, I and Ryngaert, C, ‘Sharing Responsibility between Non-State Actors and States in International Law: Introduction’ (2015) 62 NILR 49, 61; Jackson (n 45) 127Google Scholar.

59 W Vandenhole, ‘Shared Responsibility of Non-State Actors: A Human Rights Perspective’ in Gal-Or, Ryngaert and Noortmann (n 17) 56.

60 Okowa, P, State Responsibility for Transboundary Air Pollution in International Law (OUP 2000) 195CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

61 Karavias, M, ‘Shared Responsibility and Multinational Enterprises’ (2015) 62 NILR 96 Google Scholar.

62 Nollkaemper, A and Jacobs, D, ‘Shared Responsibility in International Law: A Conceptual Framework’ (2013) 34 MichJIntlL 359 Google Scholar.

63 Nollkaemper, A and Plakokefalos, I (eds), Principles of Shared Responsibility in International Law: An Appraisal of the State of the Art (CUP 2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Karavias, ‘Shared Responsibility’ (n 61) 91; Bílková, V, ‘Armed Opposition Groups and Shared Responsibility’ (2015) 62 NILR 69 Google Scholar; MacLeod, S, ‘Private Security Companies and Shared Responsibility: The Turn to Multistakeholder Standard-Setting and Monitoring through Self-Regulation-Plus’ (2015) 62 NILR 119 Google Scholar; Trapp, KN, ‘Shared Responsibility and Non-State Terrorist Actors’ (2015) 62 NILR 141 Google Scholar.

64 Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (18 December 1979) 1249 UNTS 13, art 2(e); Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (24 January 2007) A/RES/61/106, art 4(e); International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (21 December 1965) 660 UNTS 195, art 2(1)(d); Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of their Families (18 December 1990) A/RES/45/158, art 16(2); JA Zerk, Multinationals and Corporate Social Responsibility: Limitations and Opportunities in International Law (CUP 2006) 81–3.

65 Oluduro, O, Oil Exploitation and Human Rights Violations in Nigeria's Oil Producing Communities (Intersentia 2014) 353 Google Scholar.

66 Muchlinski, P, Multinational Enterprises and the Law (2nd edn, OUP 2007) 104–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

67 McBeth, A, International Economic Actors and Human Rights (Routledge 2010) 2Google Scholar.

68 On the historical development of the ASRIWA: Crawford, J, ‘The ILC's Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts: A Retrospect’ (2002) 96 AJIL 874 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Pellet, A, ‘The ILC's Articles on State Responsibility for Internationally Wrongful Acts and Related Texts’ in Crawford, J, Pellet, A and Olleson, S (eds), The Law of International Responsibility (OUP 2010) 75–94 Google Scholar.

69 Cronogue, G, ‘Rebels, Negligent Support, and State Accountability: Holding States Accountable for the Human Rights Violations of Non-State Actors’ (2013) 23 DukeJComp&IntlL 365 Google Scholar.

70 ILC, Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts (2001) UN Doc A/56/49(Vol. I)/Corr.4, art 2 (hereafter ASRIWA); A State may not ‘absolve itself from responsibility by delegating its obligations to private bodies’. Costello-Roberts v United Kingdom, App No 13134/87 (ECtHR, 1993) [27].

71 ibid arts 4, 5 and 6.

72 ibid art 7.

73 Ilaşcu and Others v Moldova and Russia, App No 48787/99 (ECtHR 2004) [319].

74 I Tófalo, ‘Overt and Hidden Accomplices: Transnational Corporations’ Range of Complicity for Human Rights Violations’ in De Schutter, Transnational Corporations (n 2) 336–9; Arts 16–18, which deal with relations between two States have also been used by analogy vis-à-vis States and private entities: Ratner, S, ‘Corporations and Human Rights: A Theory of Legal Responsibility’ (2001) 111 YaleLJ 500–6Google Scholar.

75 McCorquodale, R and Simons, P, ‘Responsibility Beyond Borders: State Responsibility for Extraterritorial Violations by Corporations of International Human Rights Law’ (2007) 70 MLR 606 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

76 ‘The fact that an entity can be classified as public or private … the existence of a greater or lesser State participation … in the ownership of its assets, the fact that it is not subject to executive control—these are not decisive criteria for the purpose of attribution of the entity's conduct to the State.’ ILC, ‘Report of the Commission to the General Assembly on the Work of Its Fifty-Third Session’ (23 April–1 June and 2 July–10 August 2001) Yearbook of the International Law Commission, Vol II, UN Doc A/CN.4/SER.A/2001/Add.1 (2001) 43, 48.

77 ASRIWA (n 70) art 5.

78 The ASRIWA do ‘not attempt to identify precisely the scope of “governmental activity”… what is regarded as “governmental” depends on the particular society, its history and traditions’. ILC, ‘Report on the Work of its Fifty-Third Session’ (n 76) 43.

