abusesaffiliationarrow-downarrow-leftarrow-rightarrow-upattack-typeburgerchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-upClock iconclosedeletedevelopment-povertydiscriminationdollardownloademailenvironmentexternal-linkfacebookfiltergenderglobegroupshealthC4067174-3DD9-4B9E-AD64-284FDAAE6338@1xinformation-outlineinformationinstagraminvestment-trade-globalisationissueslabourlanguagesShapeCombined Shapeline, chart, up, arrow, graphLinkedInlocationmap-pinminusnewsorganisationotheroverviewpluspreviewArtboard 185profilerefreshIconnewssearchsecurityPathStock downStock steadyStock uptagticktooltiptwitteruniversalityweb

Diese Seite ist nicht auf Deutsch verfügbar und wird angezeigt auf English


4 Nov 2018

Harris Gleckman, Open Democracy

Counterbalancing disproportionate power: a response to John Ruggie

…This autumn, Professor John Ruggie,…shared his concerns…that the zero draft has not adequately dealt with ‘scale’ and ‘liability’. 

I think Ruggie’s arguments…fail to recognize the historic opportunity offered by the Human Rights Council to create a human rights remedy system for corporate abuse across national boundaries…  

To be clear, my underlying difference with Ruggie and other supporters of the UNGP who disparage the complementary nature of a binding treaty is that times have changed...

Over time the approach has shifted to include that the state should have a positive obligation to use it power to protect the human right of individuals, citizens, and communities. 

What has now changed is that businesses with a transnational character have vastly greater power than states and individuals. 

And therefore it is wise to combine the power and authority of states, individuals, and community associations to establish clear and effective standards, rules and procedures to counterbalance those which have disproportionate power today.