Skip to main navigation Skip to search Skip to main content

“Respect” Human Rights: Concept and Convergence

    Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceeding › Book chapter › Research › peer-review

    Abstract

    The Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (‘GPs’) were unanimously endorsed in 2011 in the UN Human Rights Council and also recorded an unprecedented level of stakeholder support. Does this watershed signify a genuine convergence of expectations? Is the GPs’ conceptualization of the corporate ‘responsibility to respect’ (RtR) truly able to persuade and provide that focal point around which stakeholders can come together in a notoriously polarized debate? The main thesis is one that the UN Special Representative John Ruggie expressly denies: contrary to its name, the responsibility to ‘respect’ has a ‘protect’ component. The analysis examines why and how Ruggie constructed the RtR in the way he did. The ‘why’ is explained by the fundamental challenge coming from the separation of entities principle, unavoidable when the RtR is applied to multi-entity business enterprises. The ‘how’ reveals that Ruggie systematically reframed concepts, employed ingenious drafting techniques, used silence strategically, and fully capitalized on the strength and appeal of the ‘due diligence’ approach. The analysis exposes the strategy of change animating Ruggie’s efforts and the GPs attempt to facilitate the convergence of stakeholder expectations and the emergence of a polycentric governance regime.
    Original languageEnglish
    Title of host publicationLaw, Business and Human Rights: Bridging the Gap
    Editors/authorsRobert C. Bird, Daniel R. Cahoy, Jamie Darin Prenkert
    Place of PublicationCheltenham
    PublisherEdward Elgar Publishing Ltd.
    Pages3-47
    ISBN (Electronic)9781782546627
    ISBN (Print)9781782546610
    Publication statusPublished - 2014

    Fingerprint

    Dive into the research topics of '“Respect” Human Rights: Concept and Convergence'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

    Cite this