OVERVIEW OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS

Framework
WHAT ARE HUMAN RIGHTS?

Every human being is entitled to protection of, and respect for, their fundamental rights and
freedoms. Human rights are those activities, conditions, and privileges that all human beings
deserve to enjoy, by virtue of their humanity. They include civil, political, economic, social
and cultural rights. Human rights are inherent, inalienable, interdependent, and indivisible.
This means we have these rights no matter what, the enjoyment of one right affects the
enjoyment of others, and every human right must be respected.

Based on their international commitments, governments are required to put in place the laws
and policies necessary for protection of human rights and to regulate private and public
practices that impact individuals’ enjoyment of those rights. Therefore, we think of national
governments (“States”) as the guarantors, or violators, of human rights.

Human rights treaties protect individuals from government action (or inaction) that would
threaten or harm their fundamental rights. Like national constitutions, which are covenants
between governments and their citizens, international human rights treaties are covenants
between States and the international community, whereby States agree to guarantee certain
rights to everyone within their territory or under their control. When States ratify human
rights treaties, they agree to both refrain from violating specific rights and to guarantee
enjoyment of those rights by individuals and groups within their jurisdictions.

Regional and international human rights bodies monitor States’ compliance with their human
rights commitments. These courts and oversight mechanisms also provide opportunities for
redress and accountability that may be non-existent or ineffective at the national level.

Generally, States decide whether or not to ratify human rights treaties or to accept oversight
by a monitoring body or court. The level of participation in the international human rights
framework varies among States. IJRC’s quick reference chart identifies the mechanism(s)
responsible for interpreting and applying each of the principal UN and regional human rights
treaties, their competencies, and how many States are subject to their jurisdiction.

The driving idea behind international human rights law is that – because it is States who are in
a position to violate individuals’ freedoms – respect for those freedoms may be hard to come
by without international consensus and oversight. That is, a State which does not guarantee
basic freedoms to its citizens is unlikely to punish or correct its own behavior, particularly in
the absence of international consensus as to the substance of those freedoms and a binding
commitment to the international community to respect them.
States’ human rights duties have come to include positive and negative obligations. This
means that, in limited circumstances, States may have a duty to take proactive steps to protect
individuals’ rights (rather than merely refraining from directly violating those rights),
including from non-State action. In addition, demand for protections beyond the traditional
civil and political sphere has increased the number and variety of interests which are
recognized as rights, particularly in the area of economic, social and cultural concerns. As
such, we refer to States’ duties to: respect, protect, and fulfill the enjoyment of human
rights.

While international human rights courts and monitoring bodies oversee States’
implementation of international human rights treaties, a variety of other sources are also
relevant to the determination of individuals’ rights and States’ obligations. These include the
judicial and quasi-judicial decisions of international and domestic courts on international
human rights law or its domestic equivalents; the decisions of domestic and international
courts on the related (but distinct) subject of international criminal law; and analysis and
commentary by scholars and others. Of course, a necessary component of human rights
protection is the factual research identifying the conditions which may constitute violations,
which is conducted by intergovernmental organizations, as well as by civil society.

International human rights law is dynamic and its boundaries are daily being pushed in new
directions. IJRC’s News Room can help readers keep up with developments in the law, its
interpretation, and the individuals and communities who are affected.

THE INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS FRAMEWORK

In the post-World War II period, international consensus crystallized around the need to
identify the individual rights and liberties which all governments should respect, and
to establish mechanisms for both promoting States’ adherence to their human rights
obligations and for addressing serious breaches. Thus, in the decade following the war,
national governments cooperated in the establishment of the United Nations (UN),
[1] the Organization of American States (OAS),[2] and the Council of Europe (COE),[3] each
including among its purposes the advancement of human rights.

These intergovernmental organizations then prepared non-binding declarations or

binding treaties which spelled out the specific liberties understood to be human rights,
including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,[4] American Declaration of the
Rights and Duties of Man,[5] and the European Convention for the Protection of Human
Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.[6] By the end of the 1950s, these three systems (United
Nations, Inter-American and European) had each established mechanisms for the promotion
and protection of human rights, which included the (former) UN Commission on Human
Rights, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, the (former) European
Commission of Human Rights, and the European Court of Human Rights.

