A Step Forward: UN ‘Protect, Respect, Remedy’ Framework
and Guiding Principles
Research Paper by,
Bizhan Roshan
Submission Date: April 29, 2015
Abstract
Corporate duties under international human rights had been the subject of debate
for many years between States, corporations and human rights advocate groups. For this
reason, John Ruggie was appointed as the United Nations Special Representative of the
Secretary-General “on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other
business enterprises” to clarify this. To address this issue, Ruggie presented the UN
‘Protect, Respect, Remedy’: Framework in 2008 and subsequently presented the Guiding
Principles to operationalize it in 2011. They were unanimously endorsed by the UN
Human Rights Council in the years they were presented.
The Framework and Guiding Principles attracted a great deal of support from
States and the corporations, but didn’t meet the expectation of human rights advocates,
which was the direct application of human rights on corporations. This paper argues that
although the Framework and the Guiding Principles are not legally binding, it is a step in
the right direction in applying international human rights principles on corporations. The
paper endeavors to prove this by explaining the Framework and the Guiding Principles,
providing a summary of different stakeholders take on both the Framework and the
Guiding Principles and then analyzing the achievements of both documents.
I. Introduction
The increased privatization of the worldwide economy, accompanied with the
increasing transnational economic activity, put business and human rights on the global
policy agenda in the 1990s. 1 These widespread changes increased social awareness of
businesses impact on human rights and also caused UN to put the issue in its priority list.2
The reason this topic made to the global policy agenda and UN’s priority list was not
only that businesses especially multi national corporations were spreading around the
globe, but because their expansion resulted in heinous human rights violations ranging
from child labor to aiding and abetting in international crimes. In this regard, Shell’s
aiding and abetting with Nigerian government in human rights abuse in Niger Delta,
Unocal’s and Total’s complicity in forced labor in Burma, Google and Yahoo’s
undertaking of censorship in China, deprivation of local communities of water in India by
Coca Cola are the very few examples.3
This situation called on United Nations to take some measures to address this
problem. In 1998 UN Human Rights Commission, the predecessor for UN Human Right
Council undertook an initiative in this regard but failed.4 In 2005 Harvard Professor John
Ruggie was mandated to proceed with the task of clarifying human rights norms that
1
Human Rights Council, Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights: Implementing the United
Nations “Protect, Respect, and Remedy” Framework, A/HRC/17/31, p. 3 (March 21, 2011).
2
Id. at 3.
3
James Harrison, An Evaluation of the Institutionalization of Corporate Human Rights Due Diligence, p.1
(July 26, 2012), available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=2117924.
4
Karin Buhmann, The ‘UN Framework’ ‘Protect, Respect, Remedy’: Explaining the consensus-based
construction of business responsibilities for human rights, International Law Research, Vol.1, No. 1, p. 4
(2012), available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=2166281
2
apply to corporations. The result of Ruggies’ work was ‘Protect, Respect, Remedy: a
Framework for Business and Human Rights’ in 2008 and ‘Guiding Principles on
Business and Human Rights: Implementing the United Nations “Protect, Respect and
Remedy” Framework’ in 2011.5 UN Human Rights Council unanimously endorsed both
the Framework and the Guiding Principles.6 The Framework and the Guiding Principles
attracted a good deal of support from governments and businesses/corporations, but
human rights advocates criticized them for not imposing direct human rights duties7 on
corporations. This article attempts to argue that though the Framework and the Guiding
Principles do not directly impose human rights obligations on corporations and are not
binding, but are still great achievement and considers them a step a forward.
The article proceeds with giving a background of the issue, followed by
elaboration on the Framework. Then the article talks about the reflection on the
Framework and the Guiding Principles and further moves to the achievements of the
Framework and the Guiding Principles by dividing it into current achievements and the
potential future achievements and ends by a conclusion.
II. Background
In the beginning of the 1970s, the UN’s Economic and Social Council requested
that the secretary general establish a group of experts to research the impact of
transnational corporations (TNCs) on development process and international relations.8
The group proposed to constitute a Commission on TNCs that beside other things should
draft a code of conduct for TNCs.9 This mission to draft an agreeable code under the
auspices of the Commission took more than a decade, but due to disagreements between
developed and developing countries the Draft of 1990 could not be adopted.10
Following the aforementioned initiative, the first, Global Compact, was proposed
by the former UN Secretary General Kofi Anan at the World Economic Forum in Davos
on January 31, 1999.11 The Global Compact entails ten principles in the fields of human
rights, environment, labor and anti corruption was officially launched in 2000.12 Almost
at the same time with the first initiative, in August 1998, the Human Rights Sub
Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights established a five
member-working group to work on the Working Methods and Activities of Transnational
Corporations. 13 The working group proposed their work under the name “UN Draft
Norms on the Responsibilities of Transnational Corporations and other Business
5
General Principle, supra note 1, at 3, 5.