79 Clapham, Human Rights Obligations (n 2) 3; Zerk (n 64) 77–8; Rosemann, N, ‘The Privatisation of Human Rights Violations – Business’ Impunity or Corporate Responsibility? The Case of Human Rights Abuses and Torture in Iraq’ (2005) 5 Non-State Actors and Intl L 77 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

80 ASRIWA (n 70) art 11.

81 ibid art 8.

82 ILC, ‘Report on the Work of Its Fifty-Third Session’ (n 76) 47.

83 Military and Paramilitary Activities (Nicaragua v United States of America) ICJ Reports [1986] [109].

84 In Tadić, the acts of an armed group were attributable where it ‘has a role in organizing, coordinating, or planning the military actions’, rather than controlling particular operations: Prosecutor v Tadić, (Appeals Chamber) IT-94-1-A (15 July 1999) 1541 [117], [137]; cf Bosnian Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v Serbia and Montenegro) ICJ Reports [2007] [392] (hereafter, Bosnian Genocide).

85 ILC, ‘Report on the Work of Its Fifty-Third Session’ (n 76) 48.

86 Ratner (n 74) 500.

87 Cronogue (n 69) 365–88.

88 Ratner (n 74) 493–4.

89 Doe v Unocal Corp, 395 F. 3d 932 (9th Cir 2002); W Kaleck and M Saage-Maaβ, ‘Corporate Accountability for Human Rights Violations Amounting to International Crimes’ (2010) 8 JICJ 704; Tófalo (n 74) 339–48.

90 Brabandere, E De, ‘Human Rights Obligations and Transnational Corporations: The Limits of Direct Corporate Responsibility’ (2010) 4 Human Rights & International Legal Discourse 77 Google Scholar.

91 Kinley, D and Tadaki, J, ‘From Talk to Walk: The Emergence of Human Rights Responsibilities for Corporations at International Law’ (2004) 44 VaJIntlL 948 Google Scholar.

92 D Neubert, ‘Local and Regional Non-State Actors on the Margins of Public Policy in Africa’ in Peters et al. (n 18) 36.

93 McCorquodale, R, ‘Overlegalising Silences: Human Rights and Non-State Actors’ (2002) 96 ASIL Proc 384 Google Scholar.

94 ASRIWA (n 70) art 16.

95 Bodansky, D and Crook, JR, ‘Symposium: The ILC's State Responsibility Articles – Introduction and Overview’ (2002) 96 AJIL 777–8Google Scholar; Graefrath, B, ‘Complicity in the Law of International Responsibility’ (1996) 2 Revue Belge de Droit International 372 Google Scholar; Tams, CJ, ‘All's Well That Ends Well – Comments on the ILC's Articles on State Responsibility’ (2002) 62 ZaöRV 764 Google Scholar.

96 ‘Primary rules on complicity … inform their addressees that assistance to a given violation of another obligation is prohibited. Accordingly, they provide for a derivative obligation which differs from other primary obligations which just set forth a rather clear command.’ Aust, HP, Complicity and the Law of State Responsibility (Cambridge University Press 2011) 188CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Nolte, G and Aust, HP, ‘Equivocal Helpers – Complicit States, Mixed Messages and International Law’ (2009) 58 ICLQ 8CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

97 Jackson (n 45) 148–50; Tams (n 95) 764–5; Graefrath (n 95) 371; Linderfalk, U, ‘State Responsibility and the Primary-Secondary Rules Terminology – The Role of Language for an Understanding of the International Legal System’ (2009) 78 NordicJIntlL 58–72 Google Scholar; Bodansky and Crook (n 95) 779–91.

98 R Ago, Summary Record of the 1519th Meeting, UN Doc A/CN.4/SR1519 reprinted in [1978] 1 Yearbook of the International Law Commission 1, 240; Similarly, the ILC stated: ‘aid or assistance in the commission of a wrongful act by another remains in international law, like complicity in internal law, an act separate from such commission, an act that is classified differently and that does not necessarily produce the same legal consequences’. Report of the ILC on the Work of Its Thirteenth Session, 8 May–28 July 1978, UN Doc A/33/10 reprinted in [1978] 2 Yearbook of the International Law Comm 2, 103 para 16; V Lanovoy, ‘Complicity in an Internationally Wrongful Act’ in Nollkaemper and Plakokefalos (n 63) 139–40.

99 This situation is captured under ASRIWA (n 70) art 47.

100 Nollkaemper and Jacobs (n 62) 396–7; Vandenhole, ‘Shared Responsibility’ (n 59) 60–1; J Fry, ‘Attribution of Responsibility’ in Nollkaemper and Plakokefalos (n 63) 99.