In subsequent decades, each oversaw the drafting of human rights agreements on specific
topics[7] and created additional oversight mechanisms, which now include the United
Nations treaty bodies and Universal Periodic Review, the Inter-American Court of Human
Rights, and the European Committee of Social Rights.

More recently, other intergovernmental organizations have also established, or begun to

establish, regional human rights treaties and monitoring mechanisms. In Africa, the African
Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights and the African Court on Human and Peoples’
Rights monitor State compliance with the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights.
[8] The decline of the Soviet Union spurred the formation of the Organization for Security
 and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) which recognized dialogue on human rights, political
and military relations, and economic development as being equally important to sustained
peace and stability across Europe and the (former) Soviet States.[9] In Southeast Asia, the
Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) has recently created the ASEAN
Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights,[10] and the League of Arab States in 2009
created the Arab Human Rights Committee.[11]

In addition, the UN, Inter-American, and African systems appoint individual experts to
monitor human rights conditions in a range of priority areas, such as arbitrary detention and
discrimination. These experts are often called rapporteurs, and they carry out their work by
receiving information from civil society, visiting countries, and reporting on human rights
conditions and the ways in which they violate or comply with international norms.
The Council of Europe’s Commissioner for Human Rights fulfills a similar role, although his
mandate is not issue-specific.[12] The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights supports
and coordinates the UN’s human rights activities, in addition to independently addressing
issues of concern through country visits, dialogue with stakeholders, and public statements,
much as rapporteurs do.[13]

HUMAN RIGHTS BODIES’ FUNCTIONS

One can think of the different mechanisms for the protection of human rights as overlapping
umbrellas of distinct sizes, positioned around the globe. The different umbrellas are made up
of the courts and monitoring bodies of the following universal and regional human rights
systems:

 United Nations
 UN Human Rights Council
 human rights treaty bodies
 independent experts known as “special procedures“
 Universal Periodic Review
 Africa

 African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights

 African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights

 the Americas

 Inter-American Court of Human Rights

 Inter-American Commission on Human Rights

 Europe

 European Court of Human Rights

 European Committee of Social Rights
 Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights

 the Middle East & North Africa

 Arab Human Rights Committee

 Southeast Asia

 ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights

These human rights bodies each have different functions and jurisdiction, as shown in the
below diagram and explanatory chart of human rights mechanisms’ competencies. In
general, these mechanisms’ responsibilities may include: deciding complaints against States,
engaging in independent monitoring through country visits and reporting, and reviewing
States’ reports on their own compliance with human rights standards.

In addition, other intergovernmental or political bodies engage in standard-setting, inter-State

dialogue, monitoring, or promotion of human rights; such bodies include the UN Human
Rights Council, ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights, and the
Commission on the Status of Women.

Other International Courts & Monitoring Bodies

In addition, a variety of other international bodies outside of what is traditionally referred to

as the “international human rights framework” also play a role in addressing human rights
violations.

For example, States may bring complaints against other States before the International Court
of Justice, which from time to time decides cases involving individuals’ human rights from
the standpoint of one State’s allegation that another violated the terms of an international
agreement (such as by not affording its nationals access to consular representatives when they
were detained in the second State). The International Labour Organization (ILO) also
oversees States’ compliance with international labor standards, including by receiving inter-
State complaints concerning alleged violations of ILO conventions.

Further, individuals (as opposed to States) may be criminally prosecuted for violations
of international humanitarian law or international criminal law or of jus cogens norms of
international law, or may be sued civilly under domestic law. The International Criminal
Court, International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, International Criminal Tribunal for the
former Yugoslavia, and a number of internationalized criminal tribunals undertake such
prosecutions.

A number of regional courts created through economic integration or development

agreements have jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes related to human rights. These courts and
tribunals of regional economic communities operate in subregions of Africa, the Americas,
and Europe.

Finally, national, or “domestic,” bodies also play an important role in implementing and
enforcing international human rights standards, including through national human rights
institutions (NHRIs), domestic civil and criminal legal proceedings, the exercise of universal
jurisdiction, and truth and reconciliation commissions.