Buhmann, supra note 4, at 15.
7
John H. Knox, The Ruggie Rules: Applying Human Rights Law to Corporations, p.16 (August 16, 2011
Draft), available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=1916664.
8
Surya Deva, Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights: Implications for Companies, European
Company Law 9, no. 2, p.101, 102 (2012), available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=2028785.
9
Id. at 102.
10
Id.
11
Id.
12
Id.
13
Id.
6
3
Enterprises with Regard to Human Rights” (hereinafter UN Norms).14 The UN Norms
stated that Corporations under international law are subject to the same rules of human
rights obligations: “to promote, secure the fulfillment of, respect, ensure respect of and
protect human rights,” which States have accepted for themselves under international
treaties they have ratified,15 but the governments on the Human Rights Commission did
not ratify the Norms, asserting that the Norms have “no legal standing”.16
After the UN Norms failed to get the approval of the Human Rights Commission,
the Commission in 2005 requested the UN Secretary General to appoint a special
representative “on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other
business enterprises” to initiate a new process17. The UN Secretary General appointed
Professor John Ruggie for a period of two years, later on his mandate was extended for
one more year and again in 2008 his term was extended further for another three years.18
The Human Rights Commission mandated him to clarify the human rights norms that
apply to corporations. 19 The result of Ruggie’s wok in the six years mandate was
“Protect, Respect and Remedy” Framework in 2008 and Guiding Principles on Business
and Human Rights: Implementing the United Nations “Protect, Respect and Remedy”
Framework (hereinafter “Guiding Principles”) in 2011, 20 which both of them were
unanimously endorsed by the UN Human Rights Council.21
III. “Protect, Respect and Remedy” Framework and Guiding Principles
Ruggie started his work by rejecting the UN norms, which means he took the
position that international human rights law dose not directly impose liability on
corporations, but rather corporations are subject to international human rights law
indirectly through States. 22 He based the framework on different, but interdependent
duties.23
The Framework is composed of three core principles: (1) the State duty to protect
from human rights violations by third parties, including businesses/corporations; (2) the
businesses/corporations duty to respect human rights; and (3) the duty to establish
effective legal remedies.24 The three principles are interdependent on each other and are
only effective if they work together.25 In the Guiding Principles, which is designed to
operationalize the framework, Ruggie elaborated on the three pillars (Protect, Respect,
Remedy) of the Framework in a systematic manner. He described each pillar under two
14
Knox, supra note 7, at 3.
General Principles, supra note 1, at 3.
16
Knox, supra note 7, at 11.
17
General Principles, supra note 1, at 3.
18
Id. at 3.
19
Knox, supra note 7, at 2.
20
General Principles, supra note 1, at 3, 5.
21
Buhmann, supra note 4, at 15.
22
Knox, supra note 7, at 12.
23
Human Rights Council, Protect, Respect and Remedy: a Framework for Business and Human Rights,
A/HRC/8/5, para 9 (7 April 2008).
24
Id.
25
Id.
15
4
main headings of (a) Foundational principles, in which he basically breaks each pillar
into sub headings and then provide detailed explanation in the commentaries and (b) the
Operational principles, in which he talked about how to put the principles into practice
and provide guidance under sub headings and explains them in commentaries.26
1) The State Duty to Protect
The state duty to protect is not a controversial principle: this principle
encompasses a state’s obligation to ensure that all entities within their jurisdiction or
control comply with human rights norms, including corporations.27 The only challenge to
this principle is the states duty to protect human rights violations by private corporations
that operate at a transnational level and have the resources and capacity to move from one
country to another.28 Ruggie constantly and clearly stressed that this duty is imposed on
States by existing international human rights law.29 Though, in some regards the duty to
protect echoes a somewhat new apprehension of the law, it has a strong legal base in the
current international human rights instruments and has long been endorsed by human
rights instruments, bodies and scholars.30 Ruggie systematically elaborated this principle
in the context of corporate and other businesses activities.31
2) Corporations Duty to Respect
The second principle states that corporations have a duty to respect human rights
law.32 Ruggie based this principle on societal expectations as opposed to human rights
law, by doing so, he made this duty less controversial, but at the cost of making it
weaker.33 Using human rights law, Ruggie defined the scope of corporate responsibility
to respect. 34 Then he described the societal expectations as being that society expects
corporations to respect human rights as they are stated and endorsed in the international
law, specifically, the main human rights and labor instruments.35
Ruggie strengthened the duty to respect human rights by elaborating as to what
this duty entails.36 Instead of specifying particular human rights that corporations should
respect, Ruggie stated, “there are few if any rights business cannot impact – or to be –
perceived to impact – in some manner. Therefore, companies should consider all such
rights.” 37 Ruggie doesn’t see the duty to respect human rights only as being passive.
