Reconstructing the global human rights order in pursuit of a binding business human rights treaty in the era of decolonisation

Abstract

The current global human rights order, eminently propagated in international legal instruments and statements, is to a great extent state-centric in character, bestowing obligations on states, whilst largely ignoring the conduct of non-state actors in the form of transnational corporations (TNCs) and trade governance institutions whose record of human rights adherence is scarcely convincing. This inability to aptly govern the conduct of transnational entities, even when it is evident that their power now eclipses that of states, raises the concern that the extant human rights regime is a neoliberal construct advancing market fundamentalism and widening the economic disparities between developed and developing countries. This article unsettles the doctrinal foundations underlying state
centrism in international human rights law, arguing that such a version of human rights is exposing developing countries to neoliberal oligarchs, and market deficiencies, which if not reformed, may entrench underdevelopment. It calls for a decolonised human rights regime which impose human rights obligations on the conduct of transnational entities in pursuit of human dignity, equality and freedom.

Full text

Reconstructing the global human rights order in pursuit of a binding
business human rights treaty in the era of decolonisation
Lecturer Shelton T. MOTA MAKORE1
Professor Patrick C. OSODE2
Lecturer Nombulelo LUBISI 3
Abstract
The current global human rights order, eminently propagated in international legal
instruments and statements, is to a great extent state-centric in character, bestowing
obligations on states, whilst largely ignoring the conduct of non-state actors in the form of
transnational corporations (TNCs) and trade governance institutions whose record of human
rights adherence is scarcely convincing. This inability to aptly govern the conduct of
transnational entities, even when it is evident that their power now eclipses that of states,
raises the concern that the extant human rights regime is a neoliberal construct advancing
market fundamentalism and widening the economic disparities between developed and
developing countries. This article unsettles the doctrinal foundations underlying state
centrism in international human rights law, arguing that such a version of human rights is
exposing developing countries to neoliberal oligarchs, and market deficiencies, which if not
reformed, may entrench underdevelopment. It calls for a decolonised human rights regime
which impose human rights obligations on the conduct of transnational entities in pursuit of
human dignity, equality and freedom.
Keywords: State-centrism, decolonisation, human rights regime, inequality,
neoliberalism, historiography.
JEL Classification: K33, K38
DOI: 10.24818/TBJ/2022/12/1.08
1. Introduction
Recent scholarship has shown a bourgeoning interest in employing the
decolonisation paradigm as an antidote for addressing the shortcomings of the
current international human rights regime.4 Decolonisation as a theoretical construct
1 Shelton T. Mota Makore – LLB, LLM, LLD., lecturer and postdoctoral fellow, Faculty of Law,
University of Fort Hare, East London, South Africa, smotamakore@ufh.ac.za.
2 Patrick C. Osode – LLB, BL, LLM, SJD., professor, Faculty of Law, University of Fort Hare, East
London, South Africa, posode@ufh.ac.za.
3 Nombulelo Lubisi – B Juris, LLB, LLM, LLD., senior lecturer, Faculty of Law, University of Fort
Hare, East London, South Africa, nlubisi@ufh.ac.za.
4 F. Hoffmann, B. Assy, ‘Decolonising Human Rights’ in J. Bernstorff and P. Dann (eds) The Battle
for International Law in the Decolonisation Era 1st ed Oxford University Press, Cape Town, 2011,
p.1; B. Fagbayibo, Some Thoughts on Centring Pan-African Epistemic in the Teaching of Public
International Law in African Universities, 21, International Community Law Review (2019) 171;
JM. Barreto, Decolonial Strategies and Dialogue in the Human Rights Field: A Manifesto, 3,