CROSS-FERTILIZATION & COMPETING JURISDICTION

These overlapping umbrellas sometimes mean that a particular State will participate in, and
report to, several supranational human rights bodies. For example, in the Western
Hemisphere, all 35 independent countries are members of the Organization of American
States and, as such, have signed the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man,
under which complaints can be brought against them before the Inter-American Commission
on Human Rights. In addition, each of these countries may or may not have ratified one or
more of the core UN human rights treaties overseen by a treaty body – such as the Committee
Against Torture – that accepts individual complaints. Additionally, each State may have
agreed to bring inter-State disputes arising under a specific treaty, such as the Vienna
Convention on Consular Relations, to the International Court of Justice. Further, any of these
States may also be a party to the Rome Statute, meaning it is obligated to cooperate with the
International Criminal Court in the prosecution of individuals suspected of committing
genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes or (in the future) aggression.

Although each of the various human rights bodies operates independently from the others,
under a specific mandate and within the scope of its particular treaties, the provisions of the
regional and universal human rights treaties are often highly similar. As such, each tribunal
often looks to the jurisprudence of the others when deciding novel or delicate questions.
Tribunals also look to other bodies’ interpretations when another treaty exists (typically a
universal treaty) that is more specific or germane to the topic at hand, such as when tribunals
look to the International Labour Organization conventions in interpreting the scope of labor
rights.

However, this does not mean that the various tribunals have reached consistent conclusions
on similar matters. Neither does it mean that the jurisprudence of each body is as developed
as the rest. Some tribunals have decades’ more experience than others; some, such as the
European Court of Human Rights, are so well-known in their regions that they are inundated
with claims, while others receive only a handful per year.

Further, the fact that various systems exist does not mean that an individual complainant will
be able to obtain redress before any or all of them. Indeed, most judicial and quasi-judicial
human rights bodies will only examine an individual complaint if it has not been previously
determined by another international body. Finally, each body’s jurisdiction is subject to
distinct geographical, temporal and substantive limitations.

Accordingly, the layers of protection vary from State to State, depending on the existence of a
regional human rights system and each State’s ratification of regional and universal
instruments. Use of one system over another will depend not only on State membership, but
also on which body has produced more favorable caselaw, the reparations and other outcomes
available at each, and practical considerations such as case processing time and backlogs.
 United Nations Guiding Principles on Business
and Human Rights

The United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs) is an
instrument consisting of 31 principles implementing the United Nations' (UN) "Protect,
Respect and Remedy" framework on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations
and other business enterprises. Developed by the Special Representative of the Secretary-
General (SRSG) John Ruggie, these Guiding Principles provided the first global standard for
preventing and addressing the risk of adverse impacts on human rights linked to business
activity, and continue to provide the internationally accepted framework for enhancing
standards and practice regarding business and human rights. On June 16, 2011, the United
Nations Human Rights Council unanimously endorsed the Guiding Principles for Business
and Human Rights, making the framework the first corporate human rights responsibility
initiative to be endorsed by the UN.[1]

The UNGPs encompass three pillars outlining how states and businesses should implement
the framework:

 The state duty to protect human rights

 The corporate responsibility to respect human rights
 Access to remedy for victims of business-related abuses

The UNGPs have received wide support from states, civil society organizations, and even the
private sector, this has further solidified their status as the key global foundation for business
and human rights.[2] The UNGP are informally known as the "Ruggie Principles" or the
"Ruggie Framework" due to their authorship by Ruggie, who conceived them and led the
process for their consultation and implementation.

History

The UNGPs came as a result of several decades of UN efforts to create global human rights
standards for businesses. In the early 1970s, the United Nations Economic and Social
Council requested that the Secretary General create a commission group to study the impact
of transnational corporations (TNCs) on development processes and international relations.
The UN created the Commission on Transnational Corporations in 1973, with the goal of
formulating a corporate code of conduct for TNCs. The Commission’s work continued into
the early 1990s, but the group was ultimately unable to ratify an agreeable code due to various
disagreements between developed and developing countries.[1] The group was dissolved in
1994. The debate concerning the responsibilities of business in relation to human rights
became prominent in the 1990s, as oil, gas, and mining companies expanded into increasingly
difficult areas, and as the practice of off-shore production in clothing and footwear drew
attention to poor working conditions in global supply chains.[3] Flowing from these concerns
two major initiatives were created.