101 Nolte and Aust (n 96) 7–8; Crawford, ‘The ILC's Articles’ (n 68) 879.

102 Bosnian Genocide (n 84); Jackson (n 45) 202–3.

103 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (9 December 1948) 78 UNTS 277, art 1.

104 Bosnian Genocide (n 84) [167]; The approach was extended to art 3 of the Genocide Convention, which lists other punishable acts such as conspiracy, direct and public incitement, and attempt to commit genocide: Jackson (n 45) 203.

105 Gaeta, P, The UN Genocide Convention: A Commentary (OUP 2009) 33CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

106 Gaeta, P, ‘On What Conditions Can a State Be Held Responsible for Genocide?’ (2007) 18 EJIL 633 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

107 Jackson (n 45) 214.

108 R Ago, ‘Seventh Report on State Responsibility’ 29 March, 17 April and 4 July 1978, UN Doc A/CN.4/307 1 UNYBILC 1, 55 para 63.

109 Jackson (n 45) 210.

110 Gibney, M, ‘Litigating Transnational Human Rights Abuses’ in Vandenhole, W (ed), Challenging Territoriality in Human Rights Law: Building Blocks for a Plural and Diverse Duty-Bear Regime (Routledge 2015) 93Google Scholar.

111 Aust (n 96) 195.

112 ILC, ‘Report on the Work of its Fifty-Third Session’ (n 76) 66 para 5.

113 Lowe, V, ‘Responsibility for the Conduct of other States’ (2002) 101 Japanese Journal of International Law 1, 11–12; Nolte and Aust (n 96) 10Google Scholar.

114 ILC, ‘Report on the Work of its Fifty-Third Session’ (n 76) 67 para 10.

115 Lowe (n 113) 6; On the conduct of international organizations such as the IMF: Reinisch, A, ‘Aid or Assistance and Direction and Control between States and International Organizations in the Commission of Internationally Wrongful Acts’ (2010) 7 IOLR 67–73 Google Scholar.

116 For a detailed model engaging home State responsibility, see Simons, P and Macklin, A, The Governance Gap: Extractive Industries, Human Rights, and the Home State Advantage (Routledge 2014) 272–355 Google Scholar.

117 For the UK, assistance would include ‘planning with others … training others … agreeing Rules of Engagement [and] operational plans permitting the use of APM [anti-personnel landmines] … requests to non-State actors to use APM; and providing security or transport for APM’. United Kingdom Intervention on Article 1, Statement in the Standing Committee of 16 May 2003, <http://www.apminebanconvention.org/fileadmin/APMBC/IWP/SC_may03/speeches_gs/UK_Art_1.pdf>.

118 Jackson (n 45) 158; Nolte and Aust (n 96) 12.

119 Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their Destruction (Ottawa Convention) (18 September 1997) 2056 UNTS 211, art 1(1)(c).

120 Cluster Munitions Convention (30 May 2008) 2688 UNTS 39, art 1(c).

121 Proposal by the United Kingdom for the Amendment of Article 1, CCM/14 (19 May 2008) <http://www.clusterconvention.org/files/2013/01/CCM14_001.pdf>.

122 Bosnian Genocide (n 84) [432].

123 Ago, ‘Seventh Report on State Responsibility’ (n 108) 53 para 57.

124 Jackson (n 45) 211; Aust (n 96) 230.

125 ‘An illegal act which violates human rights and which is initially not directly imputable to a State… can lead to the international responsibility of the State… because of the lack of due diligence to prevent or respond to it’. Velasquez Rodriguez v Honduras, Inter-American Court of Human Rights Series C No 4 (29 July 1988) [166]–[174]; Barnidge, RP, ‘The Due Diligence Principle under International Law’ (2006) 8 IntCLRev 81 Google Scholar.

126 Aust (n 96) 230; Bosnian Genocide (n 84) [430].

127 Aust (n 96) 231.

128 Jackson (n 45) 160.

129 Lanovoy (n 98) 140.

130 Bolvin, A, ‘Complicity and Beyond: International Law and the Transfer of Small Arms and Light Weapons’ 87 (2005) IRRC 471 Google Scholar.

131 A State is only responsible if ‘the relevant State organ intended, by the aid or assistance given, to facilitate the occurrence of the wrongful conduct’. Crawford, J, The International Law Commissions Articles on State Responsibility: Introduction, Text and Commentaries (Cambridge University Press 2002) 149 para 5; Nolte and Aust (n 96) 13–15; ibidGoogle Scholar.

132 For Lowe, it is ‘unlikely that a tribunal would permit a State to avoid responsibility by deliberately holding back from inquiring into clear indications that its aid would probably be employed in an unlawful manner’. Lowe (n 113) 10; Lanovoy (n 98) 153; Gibney, ‘Litigating Transnational Human Rights’ (n 110) 98.

133 See generally: R Suda, ‘The Effect of Bilateral Investment Treaties on Human Rights Enforcement and Realisation’ in De Schutter, Transnational Corporations (n 2) 73.

