This article examines private international law issues raised by civil liability cases commenced in the courts of home states against transnational corporations concerning their alleged involvement in the overseas human rights violations. These claims have been particularly successful in the United Kingdom, where in the last several years the framework of Brussels I Regulation (recast) and English common law rules made it appropriate for the English courts to assert jurisdiction over corporate defendants without the possibility of subjecting claims against the parent companies to forum non conveniens control. In 2019, however, the Supreme Court in a high-profile case Lungowe v Vedanta Resources plc expressed doubts as to whether England should always constitute a proper forum for litigating overseas wrongs arising from the operations of British multinationals. The article aims to assess how the search of the most appropriate forum to litigate the dispute might impact victims of business-related human rights abuses in the post-Brexit environment and propose avenues for legal change.

National Contact Points (NCPs), which support the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises, are often invoked as a reliable state-based mechanism for holding transnational corporations accountable for business-related human rights abuses. The objective of this article is to scrutinize the ability of NCPs to offer effective remedy through the lens of an often-quoted success story (the case of the post-colonial brewery Bralima-Heineken at the Dutch NCP) and through a few existing studies that examine factors that curtail or enhance the possibility of NCP mechanisms to deliver effective remedy. Based on these findings, we suggest specific ‘actions for effectiveness’ in the form of recommendations for improving NCPs as a tool to deliver effective remedy. Zooming out, we extend some general observations on how our findings illustrate that NCPs are expressions of a larger systemic problem surrounding the role of law within market globalization and the impact of economic liberalization on the making of norms, changing legal authority and basic fairness under conditions of stark power imbalance. Supporting this approach are historical factors which make the OECD Guidelines and NCPs ripe for such conceptualization.

Over 40 million people around the world are victims of modern forms of slavery: forced labour and human trafficking. People are tricked into working under onerous conditions, and unable to leave or return home due to physical, psychological or financial coercion, and many of these trafficking victims produce goods for United States (US) and other multinational corporations that profit by relying on the lower wages earned by workers in their global supply chains. Well-developed legal standards prohibit these practices, and governments, intergovernmental organizations, business associations and non-governmental organizations have developed mechanisms to prevent, detect and provide redress to victims. Some businesses lead or comply with the standards and enforcement mechanisms, but too many do not. US law offers a powerful but under-utilized tool to address trafficking: the 2008 Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA), which imposes civil liability on those who ‘knew or should have known’ about forced labour or human trafficking in their corporate ventures. Unfortunately, courts have ignored or misinterpreted this standard, at times confusing civil and criminal provisions of the statute. Correct and vigorous legal enforcement is key to addressing the accountability gap between the well-developed standards and the continuing use of forced labour and human trafficking. This article is the first to demonstrate that, with regard to the TVPRA standard, corporations have long been on notice of both the obligation to effectively monitor labour conditions and the mechanisms that would accomplish that task. US courts must enforce the ‘knew or should have known’ standard to protect workers – the most vulnerable people in the supply chain – and to prevent an unfair competitive advantage over companies that have established compliance programmes that actually prevent and punish human trafficking and forced labour.

Despite significant progress in business and human rights (BHR) discourse and the practices of multinational corporations (MNCs), persons with disabilities and disability rights are absent from both the key instruments and practice of BHR. This lacuna exists despite the near-universal ratification of the United Nations (UN) Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, as well as the fact that disabled persons constitute over 15 per cent of the global population and MNC operations impact them greatly and disproportionately. We argue that MNCs have a central role, responsibility and opportunity to foment change globally in fulfilling the human rights of persons with disabilities through their employment practices and by leveraging their economic power to fulfil other aspects of disability-based human rights. Doing so requires the development and self-enforcement of disability-specific human rights due diligence (HRDD) processes, and creating a general culture of diversity, equity and inclusion that encompasses disability.

This article outlines one form Work Integration Social Enterprises (WISEs) can take under international human rights law. It builds on the conviction that social enterprises, and WISEs more specifically, are compatible with the foundations and principles human rights are built on. However, there is a lack of engagement with social enterprises generally, in international human rights law. Building on the characteristics of WISEs and substantive equality theories, it is suggested that they can be conceptualized under the heading of affirmative measures. It is expected that this conceptualization can provide a starting point for increasing the visibility of the sector, while simultaneously ensuring its compliance with human rights standards, most notably under the human right to work. The article further points out WISEs and social enterprises’ potential more generally, illustrating how businesses can position themselves as active agents contributing to the realization of human rights.

On 29 November 2020, Swiss citizens voted on a popular constitutional initiative, known as the Swiss Responsible Business Initiative.1 The vote was triggered by an initiative signed by more than the required 100,000 Swiss citizens who used their constitutional right to ask for an amendment of the Swiss Constitution by introducing a new provision on mandatory human rights due diligence and corporate liability. For such an initiative to be successful, both the majority of the people as well as of the cantons (states) is required. While 50.7 per cent of the participating voters accepted the initiative, the proposal did not reach the majority of the cantons and therefore the Responsible Business Initiative was rejected. Its rejection nevertheless triggered the adoption of new reporting and due diligence obligations relating to conflict minerals and child labour, which the Parliament had promised to adopt in case the Responsible Business Initiative was rejected.2 This contribution outlines the content of the newly adopted human rights due diligence legislation that will reflect the due diligence standard for companies in Switzerland for the years to come. It also aims to inform policy makers in other countries by describing the political struggle underlying the adoption of mandatory human rights due diligence in Switzerland.