106 Juridical Tribune Volume 12, Issue 1, March 2022
has its incipient core demands embedded in third world scholarship which offers a
polemic proposition to the dominant western perspectives in the study of academic
disciplines such as the social sciences and lately, the law.5 The decolonisation of
human rights is about the crucial emancipatory role that the discourse of human
rights has and should play in the creation of material conditions necessary for the
economic, social and political flourishment of humanity.6 Its crucial element is the
adoption of the language of human rights to articulate core demands of economic
sovereignty, self-determination, equality and ultimately an egalitarian order.7
It can be strongly argued that the decolonisation of the international human
rights order is not the same as the rejection of everything about the state-centric
human rights governance based on its presupposed European orientation.8 Such a
view would be based on a misreading of the concept of decolonisation.9 Current
efforts to decolonise human rights [are] and [should] be foregrounded on Ngũgĩ wa
Thiongo’s idea of decolonisation which does not require the dismissal or the
rejection of all Eurocentric viewpoints but rather focuses on placing the marginalised
[third world socio-economic interests] at the centre of the international human rights
order.10 This localisation and re-centring of the periphery is a practical approach to
the call for decolonisation of human rights which is informed by present realities.11
The argument is that the contemporary international human rights order
widely believed to have emerged from the crucible of World War II devastation has
been stretched beyond measure, exposing its structural deficits through its lethargic
response to the ever widening economic chasm between developed and developing
countries.12 These structural deficits are evidently entrenched in the neoliberal-
driven international human rights regime, masked and exacerbated by the
international human rights “gramma” and the rise of populist authoritative
capitalism.13 Academic commentators are, therefore, exploring avenues to break
Transnational Legal Theory (2012), 3; W. Vandenhole, ‘Decolonising children’s rights: of
vernacularisation and interdisciplinarity’ in R. Budde and U. Manista, Childhood and Children’s
Rights between Research and Activism 1st ed Springer: Bern, 2020, p. 187.
5 R. Burke, Decolonisation and the Evolution of International Human Rights 1st Pennsylvania
University Press: Pennsylvania, 2011, p. 2.
6 See above n. 3.
7 See above n. 4.
8 See above n. 5.
9 See above n. 6.
10 This is a re-reading of Ngugi wa Thiongo’s version of decolonisation which focuses on centring the
Pan-African interest as a polemic thesis to the dominant Eurocentric narrative. M. Recep Taş, Ngũgĩ
wa Thiongo’s Decolonising the mind: The Politics of Language in African 1986 Literature Adli
Eserinin Sömürgecilik - Dil İlişkisi Açisindan İncelenmes, 5, International Journal of Language
Academy (2017), 190.
11 See above n. 191.
12 B. Golde, Beyond redemption? Problematising the critique of human rights in contemporary
international legal thought, 2 London Review of International Law (2014), 98; I. Wuerth,
International Law in the Post-Human Rights Era, 96, Taxas Law Review (2017), 280.
13 L. Kennedy and V. Singh, Drivers of Authoritarian Populism in the United States, retrieved from,
(2018), 2, retrieved from, https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/democracy/reports/
2018/05/10/450552/drivers-authoritarian-populism-united-states/, consulted on 17. 06. 2021; J.

Juridical Tribune Volume 12, Issue 1, March 2022 107
from the kind of scholarship which endorses the present Eurocentric construct of
international human rights in this era of neo-liberal economic globalisation.14 In his
call for a new agenda for the study and development of the international human rights
system, Alston substantiates this point by strongly arguing for an enhanced
humanised human rights order which confronts the contemporary neoliberal-driven
challenges in a more efficient manner.15
Alston’s submission becomes more compelling if one recognises that in an
era characterised by the pre-eminent “rhetoric” of international human rights, there
is growing fear that the extant human rights regime masks neoliberalism in the form
of transnational corporations (TNCs) and other supranational institutions which
seem to be perpetuating global economic subjugation and hegemony.16 Although
TNCs can be a vehicle for fostering economic development, technological
improvements, and poverty alleviation for their host countries, the economic
hegemony created by them has the potential to consign the majority of people in
developing countries to the position of hewers of “wood” with no real prospects of
owning the means of production.17 This argument becomes more compelling, if one
considers that TNCs now wield colossal economic and social influence which, in
some instances, eclipses that of states.18 In spite of this overwhelming power, TNCs
largely remain and operate beyond the reach of mainstream international human
rights frameworks, spawning the debate on the role of these economic entities in
facilitating, maintaining and achieving socio-economic hegemony without being
subject to the governance and constraints of strong legal norms.19
This article is an intervention to provide a decolonial conceptualisation of
the international human rights regime. It offers an alternative trajectory to un-think
and re-think the constitution of the international human rights regime rather than
Ward & C. Flowers, How the Trump Administration’s Efforts to Redefine Human Rights Threaten
Economic, Social, And Racial Justice, 27, Columbia Human Rights Law Review (2019), 5.
14 E. Altmetric, Decolonial Critique of Private law and Human rights, 34, South African Journal on
Human Rights (2018), 492.
15 P. Alston, The Populist Challenge to Human Right, 9, Journal of Human Rights Practice (2017), 1.
16 S. Moyn, A Powerless Companion: Human Rights in the Age of Neoliberalism, 77, Law and
Contemporary Problems (2017), 149; D. Grewal & J. Purdy Introduction: Law and Neoliberalism,
77, Law and Contemporary Problems (2014), 1; D. Miller, ‘How Neoliberalism Got Where It Is:
Elite Planning, Corporate Lobbying and the Release of the Free Market’, in K. Birch and V.
Mykhnenko, (eds.) The Rise and Fall of Neoliberalism: The Collapse of an Economic Order 1st ed
Zed Books: London (2010) at 23.
17 F. Fanon, The Wretched of the Earth (1963) 35, retrieved from, http://abahlali.org/wp-
content/uploads/2011/04/Frantz-Fanon-The-Wretched-of-the-Earth-1965.pdf, consulted on 03.08.
2021; J. D. Ruggie, Just Business: Multinational Corporations and Human Rights 1st ed 1. W. W.
Norton and Company: New York (2013) at 2.
18 J. D. Ruggie, Multinationals as global institution: Power, authority and relative autonomy, 12,
Regulation and Governance (2017) 317.
19 M. Ahmad, The Economic Globalisation and its Threat to Human Rights, 2, International Journal of
Business and Social Science (2011) 274; S. McBrearty, The Proposed Business and Human Rights
Treaty: Four Challenges and an Opportunity, 57, Havard International Law Journal (2014) 4.

