Securing human rights through risk-management methods
Breakthrough or misalignment
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 12187490 |
|---|---|
| Authors | RADU MARES (0000-0001-5141-1035, Durham University, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2019 |
| Volume | 32 |
| Issue | 3 |
| Pages | 517-535 |
| Publication date | 2019-06-17 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Leiden Journal of International Law (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0922-1565 • E-ISSN: 1478-9698 |
| Publisher | Cambridge University Press (CUP) (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1017/s0922156519000244 |
| OpenAlex | W2949040437 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 6 |
| References cited | 12 |
This is a study of three authoritative instruments that promote a common idea: economic activities and development should be conducted with respect for human rights. The World Bank Framework, the International Financial Corporation Performance Standards and the UN Guiding Principles on business and human rights are examined to get clarity on how human rights risk management differs from more conventional management approaches. The focus here is on prevention of human rights impacts. Do the three instruments employ approaches adequate for handling human rights risks? To understand prevention, one needs to reflect on what makes human rights a particular type of impact and account for the regulatory context of protecting human rights transnationally. The analysis identifies four ‘offsets’ through which economic decision-makers can distort their human rights performance and place causal observers at a disadvantage. Prevention becomes an issue of how to relate to ‘residual impacts’ on human rights. This article finds that the ‘hierarchy or mitigation’ and even ‘human rights due diligence’ under illuminate the challenge. The proposal here is to add ‘reduction at source’ as a parameter of human rights risk management. The sources for this analysis are the three instruments, and the practice of implementing organizations, particularly IFC projects, CAO cases, impact assessments, and CSR reports. In conclusion, the potential for cross-fertilization among instruments is genuine. Increased clarity on prevention of human rights impacts should assist economic decision-makers in their risk management task and casual observers in assessing their performance
Business · CLARITY · Context (archaeology · Due diligence · Economics · Human rights · Law and economics · Political science · Public economics · Public relations · Risk analysis (engineering · Risk management · Corporate Law and Human Rights · Law · Regulation and Compliance Studies · Wildlife Conservation and Criminology Analyses · Finance
Environmental Recourse at the Multilateral Development Banks
The place and challenges of Human Rights Impact Assessments in Latin American internet regulatory futures
The UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights
Twenty-First-Century Crises and the Social Turn of International Financial Institutions
Normative Challenges of Risk Regulation of Artificial Intelligence
Accountability enablers? The role of transnational activism in the use of the multilateral development bank grievance mechanisms
Decentering Human Rights from the International Order of States
Human Rights Due Diligence as Risk Management
The Populist Challenge to Human Rights
The Concept of ‘Due Diligence’ in the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights
The Future of Human Rights
Multinationals as global institution
Transnational business governance interactions
| Citations per year | 1 |
|---|---|
| Citation span | 2020 - 2024 (5) |
| Highly cited | No |