In August 1998, the UN Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human

Rights established a Working Group on Transnational Corporations. The Working Group
similarly attempted to create standards for corporations’ human rights obligations. By 2003
they completed the final draft of the "Norms on the Responsibilities of Transnational
Corporations and Other Business Enterprises with Regard to Human Rights" (the Norms).
[4] While the Norms received support from some NGO’s, such as the Europe-Third World
Centre (CETIM) or Amnesty International, the document encountered significant opposition
from the business sector, and the Commission on Human Rights ultimately determined in
2004 that the framework had no legal standing.[5]

In 2005, in an attempt to overcome the divisive debate regarding the human rights
responsibilities of businesses, the Human Rights Commission requested the appointment of a
special representative of the Secretary-General (SRSG) on the issue of human rights and
TNCs.[6] In July 2005, Harvard professor John Ruggie was appointed to this position for an
initial two-year period which was then extended for an additional year. In 2008, on
completion of his first three-year mandate, Ruggie presented the United Nations Human
Rights Council with the "Protect, Respect and Remedy" framework as a conceptual way to
anchor the debate. This framework outlined the State duty to protect against business related
human rights abuse, the responsibility of companies to respect human rights, and the need to
strengthen access to appropriate and effective remedies for victims of business-related human
rights abuse. The Human Rights Council welcomed Ruggie’s report and extended his
mandate until 2011 with the task of "operationalising" and "promoting" the framework.
[7] The Human Rights Council asked Ruggie to provide concrete recommendations on how
the state could prevent abuses by the private sector, to elaborate on the scope of corporate
responsibility, and to explore options for effective remedies available to those whose human
rights are impacted by corporate activities.[8]

Over the next three years, Ruggie held extensive consultations with stakeholder groups
including governments, businesses, and NGOs. Ruggie intended to create "an authoritative
focal point around which actors' expectations could converge—a framework that clarified the
relevant actors' responsibilities, and provided the foundation which thinking and action could
build over time".[3] Ruggie's work resulted in the UN Guiding Principles on Business and
Human Rights, which he presented to the Human Rights Council in June 2011. Ruggie stated,

The Guiding Principles' normative contribution lies not in the creation of new
international law obligations but in elaborating the implications of existing
standards and practices for states and businesses; integrating them within a
single, logically coherent and comprehensive template; and identifying where
the current regime falls short and how it could be improved.[9]
The Human Rights Council unanimously endorsed the Guiding Principles, thereby creating
the first global standard on this topic.[5]

In June 2011, the Human Rights Council adopted Resolution 17/4, it acknowledged the
formal end of the mandate of Ruggie as the SRSG on Human Rights and TNCs and Other
Enterprises, and unanimously endorsed the Guiding Principles making them the authoritative
global reference point on business and human rights.[7]

Additionally, the Council established a working group to focus on the global dissemination
and implementation of the Guiding Principles. OHCHR provides ongoing support and advice
to the Working Group, which consists of five independent experts, of balanced regional
representation, for a three-year period. Current Working Group Members are: Mr. Surya Deva
(Chair from 1 July 2021) (India), since 2016; Ms. Elżbieta Karska (Vice-chair from 1 July
2021) (Poland), since 2018; Mr. Dante Pesce; (Chile), since 2015; Mr. Githu Muigai (Kenya),
since 2018; and Ms. Anita Ramasastry (USA), since 2016. The first Forum on Business and
Human Rights took place on December 4–5, 2012, in Geneva, Switzerland.[10]

The three pillars[11]edit

State duty to protect human rightsedit

The first pillar of the Guiding Principles is the state’s duty to protect against human rights
abuses through regulation, policymaking, investigation, and enforcement. This pillar reaffirms
states’ existing obligations under international human rights law, as put forth in the
1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights.[5]

Issues in Conflict-affected areasedit

An area which has been the subject of much scrutiny under the first pillar is in regards to
support business respect of human rights in conflict-affected areas under guiding principle 7.
The first apparent issue with this principle is the interpretation of the term "conflict-affected
areas". This terminology was employed by the SRSG to reflect the intention to expand the
principles coverage beyond definitions of armed conflict in international humanitarian law.
When defining the application of principle 7, consideration must be given to the flexible
definition boundaries that the UNGP, as a soft law instrument, employs and also guidance
based nature of the principle.[12] Where the issue with interpretation of principle 7 arises is to
what types of conflict are to be left out of the principle.