26
General Principles, supra note 1, at 6-27.
Deva, supra note 8, at 103.
28
Id.
29
Knox, supra note 7, at 16.
30
Id.
31
Id.
32
Framework, supra note 23, at para 51.
33
Knox, supra note 7 at 16.
34
Id.
35
Id. at 16-17.
36
Id. at 17.
37
Id.
27
5
Instead, it encompasses positive due diligence responsibilities on corporations to “address
adverse human rights impacts with which they are involved,” that includes corporations
attempt to avoid or control adverse human rights impacts that are directly connected to
their operations, products, or related activities by their business relationships.38
According to Ruggie, due diligence has four parts. First, corporations should
“adopt a human rights policy”. Secondly, corporations should undertake impact
assessment, to know how current and proposed activities may impact human rights.
Third, corporations should mainstream human rights in their policies. And Fourth,
corporations should monitor and audit their performance.39
In addition, he clarified to corporations that the responsibility to respect requires
avoiding complicity and states that complicity “has legal and non-legal pedigrees, and the
implications of both are important for companies”.40 If companies knowledgably aid and
abet in commission of international crimes with governments and other private entities, it
may cause them non-criminal liability for complicity in human rights violations.41 And
warningly says that the number of countries in which claims against corporations for
commission of international crimes can be brought is increasing.42 In its non-legal sense,
he says that social actors such as public and private investors, the Global Compact,
campaigning organizations and companies themselves see corporate complicity as an
“important benchmark”, and adds that complicity claims “can impose reputational costs
and even lead to divestment, without legal liability being established”.43
Ruggie emphasized that in order to hold corporations responsible for their
performance all stakeholders should be able to monitor their performance; therefore, he
encourages corporations to make their reports accessible to the public.44
3) Access to Remedies
The third principle, access to remedies, endeavors to give more weight to the
states duty to protect human rights and the corporation’s responsibility to respect human
rights by asserting that states must establish effective legal remedies against human rights
violations of corporations. 45 Ruggie asserted that treaty bodies constantly encourage
states to take serious steps in adjudicating human rights abuses by corporations within
their jurisdiction. 46 It is vital for states to empower their judicial system to address
corporate related human rights violations and remove the barriers to access to courts
“including for foreign plaintiffs-especially where alleged abuses reach the level of
38
Id. at 17-18.
Susan Ariel Aaronson and Ian Higham, ‘Re-righting business’: John Ruggie and the Struggle to develop
international human rights standards for transnational firms, 13-14 (Sep 4, 2011), available at
http://ssrn.com/abstract=1922224.
40
Framework, supra note 23, at para 73.
41
Id. para 74, 79, 80.
42
Id. at para 74.
43
Id. at para 75.
44
Aaronson and Higham, supra note 39, at 14.
45
Framework, supra note 23, at para 82.
46
Id. at para 83.