Germany and Norway are the two latest states to adopt laws mandating human rights due diligence by companies. Germany adopted a Law on Supply Chain Due Diligence (German Law) on 10 June 2021.1 The same day, the Norwegian parliament passed a Transparency Act (Norwegian Act) requiring human rights and decent work due diligence.2 Like the French Loi de Vigilance and the Dutch Child Labour Due Diligence Law, these laws provide further momentum for mandatory measures to promote corporate respect for human rights, including future regulations in the European Union (EU). While the aims are similar, the German and Norwegian laws contain certain important differences when it comes to the substance and scope of the due diligence requirement. In this context, adherence to international standards remains the way forward to ensure compliance with divergent requirements in different jurisdictions.

Human dignity, effective human rights protection and the rule of law are the backbones of the legal system of the European Union (EU).1 The EU and its member states have been front-runners in human rights protection not only on its own territory, but also beyond in their relationship with third countries. They have been the principal standard-setters in the field of business and human rights (BHR). The majority of the EU member states (15 out of 27) have so far adopted National Action Plans on Business and Human Rights.2 As far as legislative action goes, the EU has in recent years adopted two binding legal acts in the BHR field, namely, a Directive requiring obligatory non-financial reporting for large corporations3 and a Regulation concerning mandatory due diligence for the EU-based importers of minerals and metals from conflict-ridden areas.4 More recently, the European Parliament and the European Commission have been working towards adoption of a general directive for obligatory human rights and environmental due diligence for large corporations.5

As has now been well publicized, there is serious and credible evidence that Uyghur and other minority communities in China are being forced into internment or ‘re-education’ camps,1 with strong links to subsequent forced labour in factories, particularly centred in Xinjiang province.2 The use of forced labour (intimately connected to many international supply chains) as a hallmark feature of the Chinese state’s oppression of its Uyghur peoples requires a ‘business and human rights’ (BHR) lens to responses to the human rights violations in the region.

Darnella Frazer, a teenage witness to a fatal police encounter, used social media to share her cell phone video footage capturing a white police officer casually kneeling on the neck of a handcuffed Black man named George Floyd for nearly nine minutes. Her video rapidly went viral, sparking civil unrest across the United States (US) and protests around the world.1 Independent experts of the Special Procedures of the United Nations Human Rights Council came together to issue a joint statement condemning ‘systemic racism’ and ‘state sponsored racial violence’ in the US.2 George Floyd was not the first unarmed Black person to die in police custody under questionable circumstances,3 but his murder motivated many to confront the reality of racism in American society. A broad section of the business community reacted to the civil unrest in the immediate aftermath of the murder of George Floyd with solidarity statements denouncing racism and pledges to promote racial equality.4 Brands rushed to embrace the previously untouchable #BlackLivesMatter movement in marketing campaigns. Business leaders expressed interested in evaluating how particular policies and practices operate in ways that serve to promote racial discrimination or perpetuate racial inequality.5

Just three weeks after the World Health Organization (WHO) recognized COVID-19 as a global pandemic, novelist Arundhati Roy wrote: ‘Historically, pandemics have forced humans to break with the past and imagine their world anew. This one is no different. It is a portal, a gateway between one world and the next.’1

On 23 July 2018, when the villagers gathered around the porch to wrap up the day with a good chat, one of the five auxiliary dams of the Xe-Pian Xe-Namnoy hydropower dam in Attapeu province, the southeastern state of Laos, collapsed. Four days before the collapse, reports of cracks and subsidence started to come through. It should have been enough to prompt evacuation warning issuance by the Xe-Pian Xe-Namnoy Power Co. Ltd (PNPC), a consortium of South Korean companies SK Engineering and Construction (SK E&C) and Korea Western Power Company (KOWEPO), Thailand-based RATCH Group, and Lao Holding State Enterprise (LHSE). PNPC has a Concession Agreement with the Laos government ‘to plan, design, finance, construct, own, operate and maintain’ the Xe-Pian Xe-Namnoy hydropower dam. The warning was issued, but it came too late.

A ground-breaking judgment of the Australian Federal Court regarding the Montara oil spill in the Timor Sea in 2009, Sanda v PTTEP Australasia (Ashmore Cartier) Pty Ltd (No 7) (Sanda (No 7)),1 is one of the few Australian class actions to proceed to a favourable judgment for the claimants. It is also the first judgment against an Australian company for cross-border pollution loss suffered by foreign claimants.

Business and human rights (BHR) has been taught as an academic discipline and field of practice for thirty years.1 Since the first courses at business schools, law schools, and schools of public policy in North America and Western Europe, BHR curricula have proliferated worldwide. BHR course content has expanded to include new international standards, such as the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs); tools for corporate accountability; 2 and examples from the growing body of corporate BHR practice. BHR pedagogy has evolved to embrace multidisciplinary teaching techniques, from business case studies to legal drafting exercises and experiential role plays.3 BHR teaching is taking place in every region, from Africa and Asia to the Middle East and Latin America. Over 350 individuals teach the subject in some form at more than 200 institutions in 45 countries.4 More than 100 universities have added BHR courses to their curricula in the past decade alone. BHR is also taught outside traditional university settings in dedicated workshops and training programmes for professionals, academics and students.5