Another area of uncertainty which exists is in the relation between 'gross abuses' and 'conflict-
affected areas' which impact directly on the applicability of principle 7 to serious violations
within conflict zones that require home states action to influence companies operating within
the area. Gross violations of human rights occurs both in conflict areas, and areas absent of a
conflict, such as in repressive States and dictatorships. The question recognised here is
whether principle 7 applies to gross abuses in non conflict-affected areas. Additionally, does
principle 7 have equal application across democratic, authoritarian, and oppressive States
where gross abuses that have arisen in conflicts or is the principles application dependent on
the State losing control over its territory.[12]

Corporate responsibility to respectedit

Businesses must act with due diligence to avoid infringing on the rights of others and to
address any negative impacts. The UNGPs hold that companies have the power to affect
virtually all of the internationally recognized rights. Therefore, there is a responsibility of
both the state and the private sector to acknowledge their role in upholding and protecting
human rights. In conducting due diligence, the UNGP encourage companies to conduct
a Human Rights Impact Assessment through which they assess their actual and potential
human rights impacts.[2]

Access to remedy if these rights are not respectededit

The third pillar addresses both the state's responsibility to provide access to remedy through
judicial, administrative, and legislative means, and the corporate responsibility to prevent and
remediate any infringement of rights that they contribute to. Having effective grievance
mechanisms in place is crucial in upholding the state's duty to protect and the corporate
responsibility to respect. The UNGPs dictate that non-judicial mechanisms, whether state-
based or independent, should be legitimate, accessible, predictable, rights-compatible,
equitable, and transparent. Similarly, Company-level mechanisms are encouraged to operate
through dialogue and engagement, rather than with the company acting as the adjudicator of
its own actions.[3]
Issues with access to home state remediesedit
An issue raised with the third pillar of the Guiding Principles is the challenge of providing
effective remedies for victims, particularly with judicial remedy to victims of transnational
corporations that operate in more than one state. Ruggie notes that the Guiding Principles are
more effective at identifying inadequate access to judicial remedy than fixing it. He conveys
that where the guiding principles fall short is that they set out to identify obstacles and
encourage States to overcome them, but fail to ensure it occurs in practice. The Guiding
Principles failed to recognise the power imbalance in terms of resources and information
between victims of corporate abuse and the businesses themselves. Another issue relates to
the Commentary to Guiding Principle 2 which provides that home states "are permitted" to
take measures ensuring access to remedies. This language has been heavily criticised for
being timid and unambiguous where victims of abuse by multinational corporations routinely
face insurmountable obstacles to remedy in the host state and have no other place to turn for
help. Here the Guiding Principles have failed to specifically provide clear guidance on how to
navigate the procedural and substantive barriers to home state remedies and failed to elaborate
on 'governance gaps' to assist home states to implement mechanisms ensuring their
corporations do not violate human rights abroad. Additionally, commentators have also raised
concerns regarding the over-emphasis on non-judicial mechanisms and voluntary mechanisms
which do not guarantee victims sufficient protection against business-related human rights
abuses. What is suggested is that the Guiding Principles should have established
comprehensive remedies that are legally binding and consistent with human rights obligations
of states and businesses both in the host state and home state. Effective local capacity is the
preferred option to guarantee general access to civil judicial remedies in the long run.

Response and implementationedit

The UNGPs have enjoyed widespread uptake and support from both the public and private
sectors, and several companies have publicly stated their support. For example, the Coca-Cola
Company "strongly endorsed" the UNGPs, calling them "a foundation and flexible framework
for companies like ours", and General Electric wrote that the UNGPs "helped to clarify the
distinct interrelated roles and responsibilities of states and business entities in this area" and
that they would "no doubt serve as a lasting beacon for businesses entities seeking (to) grow
their service and product offerings while respecting human rights". The UNGPs have also
faced criticism, particularly from human rights NGOs such as Human Rights Watch, who
argue that the lack of an enforcement mechanism, "they cannot actually require companies to
do anything at all. Companies can reject the principles altogether without consequence—or
publicly embrace them while doing absolutely nothing to put them into practice."[20]

