(Access Poster HERE: Sapio-Backer_Snapshot_BHRFrum2017)
Concept and Objective:
The conventional palette of remedial mechanisms available through or created from the UN Guiding Principles tends to be quite limited. This is not surprising given the organizing principles within which much of the discussion of remedy is undertaken. These include (1) the principle of a hierarchy of legitimacy that starts (and sometimes ends) with the judicial organs of states, (2( the principle of apex enterprise responsibility through which governance responsibility is devolved in and within apex corporations in global supply chains; (3) the principle that states are sources of law but that state sovereign immunity teds to reduce the culpability of states for human rights wrongs; and (4) the principle that legal norms ought to supersede social norms in determining the extent and character of remedy for individuals who are harmed by the human rights wrongs of states and enterprises. rough. The proposed session has the goal to explore the way that remedial mechanisms might be effectively deployed with real effect for local populations (rather than for their global defenders or the states whose judicial systems are invoked and through the invocation legitimated) in ways that augment the local control and character of remedial structures to those most affected thereby.
The development of accessible and effective grievance mechanisms ought not to be driven by an abstract design. It should be based on a solid knowledge of those mechanisms as they already exist across and within domestic contexts. They are built by aligning the interests, cultures and practices of multiple stakeholders within the domestic context of the place where vulnerable populations live and engage in interactions with those with duties and responsibilities to avoid human rights abuses.
With these parameters in mind, our proposed session will aim to highlight a number of mechanisms that can be deployed on the ground by local populations to produce movement toward effective remedial responses that may be most relevant to them. To that end, a combination of short presentations, case studies and problems will be used to produce a session that both disseminates and produces knowledge among the members of the business community and governments, scholars, lawyers, and NGOs that are the objects of this session.
Key discussion questions of proposed session:
Through a multi-stakeholder dialogue, we will address the following questions:
(1) How the global language of the Third Pillar can be transposed to Marxist-Leninist contexts, and their transnational supply chains.
Case studies: SOEs and human rights due diligence in Chinese enterprises operating in Africa
(2) How Big Data technologies and initiatives can be used as a grievance mechanism.
Considering the use of social credit systems to create enterprise CSR credit systems
(3) How grievance and monitoring mechanisms originating from within Marxist-Leninist systems can be embedded in supply chains.
Scenarios: (1) Working through the local Communist Party organs of enterprises; (2) empowering local labor council’s to serve as the focal point for mediating grievances and remedies.
(4) How state organs can contribute to the creation of transnational grievance mechanisms through the regulation of specific sectors
Chinese state approaches to CSR guidelines
Each one of these question is a corollary to the overarching problem of how to adopt innovative approaches to improving the operational standards of global supply chains. While supply chains may disregard more conventional remedial mechanisms and solutions, the mechanisms and practices our panel will explore are already constraining the operation of MNCs and their supply chains. Thus, they can be the point of departure to develop remedies which are seen as coherent with established practices, and thus more easily complied with by concerned stakeholders.
Team
Larry Catá Backer (USA)
Flora Sapio (Italy)
William Nees (Hong Kong)
Lara Bianchi (UK)
Shaoming Zhu (China)
Dr Javed Siddiqui (UK)
Explanatory Note
The broader question of how existing grievance mechanisms can be embedded within supply chains is of crucial importance to the orientation of the 2017 United Nations Forum on Business and Human Rights. The proposed panel’s focus on ‘hybrid’ institutions and mechanisms – which cross the divide between judicial, administrative, and legislative means – not only addresses Guiding Principles 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 and 31 in their entirety.
By focusing on mechanisms that this far scholars have neglected, our discussion will contribute an approach and a perspective much closer to the views of those who, in practice, are already attempting to use those mechanisms to have their grievances heard and redressed. The mechanisms we will concretely focus on are typical of regional systems. They combine aspects drawn from civil, criminal, and administrative law. This inherent feature bears the promise not only of their potential effectiveness, but also of their transnationalization, and adaptation to global supply chains.
Such an endeavor, however, needs a more careful consideration of their potential.
In designing the proposed project attention was paid to obtaining an adequate representation of persons belonging to different genders, who were born in countries (or areas thereof) which differ in respect to income levels, language, culture, traditions, ethnicity, religion, political systems etc. Finally, our session involves panelists who are members of different stakeholder groups, in some cases enjoying membership in more than one such groups.
The project is premised on interaction between the audience, which will contribute their views as to each one of the questions presented for discussion. Our choice of themes which span across the divide between states and MNCs, legal, quasi-legal, non-legal and extra-legal mechanisms will attract a variety of stakeholders from diverse domains. They will in turn drive the discussion, thus becoming active participants in a respectful and cooperative dialogue around the important theme of Access to Remedies. Our choice to adopt this method rests upon the consideration that the role of FLIA and the CPE, as organizers of the proposed panel discussion, should be limited to facilitating and enabling a dialogue which takes into appropriate considerations differences in opinions, values, and goals among all participating stakeholders. Our taking into consideration such a diversity of points of view does not mean the panel will elude contested topics, dismiss views other than those held by any “mainstream”, or avoiding meaningful inputs. Rather, we will create a safe space where all stakeholders will enjoy a meaningful opportunity to cooperate with a view to meet common challenges.
Other relevant information for your statement of interest and session proposal (refer to the Forum web page and list of criteria for session proposals):
In preparing this submission, the sponsoring organizations were sensitive to the focus of the 2017 Forum. The sponsoring organizations were particularly sensitive to the Working Group’s emphasis on remedial mechanisms downstream in supply chains. More importantly, we were sensitive to the need to focus attention on China and Chinese approaches to state duty and corporate responsibility. China tends to be at the margins of discussion, and all the more so with respect to remedial mechanisms. China requires attention in this respect but also offers substantial possibilities for effective remedial approaches beyond traditional judicial mechanisms. This issue becomes more important as Chinese apex multinationals begin to operate production chains that reach into developing states in Africa and Latin America. To that end the focus is on non-state mechanisms, and on innovative ideas for remedial mechanisms for non-Western production chains.
Contact Person:
Larry Catá Backer
Flora Sapio
Contact Details:
Larry Catá Backer: lcb911@me.com; +1 717 385 5249
Flora Sapio: sapio75@gmail.com