Public Law Studies Quarterly

Obstacles and capacities in the European Union regarding the establishment of direct human rights obligations for transnational corporations

Authors

Seyed Ghasem Zamani 1
Nasim Rahmannasab Amiri 2

1 Associate Professor, Faculty of Law and Political Science, Allame Tabatabai University, Tehran, Iran

2 PhD Student of Public International Law, Faculty of law and Political Science, Allame Tabatabai University, Tehran, Iran

https://doi.org/10.22059/jplsq.2016.57463
Abstract
The recent increased role and capacities of transnational corporations on the one hand, and the lack of accountability towards human rights violation on the part of the mentioned corporations on the other, have provoked serious human rights concerns among human rights defenders. The unsuccessful experience of national legal systems, particularly those of developing states, to prevent human rights violations inflicted by such powerful entities is the main reason for raising the discussion on creating and imposing direct human rights obligations upon transnational corporations within both International Law and regional legal systems. The unique characteristics of the European Union i.e. The ability to enact and impose direct human rights and obligations for transnational corporations as well as its absolute commitment to human rights, have made The Union one of the most prominent pioneers in this field. With the use of descriptive and analytical method of study, this paper seeks to review the existing obstacles and capacities of the European Union in order to establish direct human rights commitments upon transnational corporations.

Keywords

Accountability
direct obligations
European Union
human rights
Transnational Corporations
  1. Aduro, M.P., (1999) “Striking the Elusive Balance Between Economic Rights and Social Rights in the EU” in P. Alston et al. (eds), the EU and Human rights, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
  2. Blanpia, R., 2006, European Labour Law, the Hague and Frederick, Md., Kluwer Law International and Aspen Publishers
  3. Craig, P. and De Burca, G., (2003) EU Law, Text, Cases and Materials, Oxford, Oxford University Press
  4. De Schutter, Olivier,(2005) The Accountability of Multinationals for Human Rights Violations in European Union, in Alston, P., Non-State Actors and Human Rights, Oxford University Press
  5. Gatto, Alexandra, (2011), Multinational Enterprises and Human Rights: Obligations under EU Law and International Law, Cheltenham, Edward Elgar
  6. Kamminga, M.T., Holding Multinational Corporations Accountable for Human Rights Abuses: a Challenge for EC, in P. Alston et al. (eds), the EU and Human rights, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
  7. Korah, V., (2000) An Introductory Guide to EC Competition Law and Practices, Oxford and Portland, Hart
  8. Muchlinski, P. Multinational Enterprises and the Law, 1999, Blackwell
  9. Riedel, E. and Martin, W. (1999) “Human Rights Clauses in External Agreements of the EC”, in P. Alston et al. (eds), the EU and Human rights, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
  10. Torremans, P.,(1995) Extraterritoriality and Human Rights, in N. Neuwahl and A. Rosas (eds), the European Union and Human Rights, The Hague, M. Nijhoff
  11. Weiler J.H.H., and Fries, S.C., (1999) A Human Rights Policy for the European Community and Union: The Question of Competence, in P. Alston et al. (eds), the EU and Human rights, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Articles

  1. Charnoviz, S., (1998) The moral Exception in Trade Policy, Virginia Journal of International law, 38
  2. Eeckhout, P., (2002) The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and Federal Question, Common Market Law Review, 39, 2002
  3. Powell, S.J., (2004) The Place of Human Rights Law in World Trade Organization Rules, Florida Journal of International Law, 16
  4. Winter, J., (2004)EU Company Law on Move, Legal Issues of Economic Integration, No. 31, Issue 2, 97-114

Cases

  1. Case 26/62, (1963) Van Gend en Loos v. Nederlandse Administratie der Belastingen, ECR 3
  2. Case C-268/94, Portugal v. Council,(1996), ECR I-6177
  3. Case C-513/99, Concordia Bus Finland Oy Ab v. HelsinginKaupunki,(2002), ECR I-7213
  4. Case C-73/95, (1996) Viho Europe v. Commission, ECR I-5457
  5. Cases 6&7/73, (1974) instituto Chemioterapico Italiano Commercial Solvents Co. v. Commission, ECR 223
  6. Cases 89/85, 114/85, 166-117/85, 125-129/85, A. Ahlstrom Oskeyhtio v. Commission (Wood Pulp), (1988) ECR 5193
  7. Opinion, 2/94 (1994) ECR – I- 5267
  8. Opinion. 2/13 (2014) ECR

 

Documents

  1. Commission Communication on the Community law Applicable to Public Procurement and the Possibilities for Integrating Social Concerns Considerations into Public Procurement, COM (2001) 566 final, 15 October 2001
  2. Communication from the Commission concerning Corporate Social Responsibility: a Business Contribution to Sustainable Development COM (2002) 347 final, 2 July 2002
  3. Communication from the Commission to the Council concerning Multinational Undertakings and the Community, Bulletin of European Communities, Supplement 15/73, 8 November 1973
  4. Council Directive75/129 EEC of 17February 1975 on theApproximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies, Official Journal 48/29, 1975
  5. Council Regulations (EC) 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the Implementation of the Rules on Competition Laid Down in Article 81 and 82 of the Treaty, Official Journal L1/1, 2003
  6. Council Regulations (EC) 139/2004 of 20January 2004 on theControl of concentrations between undertaking (the EC Merger Regulation), Official Journal 24/1, 2004
  7. Council Regulations (EC) 2157/2001of 8October 2001 on theStatute for a European Company (SE), Official Journal 294/1, 2001
Public Law Studies Quarterly
Volume 46, Issue 1
Spring 2016
Pages 1-18

  • Receive Date 05 December 2015
  • Revise Date 18 May 2016
  • Accept Date 07 February 2016

Home

Journal Process Ethics

Peer Review Process

Submission

Indexing and Abstracting

Contact Us