The UNGPs have generated lessons for international law, particularly concerning the role
of non-State actors in international law and also the evolving significance of soft
law sources. The success of the UNGPs may be attributed to the role played by non-State
actors, especially in this context, the lobbying of the business community. What the influence
of the UNGPs stands to illustrate is that the development of international law norms such as
those concerning diplomacy and international organisations will continue to draw on
contributions of State actors. However, the development in areas such as international
economic law and international environmental law which directly impact non-State actors,
may require a different approach from the traditional State-centred process and draw on the
observations and inputs of non-state actors if effective laws are to be created in these areas.

A legally-binding instrumentedit
Despite the support from the public and private sectors, some stakeholders questioned
whether the UNGPs set a sufficiently high standard for businesses, arguing that the private
sector should have an "obligation" to realise rights, rather than simply a "responsibility".
Others argued that the UNGPs needed an overarching accountability mechanism that could
make the framework legally enforceable. Supporters, however, defend the UNGPs for
creating far more consensus than any previous attempt at creating a global business-human
rights standard.

The debate about the sufficiency of a voluntary soft-law approach that underlie the Guiding
Principles, however, reopened in September 2013 when Ecuador, backed by 84 governments
proposed a binding legal instrument for TNC operations in order "to provide appropriate
protection, justice and remedy to the victims of human rights abuses directly resulting from or
related to the activities of some transnational corporations and other business enterprises."
The call was backed by more than 530 civil society organisations (CSOs)and in June 2014
was backed by a majority of the UN Human Rights Council which agreed to establish an
open-ended intergovernmental working group mandated to draft a binding instrument.

Scopeedit
An issue raised by Ruggie with regards to the introduction of a legally binding international
business and human rights treaty is determining the scope and scale of such an instrument.
One view is that a treaty would be more effective than the UNGPs in specific areas of
business and human rights. For example, a treaty could explicitly refer to the rights of
Indigenous peoples or recognise labour rights beyond those established in the UNGPs.
Conversely, Ruggie has long illustrated his strong objection to any attempt to shoehorning the
entire complex of business and human rights issues into a single, overarching international
legal instrument.[13] His explanation is that business and human rights involves a wide range
of diverse problems, legal and institutional variations, as well as conflicting interest between
and within States. Furthermore, a general business and human rights treaty would have to be
constructed at such a high level of abstraction that any practical applicability would be
diminished. In this sense, the UNGPs are more favourable because being a "soft law"
instrument has allow them be comprehensive and more appealing to Governments.

Relationship with Guiding Principlesedit

The prospect of a legally-binding treaty raises questions as to the potential for tension
between the proposed binding instrument and the UNGPs and ensuring the treaty-making
process does not undermine the progress made under UNGPs. Sceptics of a comprehensive
binding treaty stressed the need to recognise the risk associated with a bad treaty that would
create issues from a civil society perspective such as having principles that may be widely
agreed upon by states, but lack clarity in what they require in practice. Conversely, others
have conveyed that a binding instrument in conjunction with other initiatives, such as the
UNGPs, would further developing international law in this area as it would complement
existing instruments. This perspective depicts a proposed treaty to be just one aspect within a
developing comprehensive system aimed at regulating business and human rights.

Enforcementedit
Another fundamental issue which has been raised is how such a treaty would be enforced,
seeing as inadequate enforcement is highlighted as the main shortcoming of the UNGPs.
Ruggie, in his contemplation questions whether a realistic prospect would be to establish an
international court for corporations or whether such a treaty could be enforced by states. In
his analysis, Ruggie sided with the former highlighting that where a State ratifies a treaty, it
already has obligations to protect individuals against human rights breaches by third parties
within their territories. So to add any new value, treaty enforcement provisions would have to
involve extraterritorial jurisdiction which, despite being supported by some UN human rights
treaty bodies, is conveyed by the conduct of states to be an unacceptable means to address
violations of human rights. States that have not ratified a core UN or ILO human rights
instrument are very unlikely to support or enforce a treaty imposing obligations on the
overseas operations of their MNCs.[29]