There is some disagreement among legal practitioners and scholars about whether corporations have duties under international law.
I argue that international law can no longer exempt corporations from liability for human rights violations, including those arising from poverty. Under certain circumstances, corporations should have duties under international law to ensure human rights are fulfilled. I argue that this is particularly true when it comes to socio-economic rights such as the rights to housing, education, food, water and healthcare.
Poverty and corporations Some estimate that as many as 1.3 billion people live in poverty – more than 10% of the world’s population, the vast majority in the global south. International law In 2005, Professor John Ruggie was appointed as the United Nations secretary-general’s special representative on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises. He developed the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. This framework adopts the position that only states are subjects and have duties under international human rights law.
In practice, however, this is not the case. Many states, particularly those in the developing world with high levels of poverty, rely on foreign investment. This creates a power imbalance when negotiating with large multinational corporations. Multinationals are able to demand favourable investment conditions, including relaxing laws that might protect human rights.
Next steps Not all corporations should have the same duties as states. I propose a set of factors that would determine when a corporation might have a duty under international human rights law to fulfil socio-economic rights. These factors are: