10th UN Forum on business and human rights

A RECORDING OF THIS SESSION IS AVAILABLE HERE.

Interpretation in English, French and Spanish will be available

Brief description of the session:
Commentary to Principle 26 of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights acknowledges: “Effective judicial mechanisms are at the core of ensuring access to remedy.” Despite continuing barriers to access to remedy for corporate human rights abuses, lawyers, activists and civil society organisations in recent years have successfully pursued cases against corporations in both common law and civil law jurisdictions. What lessons could various stakeholders such as States, corporations, victims, lawyers and civil society organisations (CSOs) learn from these corporate human rights litigation cases? By analysing selected cases from different jurisdictions, this session will try to distil some broad lessons not only for access to remedy and corporate accountability but also for policy makers as well as lawyers and consultants advising corporations. The term “human rights litigation” is used in a broad sense to capture any judicial proceedings aimed at seeking redress for breach of human rights, labour rights and environmental rights.

Key objectives:
The session aims to:

• Assess positive access to remedy outcomes from corporate human rights litigation in recent years;
• Showcases innovative strategies and tools used by lawyers to overcome various obstacles to access to remedy;
• Discuss how human rights litigation against corporations is influencing their behaviour, including in relation to human rights due diligence; and
• Examine the potential effect of mandatory human rights due diligence laws on litigation against corporations. 

Key questions:

• Did these cases result in effective remedy (not merely access to remedy) to the victims of corporate human rights abuses? Any advice for lawyers or CSOs contemplating future litigation as to what works and what does not?   
• How were various procedural, substantive and practical obstacles overcome in these cases? Was the process efficient in terms of cost and time involved?
• Are confidential settlements problematic for corporate accountability purposes (e.g., private settlement of public wrongs)? If so, how could there be more transparency about remedial outcomes?
• Will litigation against corporations discourage them from making public disclosure as part of human rights due diligence or otherwise? How will mandatory human rights due diligence laws change this situation?      
• Any evidence of these cases brining in a systemic change as to how corporations operate and conduct human rights due diligence?

Backgroung documents:

• UN Working Group’s report on “access to effective remedies under the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights”
• OHCHR’s report on “improving accountability and access to remedy for victims of business-related human rights abuse”