134 Bolvin (n 130) 471–2.

135 Crawford, The ILC's Articles on State Responsibility (n 131) 13.

136 It is interesting to note the variance between standards within the ASRIWA, art 41(2) providing a similar aid or assistance provision in relation to serious breaches of peremptory norms, without the requirement of intent or knowledge of the principal wrong: ASRIWA (n 70) art 41(2); E Wyler and L Castellanos-Jankiewicz, ‘Serious Breaches of Peremptory Norms’ in Nollkaemper and Plakokefalos (n 63) 284–311.

137 Aust (n 96) 232.

138 ibid 246.

139 Velásquez Rodríguez (n 125).

140 ibid [166].

141 Aust (n 96) 246.

142 ‘[I]t must be ascertained whether the acts of the individuals implicated in the incident in violating such fundamental rights … are attributable to the State … [I]t is sufficient to show that the infringement … has been supported or tolerated by the government.’ Riofrío Massacre, Inter-American Commission on Human Rights Report No 62/01 (6 April 2001) [48].

143 ‘[T]he acts of private individuals involved in said acts can be attributed to the State … for which it is sufficient to prove that there has been support or tolerance by the public authorities in the breach of the rights embodied in the Convention.’ Mapiripán Massacre (Columbia) Inter-American Court of Human Rights Series C No 134 (15 September 2005) [98a].

144 Jackson (n 45) 195.

145 ibid 196.

146 For extensive discussion: Aust (n 96) 230–49; ibid 159–62.

147 Gibney, M, ‘Genocide and State Responsibility’ (2007) 7 HRLRev 760 Google Scholar.

148 Gibney, ‘Litigating Transnational Human Rights Abuses’ (n 110) 110.

149 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (16 December 1966) 999 UNTS 171, art 2(1).

150 ‘An illegal act which violates human rights and which is initially not directly imputable to a State … can lead to the international responsibility of the State … because of the lack of due diligence to prevent or respond to it.’ Velásquez Rodríguez (n 125) at [166]–[174]; Barnidge, ‘The Due Diligence Principle under International Law’ (n 125) 81.

151 UN Human Rights Commission, ‘General Comment No 31 [80] – The Nature of the General Legal Obligation Imposed on States Parties to the Covenant’ (26 May 2004) UN Doc CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.13 para 8.

152 Hopu and Bessert v France, Communication 549/1993, UN Doc CPR/C/60/D/549/1993/Rev.1 (1997); Love et al v Australia, Communication 983/2001, UN Doc CCPR/C/77/983/2001 (2003); Ilmari Länsman et al v Finland, Communication 511/1992, UN Doc CCPR/C/52/D/511/1992 (1994).

153 Chief Bernard Ominayak and the Lubicon Lake Band v Canada, Communication 167/1984, UN Doc CCPR/C/38/D/167/1984 (1990).

154 Social and Economic Rights Action Centre (SERAC) and Another v Nigeria, African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, Communication 155/96 (2001).

155 ibid at [67].

156 Karavias, Corporate Obligations (n 2) 49–52.

157 Zegveld, L, Accountability of Armed Opposition Groups in International Law (CUP 2002) 182CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

158 Karavias, Corporate Obligations (n 2) 12.

159 Lauterpacht, H, Private Law Analogies in International Law (1926)Google Scholar.

160 Gibney, ‘Litigating Transnational Human Rights Abuses’ (n 110) 96–7.

161 Vandenhole, ‘Shared Responsibility’ (n 59) 68–9; ‘It is a principle of international law that the breach of an engagement involves an obligation to make reparation in adequate form.’ Chorzów Factory Case (Claim for Indemnity; jurisdiction) (Germany v Poland), 1927 PCIJ (Ser. A) No 9, 21.

162 Brownlie, I, Principles of Public International Law (OUP 2008) 436; Wyler and Castellanos-Jankiewicz (n 136) 303Google Scholar.

163 ‘“Public” and “Private” are indistinguishable; the treaty is an undifferentiated instrument, and so is the law of responsibility.’ Crawford, ‘The ILC's Articles’ (n 68) 878.

164 Nollkaemper and Jacobs (n 62) 398–9.

165 Noyes and Smith (n 12) 226.

166 Alford, R, ‘Apportioning Responsibility Among Joint Tortfeasors for International Law Violations’ (2011) 38 PeppLRev 233, 240–6Google Scholar; Oil Platforms (Iran v US) (Separate opinion of Judge Simma) ICJ Reports [2003] 197–201 at [65]–[76].

167 While Brownlie disputed the relevance of this principle in international law, scholars have provided detailed accounts of its prevalence in Western common law and civil jurisdictions, Eastern jurisdictions and Islamic law: Brownlie, I, System of the Law of Nations: State Responsibility (Clarendon Press 1983) 189; Noyes and Smith (n 12) 249–58Google Scholar; Verheyen, R, Climate Change Damage and International Law: Prevention Duties and State Responsibility (Martinus Nijhoff 2005) 270–2Google Scholar.

