We hope those who are working in the field find this of some value. It was drafted with two principal aims. The first was to engage deeply with specific drafting and interpretive issues of the Draft Treaty text. The second and broader objective was to raise issues that touch on the larger project of framing an effective regulatory environment for the management of the harm that may arise in connection with economic activity that touches on human rights, environmental damage and sustainability issues, including climate change.
This from our summary:
The Coalition for Peace and Ethics Treaty Project Working Group holds the efforts of the Open Ended Inter-Governmental Working Group in great esteem. It admires the work and skill required to bring this treaty project forward to the place where one finds it today. The CPE-Treaty Project Working Group that the surest sign of respect for projects of this kind is to take them seriously. That requires something more than brief eclogues indicating support or opposition to its terms. We believe the Treaty project is a serious endeavor and deserves serious, and honest, engagement. We leave the politics of drafting and enactment to others. Our role is to take the Treaty as given—as a complex set of mandatory commands directed to states to make substantial alternations to their legal and constitutional orders in the face of what is perceived to be an important objective of legislation across national territories—the coherent regulation of economic activity with human rights effects. This the Treaty drafters have endeavored to do.
Our greatest regret has been that, given a mandate that is in its own way now largely out of date, neither the Treaty nor its drafters sought to more robustly interlink human rights and sustainability issues. We have come a long way from the time when human rights and environmental issues were considered separate fields, relatively unrelated. We have come even farther form the time that one could imagine human rights uncoupled in the most fundamental way from both bio-diversity and climate change. Indeed, traditional environmental concerns are difficult to separate from the larger context in which they now operate—sustainability. Bio-diversity, climate change, and all in a feedback loop affected and being affected by human activities. It is our hope that the next draft of the Treaty will contain SUBSTANTIAL revisions to move toward a more integrated approach that reflect these connections.
The Table of Content (with links follows). Volume 14 is available online (ISSN 2689-0291) and in print format for download (ISSN 2689-0283 (print)). Either may be accessed by clicking THIS LINK HERE.
The Coalition for Peace & Ethics Treaty Project Working Group is pleased to present its Commentary on the U.N. Inter-Governmental Working Group (Geneva) 2019 Draft “Legally Binding Instrument to Regulate, in International Human Rights Law, The Activities of Corporations and Other Business Enterprises” (Textual and Conceptual Analysis).
Full Print Version HERE: 14-2_Treaty_Special_Issue_2019
Return to Emancipating the Mind Issues Page HERE.
Contents Vol. 14(2; Special Issue): Commentary on the U.N. Inter-Governmental Working Group (Geneva) 2019 Draft “Legally Binding Instrument to Regulate, in International Human Rights Law, The Activities of Corporations and Other Business Enterprises” (Textual and Conceptual Analysis)
Front Matter: V14Issue2_FINAL_Front Matter
A. CPE-Treaty Project Working Group; Larry Catá Backer and Flora Sapio; Foreword: The 2019 Draft of the “Legally Binding Instrument to Regulate, in International Human Rights Law, The Activities of Corporations and Other Business Enterprises”; A Call to Submit Comments. Pages 149-15 14-2_Pt_A_Foreword_FINAL
B. Introduction: CPE-Treaty Project Working Group; Framing An Analysis of the 2019 Draft Legally Binding Instrument. Page 153 14-2_Pt_B_Introduction_FINAL_Sapio_Backer
C. The Preamble
D. Section 1 of the Draft Legally Binding Instrument (Definitions; Statement of Purpose; and Scope)
Article 1 (Definitions)
E. Section 2 of the Draft Legally Binding Instrument (Victims; Prevention; Legal Liability; Jurisdiction; Statute of Limitations; Choice of Law; Mutual Legal Assistance)
Article 4 (Rights of Victims)
F. From Section 2 to Section 3 of the Draft Legally Binding Instrument (International Cooperation; Mutual Legal Assistance; Dispute Settlement; Implementation)
Flora Sapio, The Genesis of Articles 6 – 12. Pages 293-298 14-2_Pt_F_1_Article6-12_Genesis_FINAL_Sapio
Larry Catá Backer, Articles 11 (International Cooperation) and 12 (Consistency with International Law) With a Nod to Article 16 (Dispute Resolution): Technical Provisions With Normative Punch. Pages 299-304 14-2_Pt_F_2_Cooperation_etc_FINAL_Backer
Larry Catá Backer, The Devil is in the Implementation: Article 14 as a Mirror Reflecting the Strength of Vision and Challenges of Realization of the Draft LBI. Pages 305-310 14-2_Pt_F_3_Imlementation__Mirror_Backer
G. From Commentary to Redrafting; Implications and Insights
CPE-Treaty Project Working Group (Larry Catá Backer and Flora Sapio), Going Forward and Looking Back; On the Focus and Utility of this Commentary. Pages 313-316 14-2_Pt_G_1_Executive-summary_FINAL
Flora Sapio, What Changed from the Zero Draft–A Side by Side Comparison. Pages 317-351 14-2_Pt_G_2_Appendix_Comparison_FINAL_Sapio