39
6
widespread and systematic human rights violations,” it is also important to protect
businesses from meritless or frivolous claims.47
In addition to judicial mechanisms, he insists, non-judicial mechanisms can
perform an essential role in redressing human rights violations, especially in countries
where the judicial system is unable to provide adequate services non-judicial mechanisms
are of significant importance, because they are more likely to deliver “a more immediate,
accessible, affordable and adaptable point of initial recourse.”48 He makes it clear that for
non-judicial mechanisms to deliver the services expected of them they should satisfy
certain minimum standards of being legitimate, accessible, predictable, equitable, rightscompatible, and transparent.49 Moreover, Ruggie states that in order to avoid grievances
have an adverse impacts on companies, they should spot grievances and address them
beforehand and clarifies that, “an effective grievance mechanism is part of the corporate
responsibility to respect”.50 For doing so companies can utilize services such as hot lines
to get aware of complaints, “advisory services for complaints”, or “expert mediators”.51
He clarifies it to the corporations that corporation based remedies may decrease financial
risks, such as “compensation claims”, “loss of production or customers” or “reputational
damages”.52
In addition, he encourages governments to utilize National Human Rights
Institutions (NHRIs), (state based non-judicial mechanism) and mandate that they
manage human rights abuses of companies, since “NHRIs are particularly wellpositioned to provide processes whether adjudicative or mediation-based – that are
culturally appropriate, accessible and expeditious”.53 In the events where they are unable
or cannot manage grievances they can serve as an information provider body for remedy
seekers and “could act as lynchpins within the wider system of grievance mechanisms,
linking local, national and international levels across countries and regions”.54
IV. Reflections on the Framework and Guiding Principles
Many NGO’s support Ruggie in his argument that states should be doing more to
ensure companies respect human rights. At the same time, NGOs are concerned that “an
over-reliance on voluntary initiatives … would be both inappropriate and inadequate”.55
For instance, Civicus, the world Alliance of citizen Participation, said Ruggies’ report
failed to define home states duty to regulate the extraterritorial activities of their
47
Id. at para 91.
Id. at para 84.
49
Id. at para 92.
50
Id. at para 93.
51
Id. at para 94.
52
Buhmann, supra note 4, at 14.
53
Framework, supra note 23, at para 96,97,99.
54
Id. at para 97.
48
th
Aaronson and Higham, supra note 39, at 16 -17. (citing) Human Rights Council, 4 Session, 12-30
Mar., ̳Oral Intervention: Amnesty International, ESCRnet, Human Rights Watch, International Commission
of
Jurists,
International
Federation
for
Human
Rights‘,),
available
at
http://www.escrnet.org/actions_more/actions_more_show.htm?doc_id=471732.
55
7
corporations.56 Some 27 American, African and European human rights organizations in
a joint statement asserted that the Guiding Principles does not include any provision that
States should take into account to ensure the integration of human rights law in
international trade and investment negotiations and the human rights effects of such
agreements.57
Eventually some leading human rights and development NGO’s including
Amnesty International, Action Aid, Human Rights Watch, Pax Christi, and Oxfam
International admired the “Protect, Respect and Remedy Framework, but expressed
concern that the UN Human Rights Council needed greater clarity and more specific
recommendations as well as “a strong follow-on mechanism”.58 Many NGO’s described
the Guiding Principle’s as insufficient, and instead called for an instrument to directly
enforce human rights law on corporations.59
Governments mostly welcomed the Framework and the Guiding Principle’s. The
EU stated that the Framework was “already influencing policy development in the EU,
with initiatives taken both by EU member States and EU institutions”. 60 France and
Norway fully supported the draft Guiding Principles, although, British government
asserted reservation. 61 Moreover, main business associations like International
Organization of Employers, the International Chamber of Commerce, and the Business
Industry Advisory Committee to the Organization on Economic Cooperation and
Development (hereinafter “OECD”) fully supported the Framework and the Guiding
Principles.62
It seems the Framework and the Guiding Principles have been mostly successful
in attracting corporations support. BP (British Petroleum) described the framework as “a
unique chance to lay to rest a long-standing international debate about whether
mandatory norms are required” and stated common standards will “help to clarify some
of the more challenging human rights issues business face” and also pledged to abide by
Guiding Principles and integrate it into its human rights policies.63 Novo Nordisk said,
“Common standards for business would help to provide a level playing field and prevent
human rights violations.” 64 CEO of Sakhalen Energy, A.P Galaev, stated, “It is my
sincere hope that the Human Rights Council will endorse the Guiding Principles at its
forthcoming session in June, helping to establish them as the authoritative reference point
56
Aaronson and Higham, supra note 39, at 17.
Id.
58
Id. (citing) Joint civil society statement, ̳Advancing the global business and human rights agenda‘,),
available at http://www.fidh.org/IMG/pdf/Joint-civil-society-statement-on-business-and-human-rightsMay- 2011.pdf
59
Aaronson and Higham, supra note 39, at 17.