168 Statute of the International Court of Justice, as annexed to Charter of the United Nations (26 June 1945) 1 UNTS XVI, art 38(1)(c); Noyes and Smith (n 12) 250.

169 Convention on International Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects (29 March 1972) 961 UNTS 187.

170 ibid art 5.

171 ibid art 4.

172 ibid art 4(2).

173 Noyes and Smith (n 12) 259.

174 In Martini, a State's compensation payment was vastly reduced to reflect the independent acts of revolutionaries during the Venezuelan civil war which contributed significantly to the injury incurred: Martini Case (Italy v Venezuela) 10 RIAA 666–8.

175 Plakokefalos, I, ‘Shared Responsibility Aspects of the Dispute Settlement Procedures in the Law of the Sea Convention’ (2013) 4 JIDS 396 Google Scholar.

176 Karavias, Corporate Obligations (n 2) 157–63; SL Seck, ‘ITLOS Case No 17 and the Evolving Principles for Corporate Accountability under International Law’ in Gal-Or, Ryngaert and Noortmann (n 17) 243–5.

177 Convention on the Law of the Sea (10 December 1982) 1833 UNTS 3, art 139(2) (hereafter, UNCLOS).

178 Responsibilities and Obligations of States Sponsoring Persons and Entities with

Respect to Activities in the Area (No 17) (Advisory Opinion of 01 February 2011) 11 ITLOS Rep 2011 10, 201 (hereafter, ITLOS Case No 17).

179 ASRIWA (n 70) art 47; While this provision may appear to mirror the concept of joint and several liability in the ASRIWA, the ILC advises to make such an analogy ‘with care’: ILC, ‘Report on the Work of its Fifty-Third Session’ (n 76) 124 para 3; Verheyen (n 167) 268–76.

180 ITLOS Case No 17 (n 178) at [192].

181 Plakokefalos (n 175) 397–8.

182 Fry (n 100) 128–133.

183 Plakokefalos (n 175) 397.

184 ITLOS Case No 17 (n 178) at [204].

185 Vandenhole, ‘Shared Responsibility’ (n 59) 70.

186 UNCLOS (n 177) art 139(2).

187 A Nollkaemper, ‘The Seabed Disputes Chamber’ (SHARES Project, 25 November 2011) <http://www.sharesproject.nl/the-seabed-disputes-chamber-clarified-the-meaning-of-joint-and-several-liability-but-also-raised-new-questions/>.

188 UNCLOS (n 177) art 22 Annexe 3.

189 Nollkaemper, ‘The Seabed Disputes Chamber’ (n 187); Brown, ED, Sea-Bed Energy and Minerals: The International Legal Regime (Martinus Nijhoff 2001) 144Google Scholar.

190 Noyes and Smith (n 12) 234–5, 258–9; Note the compulsory dispute settlement regime under UNCLOS (n 177) art 287.

191 Plakokefalos (n 175) 404.

192 ibid 401.

193 Okowa (n 60) 196–7; States have ‘diplomatic and other legal means as a substitute’ in the absence of an express regime in international law for joint tortfeasors to recover damages: Verheyen (n 167) 277.

194 Nollkaemper and Jacobs (n 62) 423.

195 JG Ruggie, ‘A UN Business and Human Rights Treaty?’ (Harvard Kennedy School, 28 January 2014) 3 <https:// www.hks.harvard.edu/m-rcbg/CSRI/UNBusinessandHumanRightsTreaty.pdf>; M Addo, UN Working Group on Business and Human Rights, ‘Human Rights and Transnational Corporations: Paving the Way for a Legally Binding Instrument’ (Geneva, 11–12 March 2014) 4 <http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Business/WGStatementEcuadorWorkshop12Mar2014.pdf>.

196 Ruggie, J, Just Business: Multinational Corporations and Human Rights (WW Norton & Co 2013) 64Google Scholar.

197 Ramasatry, A, ‘Closing the Governance Gap in the Business and Human Rights Arena: Lessons from the Anti-Corruption Movement’ in Deva, S and Bilchitz, D (eds), Human Rights Obligations of Businesses: Beyond the Corporate Responsibility to Protect (CUP 2013) 162–89Google Scholar; T Kirkebø, ‘Closing the Gap. A Human Rights Approach to Regulating Corporations’ (2015) PluriCourts Research Paper No 15–16 <http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2642254>.

198 United Nations Convention against Corruption (31 October 2003) UN Doc A/58/422, art 26.

199 ‘Each State Party shall adopt such measures as may be necessary … to establish the liability of legal persons’ (emphasis added) ibid.

