기업과 인권이슈에 대한 국제사회의 대응: 유엔 기업인권규범 및 기업인권 이행지침의 재평가 (International Approach to the Business and Human Rights Issues: for the balanced evaluation of the UN Norms and the Guiding Principles)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 법과사회이론학회
· 수록지 정보 : 법과사회 / 44호 / 99 ~ 126페이지
· 저자명 : 이상수

초록

In 2011 UN Human Rights Council adopted “Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights: Implementing the United Nations “Protect, Respect and Remedy” Framework“(the GP) submitted by UN Secretary General’s Special Representative for business and human rights, John Ruggie. Korean commentators, agreeing with some international NGOs and foreign scholars, seem too critical on this text. This paper argues that such a harsh criticism is hardly justifiable and will only lead to discarding the GP’s potential for the promotion of human rights in relation with business, especially with transnational enterprises(TNCs).
This article begins with analysing “Norms on the Responsibility of Transnational Corporation and other Business Enterprises with regard to Human Rights”(the Norms), adopted by Sub-Commission on Promotion and Protection of Human in 2003 but rejected by Human Rights Commission the next year, for most critics on the GP tend to support the legally-orientated Norms and, on the same ground, criticized that the GP is simply too week or regressive in comparison with the Norms.
This article, however, argues that the rejection of the Norms is not just the result of political considerations but also of the theoretical defects in it. Pursuing revolutionary aspiration, the Norm tried to impose international human rights law obligation on the TNCs without referring to states, but without corresponding theoretical justification. In addition the Norms unrealistically expected TNCs and NGOs to take public role similar to those of state, end-running state’s power in regulating business corporations.
The GP took more realistic approach. First of all the GP made clear that international human rights laws do not directly apply to the business entities, and then, based on the conclusion, produced alternative approach to the business and human rights issues. The GP acknowledged the difference between the nature of state and that of business entity and allocated different roles respectively ― state duty to protect human rights and corporate responsibility to respect human rights ―, additionally emphasizing access of human rights victim’s to remedy.
The GP’s proposal to the business and human rights gained huge support from various stakeholders including international organizations, states, business groups, academics and civil societies. the GP’s success was not because it showed the infeasibility of the Norms but because the offered alternative was persuasive enough for most stakeholders to use it as a common ground for the promotion of human rights in relation with business entities including TNCs.
Ever since the GP has been adopted, its influence grows exponentially, with most important international actors, including UN, EU, OECD, ISO, ILO, IFC etc, in search for the ways to implement the GP. We, Koreans, had better start to find way to take advantage of the achievement and influence of the GP, rather than keep criticizing it or leaving it aside.

영어초록

In 2011 UN Human Rights Council adopted “Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights: Implementing the United Nations “Protect, Respect and Remedy” Framework“(the GP) submitted by UN Secretary General’s Special Representative for business and human rights, John Ruggie. Korean commentators, agreeing with some international NGOs and foreign scholars, seem too critical on this text. This paper argues that such a harsh criticism is hardly justifiable and will only lead to discarding the GP’s potential for the promotion of human rights in relation with business, especially with transnational enterprises(TNCs).
This article begins with analysing “Norms on the Responsibility of Transnational Corporation and other Business Enterprises with regard to Human Rights”(the Norms), adopted by Sub-Commission on Promotion and Protection of Human in 2003 but rejected by Human Rights Commission the next year, for most critics on the GP tend to support the legally-orientated Norms and, on the same ground, criticized that the GP is simply too week or regressive in comparison with the Norms.
This article, however, argues that the rejection of the Norms is not just the result of political considerations but also of the theoretical defects in it. Pursuing revolutionary aspiration, the Norm tried to impose international human rights law obligation on the TNCs without referring to states, but without corresponding theoretical justification. In addition the Norms unrealistically expected TNCs and NGOs to take public role similar to those of state, end-running state’s power in regulating business corporations.
The GP took more realistic approach. First of all the GP made clear that international human rights laws do not directly apply to the business entities, and then, based on the conclusion, produced alternative approach to the business and human rights issues. The GP acknowledged the difference between the nature of state and that of business entity and allocated different roles respectively ― state duty to protect human rights and corporate responsibility to respect human rights ―, additionally emphasizing access of human rights victim’s to remedy.
The GP’s proposal to the business and human rights gained huge support from various stakeholders including international organizations, states, business groups, academics and civil societies. the GP’s success was not because it showed the infeasibility of the Norms but because the offered alternative was persuasive enough for most stakeholders to use it as a common ground for the promotion of human rights in relation with business entities including TNCs.
Ever since the GP has been adopted, its influence grows exponentially, with most important international actors, including UN, EU, OECD, ISO, ILO, IFC etc, in search for the ways to implement the GP. We, Koreans, had better start to find way to take advantage of the achievement and influence of the GP, rather than keep criticizing it or leaving it aside.

참고자료

· 없음