60
Id. at 20 (̳citing) EU comments on the draft Guiding Principles for the implementaition of the UN
―Protect, Respect and Remedy‖ Framework‘, Business & Human Rights Resource Centre, 31 Jan. 2011),
available at http://www.business- humanrights.org/media/documents/ruggie/eu-comments-on-draftguiding-principles-31-jan-2011.pdf.
61
Aaronson and Higham, supra note 39, at 20-21.
62
Id. at 23-24.
63
Id. at 25. (̳citing) Human rights‘, BP, 20 June 2011, available at
http://www.bp.com/sectiongenericarticle800.do?categoryId=9036198&contentId=7066931
64
Aaronson and Higham, supra note 39, at 25 (̳citing) Human rights‘, Novo Nordisk, available at
http://www.novonordisk.com/sustainability/sustainability- approach/human_rights.asp
57
8
for states, companies and civil societies”.65 But Talisman Energy mainly opposed the
Guiding Principles, stating in their comments as “largely in the nature of caution or
objection”.66
V. Achievements
Despite all of this support that the Framework and the Guiding Principles have
attracted, especially from governments and corporations, but they did not succeed in
meeting the expectation of human rights advocates that is direct application67 of human
rights law to corporations. Nevertheless, while these documents do not command the
direct application of human rights law to corporations, they still can be viewed as a big
achievement, given the limited mandate of Professor Ruggie and the current political
climate. The achievements can be considered in two parts, current achievements, and
future potential achievements.
1) Current Achievements
The Framework set the record of being recognized as the United Nations Human
Rights Council’s first ever-ratified document of human rights responsibilities of
business/corporations and states duty to protect against human rights violations caused by
corporations and other businesses. Besides, it also created a consensus among different
stakeholders especially corporations and States on the issue of corporations human rights
responsibilities and clarified with their support that corporations should respect human
rights as they are stated and endorsed in the international human rights and labor
treaties.68 Prior to this as noted UN Norms couldn’t make it to get the endorsement of UN
Human Rights Council.
Besides, the Framework and the Guiding Principles provided a soft
institutionalization of business responsibilities under international law. Though it is not
binding, but it still has its own impacts on corporations and other businesses globally. For
example, corporations that are not already socially responsible and don’t have a good
record of abiding by human rights norms and expectation, voluntary expectations could
be much more affordable to adjust in terms of resources than legally binding
requirements.69 As Kolk discovered that businesses mainly support voluntary initiatives
and self-regulation as opposed to public regulations, since it enables them to decide what
they want to do. However, businesses at first resist regulations, then for the sake of
strategic reasons, such as “potential new markets”, “following competitors lead for fear
65
Aaronson and Higham, supra note 39, at 24. (citing) Galaev A.P., CEO of Sakhalin Energy Investment
Company
Ltd.,
Letter
to
John
Ruggie,
(5
May
2011),
http://www.businesshumanrights.org/media/documents/ruggie/sakhalin-energy-ltr-re-guiding-principles- 5-may-2011.pdf
66
Aaronson and Higham, supra note 39, at 24. (citing Joe Cyr, ̳Talisman Energy‘s comments‘, p. 1.).
67
Knox, supra note 7, at 16.
68
Id. at 16-17.
69
Buhmann, supra note 4, at 7.
9
of missing chances for profit”, or “avoiding financial or publicity risks,” they may change
their position and self-regulate themselves.70
In addition, the Framework and the Guiding Principles made it very clear that the
‘duty to protect’ covers corporate acts as well and laid out steps to operationalize this.71
Though other international initiatives such as the OECD principles and UN Global
Compact had earlier asserted that corporations have a duty to respect human rights, but
Ruggie said corporations have the responsibility to respect human rights as they are
described in the International human rights instruments, which provides more weight then
merely saying they should respect human rights.72
Moreover, the framework affected the 2011 revision of the (OECD) guidelines
and led it to include a complete new chapter on human rights. It also caused the EU to
change the definition of its CSR in its CSR Communication document, a type of EU soft
law.73 In May 2011 the Business and Human Rights Resource Center (BHRRC) found
that 275 out of 500 Fortune Global corporations have human rights policies, 21(7.6%) of
them refer to Ruggies’ work in their policies. The Ruggie team stated that 15
corporations are trying to integrate Guiding Principles standards in their business
policies.74
Furthermore, Guiding Principles “represent a governance innovation: they are a
transparent and multi sectoral effort to clarify the human rights responsibilities of
business. The Guiding Principles encourage firms to move beyond apologies toward
positive actionable steps”.75 It also warns the corporations that if they do not take human
rights seriously it can cause them critical problems such as “compensation claims”, “loss
of production or customers” or “reputational damages”76 and makes it more serious by
pointing out to the fact that companies should be aware that the number of states
accepting claims against international crimes are increasing, 77 which basically gives a
warning sign to the corporations that if not for human rights sake they should consider
human rights for their own interest.