200 Nollkaemper, A, ‘Responsibility of Transnational Corporations in International Environmental Law: Three Perspectives’ in Winter, G (ed), Multilevel Governance of Global Environmental Change – Perspectives from Science, Sociology and Law (CUP 2006) 196Google Scholar.

201 Ratner (n 74) 517.

202 Clapham, A, Human Rights in the Private Sphere (OUP 1993) 205; ibidGoogle Scholar.

203 Clapham, Human Rights Obligations (n 2) 8–12.

204 Karavias, Corporate Obligations (n 2) 170.

205 Kirsch, S, ‘Mining and Environmental Human Rights in Papua New Guinea’ in Pegg, S and Frynas, J (eds), Transnational Corporations and Human Rights (Palgrave Macmillan 2003) 118–22Google Scholar; Dinham, B and Sarangi, S, ‘The Bhopal Gas Tragedy 1984 to…? The Evasion of Corporate Responsibility’ (2002) 14 Environment and Urbanisation 89Google Scholar; Wong, L, ‘Revisiting Rights and Responsibility: The Case of Bhopal’ (2008) 4 Social Responsibility Journal 144 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

206 Saul, B, Kinley, D and Mowbray, J, The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights: Cases, Materials, and Commentary (OUP 2014) 1–2 Google Scholar; Puta-Chekwe, C and Flood, N, ‘From Division to Integration: Economic Social and Cultural Rights as Basic Human Rights’ in Merali, I and Oosterveld, V (eds), Giving Meaning to Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (University of Pennsylvania Press 2001) 39Google Scholar; Gavison, R ‘On the Relationships Between Civil and Political Rights and Social and Economic Rights’ in Coicaud, J-M, Doyle, M and Gardner, A-M (eds), The Globalization of Human Rights (UN University Press 2003) 23Google Scholar.

207 ‘Because human rights situations are dynamic, assessments of human rights impacts should be undertaken at regular intervals.’ UNGPs (n 1) Commentary to Principle 18.

208 ‘The exercise of jurisdiction is a necessary condition for a Contracting State to be able to be held responsible for acts or omissions imputable to it which would give rise to an allegation of the infringement of rights and freedoms set forth in the Convention.’ Al-Skeini and Others v United Kingdom, App No 55721/07 (ECtHR 2011) at [130] (hereafter, Al-Skeini); Karavias, Corporate Obligations (n 2) 85–9.

209 Parrish, AL, ‘Rehabilitating Territoriality in Human Rights’ (2011) 32 CardozoLRev 1100–10Google Scholar; Vandenhole, W, ‘Extraterritorial Human Rights Obligations: Taking Stock, Looking Forward’ (2013) 5 EJIL 808 Google Scholar.

210 Ronon (n 2) 21.

211 W Vandenhole, ‘Obligations and Responsibility in a Plural and Diverse Duty-Bearer Human Rights Regime’ in Vandenhole (n 110) 121 (original emphasis).

212 Ratner (n 74) 525.

213 ibid 525–6.

214 Human Rights Council, ‘Clarifying the Concepts of “Sphere of influence” and “Complicity”’, Report of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the Issue of Human Rights and Transnational Corporations and other Business Enterprises, John Ruggie, UN Doc A/HRC/8/16, 6 para 15.

215 McBeth, A, ‘Crushed by an Anvil: A Case Study on Responsibility for Human Rights in the Extractive Industry’ (2008) 11 Yale Human Rights and Development Journal 130 Google Scholar; Mitnick, L, ‘Multinationals Fight Back with the Doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens ’ (1989) 56 Defence Counsel Journal 400 Google Scholar.

216 Akpan v Royal Dutch Shell and SPDC (30 January 2013) District Court of the Hague, LJN BY9854, C/09/337050/HAZA 09-1580 para 4.29 <milieudefensie.nl/publicaties/bezwaren-uitspraken/final-judgment-akpan-vs-shell-oil-spill-ikot-ada-udo>; McConnell, L ‘Establishing Liability for Multinational Corporations – Lessons from Akpan’ (2014) 56 IJLMA 88 Google Scholar.

217 A duty of care may be imposed on a parent provided: i) the business of parent/subsidiary is largely identical; ii) the parent company has more knowledge of health and safety in the industry than the subsidiary; iii) the parent knows of unsatisfactory conditions at its subsidiary; and iv) the parent knows that its subsidiary or employees are reliant on the parent company for protection: Chandler v Cape [2012] EWCA Civ 525 at [80].

218 Friends of the Earth, ‘Outcome appeal against Shell’ (18 December 2015) <http://www.foei.org/news/outcome-appeal-shell-victory-environment-nigerian-people-friends-earth-netherlands#>.

