In the context of neoliberal globalisation, the enhanced projection of corporate power appears to have increased the chances of transnational corporations (TNCs) becoming embroiled in human rights violations. Reactively, the United Nations has expended significant political capital over the past thirteen years in its attempt to construct a framework to mitigate these negative human rights impacts. However, this emerging regime has proved to be controversial for activists and academics, due to its lack of enforcement mechanisms, as well as the conceptual minimalism inherent in its redistribution of rights responsibilities. When analysing its anachronistic theoretical underpinnings, and its misguided belief in the power of norm dynamics to alter corporate behaviour, the inadequacies of this minimalist framework are clearly exposed. Overall, the available empirical analyses into this fledgling field of study suggest that the prevailing international framework has failed to provoke a synthesis of internationally proclaimed human rights standards with the sphere of transnational corporate activity.

This paper considers the interplay of international law, politics and national law in the protection of human rights defenders (HRDs) that are challenging businesses practices in Brazil. It argues that the Brazilian State and transnational and domestic businesses have a responsibility to protect HRDs and should adopt robust means of doing this, embracing their work as opportunity rather than a threat in building up a democratic society. To demonstrate the validity of this claim, this paper highlights the role of HRDs in promoting corporate responsibility and in exposing and remedying the adverse human rights (HR) impacts of business in Brazil. It further explains how HRDs working on issues of corporate responsibility and accountability are under threats and attacks from both state and non-state actors as a result of their work. The paper then analyses some of the responses from the organized civil society, business, and the Brazilian State in order to tackle violence against HRDs. The paper considers that the relationship between business and the Brazilian State is dialectical and complementary and, as such, should be arbitrated by the international HR system. In this process, the paper calls for a binding instrument to regulate the activities of transnational corporations and other business enterprises to be adopted at the UN level and argues that it could potentially influence the rhetoric and practices in the politics of HR in Brazil. The final section provides an explanation for how the Brazilian State and transnational and national businesses should protect HRDs. KEYWORDS: Business. Human Rights. Human Rights Defenders.

As the major players in globalization, firms often operate in states where human rights may not be respected. Without direct intent, firms may be complicit in human rights violations. In 2008, John Ruggie, the UN Special Representative on business and human rights, developed a framework for policymakers to protect human rights and executives to respect human rights. On 16 June 2011, the UN Human Rights Council endorsed Ruggie’s ‘Guiding Principles’ for implementing this framework. This article describes have firms, states, and to a lesser extent NGOs, have responded to this delineation of the human rights responsibilities of business. We make four key points: the Guiding Principles are an important advance in global governance; the process of developing the Guiding Principles was a model of transparent, inclusive 21st century governance yet the public is generally unaware of the issue or the new policy; that the Guiding Principles are a creative and broad rethinking of how to evaluate the human rights performance of corporations; and that the Guiding Principles are unlikely to have much influence unless policymakers educate their home firms regarding their human rights responsibilities, and press these executives to act.

In times of immense economic and social challenges with business activities becoming ever more transnational, corporate action has more power than ever before to affect human rights, both positively and negatively. National Human Rights Institutions (NHRIs) have committed themselves, as affirmed in the ICC’s 2010 Edinburgh Declaration, to integrate business and human rights into their strategies and activities at international, regional, and national level to support the implementation of the UN Guiding Principles. This paper starts by briefly describing NHRIs and their international structure. Subsequently, it examines the role they play in ensuring better accountability by governments and business when performing economic activities. [...] Finally, the paper highlights some of the challenges and ways in which NHRI mandates can be used to further advance the business and human rights agenda.

Following the adoption of the U.N. Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (Guiding Principles) in 2011, states have increasingly engaged with the need to protect against and remedy corporate human rights abuses. This can be seen in the proliferation of National Action Plans (NAPs) on business and human rights (BHR). Many countries through the Americas have begun drafting BHR NAPs, and engaging in other activities to promote corporate accountability and social responsibility. As the normalization of BHR standards continues in the region, it is important for the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) to take a lead role in setting regional standards for the state responsibility to protect against and remedy corporate human rights abuse. This paper illustrates, through a discussion of the IACHR’s mandate and functions, along with an analysis of the Commission’s work in the extractive sector that the IACHR is both capable of and obliged to engage with the Guiding Principles.

National Action Plans (NAPs) on business and human rights are a burgeoning phenomenon. This short article identifies NAPs as an important new business and human rights governance tool and presents a framework for evaluating their contribution to the advancement of respect for human rights in the business context. Section II of this article summarises NAPs developments to date and presents the pros and cons of NAPs. Section III evaluates published and in process NAPs according to six criteria: scope, content and priorities; baseline assessments; consulting stakeholders; transparency; accountability and resources. Concluding, Section IV highlights three elements that will be critical to the credibility of NAPs and their efficacy in promoting effective respect for human rights in the business context in the future. The article draws on the authors' development of influential guidance on NAPs published in 2014 and their experiences of supporting NAPs processes in a range of countries.

This chapter focuses on the work of the UN Working Group on the Issue of Human Rights and Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises, in order to understand how the UN Special Procedures system engages with this sui generis thematic issue. More importantly, with the on-going negotiations for a binding treaty on business and human rights and increased efforts towards the operationalisation of the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, it is important to reflect on broader questions which are particularly pertinent to this area of international law. Do UN Special Procedures have a role in shaping the way in which changes occur in international human rights law? Can they support the creation of effective remedies for victims of human rights abuse, or can they actually unwillingly hinder or delay potential processes of change?