Also, the Framework and the Guiding Principles helped to set the ground for
subsequent development of corporate obligations under human rights law and policy, as
Ruggie predicated both these documents on existing international human rights regime.78
By doing so, he opened the door of a big existing and already endorsed body of
international human rights to be utilized for further clarification and interpretation of
corporate obligations. And last but not least the Guiding Principles can serve as a great
monitoring, remediating79 and evaluation tool for corporations misbehavior with regards
to human rights norms.
70
Id.
Knox, supra note 7, at 16.
72
Id. at 17.
73
Buhmann, supra note 4, at 4-5.
74
Aaronson and Higham, supra note 39, at 26.
75
Id. at 32.
76
Buhmann, supra note 4, at 14.
77
Framework, supra note 23, at para 74.
78
Knox, supra note 7, at 18.
79
Id. at 2.
71
10
2) Potential Long term Achievements
The responsibility to respect human rights by corporations could evolve into hard
law either via customary international law or through treaty. To directly bind
corporations as a matter of international customary law, (a) states would have to
consistently act as if corporations were directly subject to international human rights law,
and (b) States would have to do so as if they were obliged by international law.80 It is also
likely that implementation of the duty to respect might encourage governments and
corporations to agree that corporations have direct obligations under international law.81
However, execution of the Guiding Principles may alter the political climate in such a
way that reduce and finally eliminate the barriers to the States and corporations
recognition of direct corporate obligations, because the more corporations feel easy in
being judged according to human rights standards the more they are likely to move
forward to accept the direct enforcement of international human rights obligations as
opposed to indirect application by governments. 82 It is also possible that to avoid
different national standards corporations start to campaign for direct obligations under
international level.83
Moreover, in case the political environment changes, instead of waiting for the
direct obligation to take the status of customary international law, governments and
corporations may prefer to enter into a human rights treaty formally recognizing direct
obligation for corporations, “the development of a treaty with general acceptance could,
of course, also provide evidence of the development of customary law”.84 In such a case
the Framework and the Guiding Principles could serves as the first ready made draft for
such a treaty, as Universal Declaration of Human Rights served as the first draft for
International Covenant for Civil and Political Rights (ICCP) and the International
Covenant for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). If such situations happen,
“Ruggie’s rejection of the UN Norms would eventually come to be seen as one of the
great retreats in order to advance in the history of international law”.85
In addition, it is also imaginable that if the Guiding Principles are successfully
executed it may reduce the need for a direct duty for corporations. 86 If governments
effectively protect citizens against any corporate human rights abuse, provide them with
remedies and corporations respect human rights as they are described in international
human rights instruments, this will align corporations with international human rights
norms without the need to impose direct obligations on them.87
80
Id. at 19.
Id.
82
Id. at 20.
83
Id.
84
Id.
85
Id.
86
Id. at 2.
87
Id.
81
11
VI. Conclusion
Assessing Professor John Ruggies’ Framework and the Guiding Principles,
without considering his mandate and the dominant political climate would not be fair.
Basically, according to his mandate he was not allowed to create international law to
directly apply human rights obligations on corporations and other businesses. Instead, he
was commissioned to clarify and define the standards of corporate duties with regards to
human rights that he presented in 2008, the Framework, and develop approaches and
guidelines to operationalize them, the Guiding Principles, which he presented in 2011 and
both of the documents were unanimously endorsed by UN Human Rights Council.
Considering the political climate of the time, Ruggie understood that if he took a
stricter approach in designing the Framework and Guiding Principles, they would be met
with the same response as the UN Norms, rejection by the UN Human Rights
Commission (the predecessor for UN Human Rights Council). Given this fact, Ruggie
instead took a softer approach, one that is more adaptable and acceptable to the current
Global situation.
The effectiveness of this initiative is still contingent on a variety of factors, such
as the motivation of States and corporations to follow the laid out standards. But overall,
the aforementioned achievements of the Framework and General Principles have created
a consensus that the initiative will prove effective.
12