219 Frynas, JG, ‘Political Instability and Business: Locus on Shell in Nigeria’ (1998) 19 Third World Quarterly 465 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Frynas, JG, ‘Legal Change in Africa: Evidence from Oil-Related Litigation in Nigeria’ (1999) 43 Journal of African Law 121 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Dorward, DJ, ‘ Forum Non Conveniens Doctrine and the Judicial Protection of Multinational Corporations from Forum Shopping Plaintiffs’ (1998) 19 UPaJIntlEconL 141; Oluduro (n 65) 139Google Scholar.

220 S Deva, ‘Scope of the Legally Binding Instrument’ (n 3).

221 Karavias, ‘Shared Responsibility’ (n 61) 113.

222 UNGPs (n 1) Principle 17(a); S Michalowski, ‘Due Diligence and Complicity: A Relationship in Need of Clarification’ in Deva and Bilchitz (n 197) 218–42; S Deva, ‘Treating Human Rights Lightly: A Critique of the Consensus Rhetoric and Language Employed by the Guiding Principles’ in Deva and Bilchitz (n 197) 98–101.

223 UNGPs (n 1) Commentary to Principle 17.

224 Human Rights Council, ‘Clarifying the Concepts’ (n 214) 4.

225 ibid 6, paras 10–13.

226 Karavias, Corporate Obligations (n 2) 173.

227 Mégret, F and Hofmann, F, ‘The UN as a Human Rights Violator? Some Reflections on the United Nations Changing Human Rights Responsibilities’ (2003) 25 HumRtsQ 323 Google Scholar.

228 D Augenstein and D Kinley, ‘When Human Rights “Responsibilities” Become “Duties”: The Extra-Territorial Obligations of States that Bind Corporations’ in Deva and Bilchitz (n 197) 285–6.

229 Al-Saadoon and Mufdhi v United Kingdom, App No 61498/08 (ECtHR 2009); Al-Skeini (n 208); Medvedyev and Others v France, App No 3394/03 (ECtHR 2010).

230 ‘The Court does not consider that jurisdiction… arose solely from the control exercised by the contracting state over the buildings, aircraft or ship in which the individuals were held. What is decisive in such cases is the exercise of physical power and control over the person in question.’ Al-Skeini (n 208) at [136] (emphasis added); Andreou v Turkey, App No 45653/99 (ECtHR 2009) at [25].

231 In Jamaa the ‘custody’ requirement was effectively resurrected: Jamaa and Others v Italy, App No 22765/09 (ECtHR 2012) at [73]; In Jaloud, jurisdiction was established on the basis of the use of force by State agents, but Dutch control of the checkpoint at which the acts occurred was also critical: Jaloud v The Netherlands, App No 47708/08 (ECtHR 2015) at [152].

232 Schaefer, M, ‘Al-Skeini and the Elusive Parameters of Extraterritorial Jurisdiction’ (2011) 5 EHRLR 566Google Scholar; Gibney, ‘Litigating Transnational Human Rights Abuses’ (n 110) 98–100.

233 Karavias, Corporate Obligations (n 2) 174.

234 Kornhauser, L, ‘Incentives, Compensation and Irreparable Harm’ in Nollkaemper, A and Jacobs, D, Distribution of Responsibilities in International Law (CUP 2015) 121Google Scholar; It is acknowledged that the roles of international investment treaty tribunals may have the reverse effect: Hirsh, M, ‘Investment Tribunals and Human Rights: Divergent Paths’ in  Dupuy, Petersmann, E-U and Francioni, F (eds), Human Rights in International Investment Law and Arbitration (OUP 2009) 98–115 Google Scholar.

235 Ruggie, Just Business (n 196) 64.

236 Heyns, C and Viljoen, F, ‘The Impact of the United Nations Human Rights Treaties on the Domestic Level’ (2001) 23 HumRtsQ 488 Google Scholar; Open Society Justice, From Judgment to Justice: Implementing International and Regional Human Rights Decisions (2010) 119–20.

237 Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (adopted 18 December 2002) 2375 UNTS 237, art 11.

238 A Dolidze, ‘The Arctic Sunrise and NGOs in International Judicial Proceedings’ (2014) 18(1) ASIL Insights <http://www.asil.org/insights/volume/18/issue/1/arctic-sunrise-and-ngos-international-judicial-proceedings> International Status of South West Africa (Advisory Opinion, Pleadings) ICJ Reports [1949] 324 is the sole instance in which the ICJ has permitted an amicus brief from an NGO (the International League for Human Rights); GI Hernández, ‘Non-State Actors from the Perspective of the International Court of Justice’ in d'Aspremont, Multiple Perspectives (n 17) 140–63; S Tully, Corporations and International Lawmaking (Martinus Nijhoff 2007) 242–5.

239 Ruggie, ‘A UN Business and Human Rights Treaty?’ (n 195); P Muchlinski, ‘Beyond the Guiding Principles? Examining New Calls for a Legally Binding Instrument on Business and Human Rights’ (Institute for Business and Human Rights, 15 October 2013) <http://www.ihrb.org/commentary/guest/beyond-the-guiding-principles.html>.

240 A Kassam, ‘Spain's campaigning judge seeks change in law to prosecute global corporations’ (Guardian, 20 August 2015) <http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/aug/20/spain-judge-baltasar-garzon-prosecute-global-corporations>.

241 Clapham, Human Rights Obligations (n 2) 245–7; C Chiomenti, ‘Corporations and the International Criminal Court’ in De Schutter, Transnational Corporations (n 2) 306–7.

242 Draft Statute for the International Criminal Court and Draft Final Act, UN Doc A/CONF.183/2/Add.1, arts 23, 49 para 5.

243 Clapham, Human Rights Obligations (n 2) 246.

244 O De Schutter, ‘The Accountability of Multinationals for Human Rights Violations in European Law’ in Alston, Non-State Actors (n 18) 232.

245 Jong, A De, ‘Transnational Corporations and International Law: Bringing TNCs out of the Accountability Vacuum’ (2011) 7 Critical Perspectives on International Business 78 Google Scholar.

246 cf Voiculescu, A, ‘Human Rights and the New Corporate Accountability: Learning from Recent Developments in Corporate Criminal Responsibility’ (2009) 87 Journal of Business Ethics 426–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Karavias, Corporate Obligations (n 2) 103; Chiomenti (n 241) 294; Kyriakakis, J, ‘Corporations and the International Criminal Court: The Complementarity Objection Stripped Bare’ (2008) 19 Criminal Law Forum 115 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

247 Karavias, Corporate Obligations (n 2) 114.

248 Chiomenti (n 241) 292.

249 Former ICC Chief Prosecutor Ocampo, reported in BBC News, ‘Firms Face ‘‘Blood Diamond’’ Probe’ (23 September 2003) <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3133108.stm>; J Podgers, ‘Corporations in the Line of Fire: International Prosecutor Says Corporate Officials Could Face War Crimes Charges’ (2004) 90 ABAJ 13.

250 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (17 July 1998) UN Doc A/CONF.183/9, art 28(b) (hereafter, ICC Statute)

251 McBeth (n 67) 308; ibid art 28(b).

252 Prosecutor v Musema (Trial Chamber) ICTR-96-13-A (27 January 2000) at [247].

253 Sharp, P, ‘Prospects for Environmental Liability in the International Criminal Court’ (1999) 18 VaEnvtlLJ 217 Google Scholar.

254 ICC Statute (n 250) art 5.

255 Chiomenti (n 241) 299.

256 M Nowak and J Kozma, ‘Research Project on a World Human Rights Court’ (University of Vienna, June 2009) <http://bim.lbg.ac.at/files/sites/bim/World%20Court%20of%20Human%20Rights_BIM_0.pdf>; M Nowak, ‘The Need for a World Court of Human Rights’ (2007) 7 HRLRev 251; M Nowak, ‘Eight Reasons Why We Need a World Court of Human Rights’ in G Alfredsson, J Grimheden, B Ramcharan and A de Zayas (eds), International Human Rights Monitoring Mechanisms, Essays in Honour of Jakob Th. Möller (2nd rev edn, Martinus Nijhoff 2009) 697; M Scheinin, ‘International Organizations and Transnational Corporations at a World Court of Human Rights’ (2012) 3 Global Policy 488.

257 C Cronstedt and D Rönnegard, ‘International Tribunal on Business & Human Rights – Reshaping the Judiciary’ (September 2013) <http://www.l4bb.org/news/tribunal.pdf>.

258 ibid.

259 ‘Any inter-governmental and non-governmental organization, including any business corporation, which has made a specific declaration in accordance with article 37, shall fully cooperate with the Court in any proceedings.’ Nowak and Kozma (n 256) art 33.

260 Plakokefalos (n 175) 398.

261 Boyle, A and Harrison, J, ‘Judicial Settlement of International Environmental Disputes: Current Problems’ (2013) 4 JIDS 274–5Google Scholar.

262 ASRIWA (n 70) art 31.

263 P d'Argent, ‘Reparation, Cessation, Assurances and Guarantees of Non-Repetition’ in Nollkaemper and Plakokefalos (n 63) 229.

264 ibid 224.

265 ibid 227.

266 Simons and Macklin (n 116) 290.

267 Kelsen, H, Peace Through Law (University of North Carolina Press 1944) 66Google Scholar.

268 Zolo, D, ‘Hans Kelsen: International Peace through International Law’ (1998) 9 EJIL 321 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

269 Suganami, H, ‘Understanding Sovereignty through Kelsen/Schmitt’ (2007) 33 Review of International Studies 527CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

270 Paine, J, ‘Review Essay: Kelsen, Normativity and Formal Justice in International Relations’ (2013) 26 LJIL 1048 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.