108 Juridical Tribune Volume 12, Issue 1, March 2022
what the present state-centric paradigms provide.20 In the academic realm and
beyond, the existential philosophical position which obliges the present international
human rights order to be state-centric in orientation has remained unchallenged for
a very long time.21 However, with new frontiers for expanding the obligations
generated by international human rights norms being explored, the present character
of western construction of human rights has become unsustainable.22 Importantly,
this western constitution of international human rights is a point of view that does
not explicitly present itself as western.23 In this way, it conceals its epistemological
expressions, paving the way for claims of universalism, egalitarianism and
objectivity.24
The article is divided into three parts. The first part present a discussion on
the origin and development of state-centrism in the international human rights order.
The major objective is to offer some important insights into how the extant
international human rights regime has limited itself to state-centric obligations, a
position that has created an accountability deficit within the international order.25 In
the second part, the article examines the elements of state-centric within the
international human rights order, elaborating on how the international human rights
instruments embed state-centric as a critical predicament which allows TNCs to
operate beyond the reach of mainstream international human rights regulation.26
Finally, the article offer proposals on the decolonisation of the international human
rights order in favour of a binary system of human rights accountability which closes
the accountability gap.27
2. The origin of state-centric international human rights paradigm
Even though many academic commentators have exerted considerable
effort in ascertaining the genealogy of the current international human rights order,
lamentably, most of the works avoid the question about the origin of state-centrism
in the international human rights order.28 The result is a dearth of literature on the
20 E. De Brabandere, Non-State Actors, State-Centrism and Human Rights Obligations, 22, Leiden
Journal of International Law (2009) 191.
21 K. Buhmann, Business and Human Rights Research Methods, 36, Nordic Journal of Human Rights
(2018) 324.
22 See above n. 325.
23 B. Ikejiaku, International Law is Western Made Global Law: The Perception of Third-World
Category, 6, African Journal of Legal Studies (2013) 339.
24 J. Barreto, Epistemologies of the South and Human Rights: Santos and the Quest for Global and
Cognitive Justice, 21, Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies (2014) 395.
25 P. Alston, ‘The Not-a-Cat Syndrome: Can the International Human Rights Regime Accommodate
Non-State Actors?’ in P. Alston, (ed) Non-State Actors and Human Rights 1st ed Oxford University
Press: Oxford (2005) at 17.
26 See above n. 18.
27 See above n.19.
28 M. Woessner, ‘Provincialising Human Rights? The Heideggerian Legacy from Charles Malik to
Dipesh Chakrabarty’, in J. Barreto, (ed) Human Rights from a Third World Perspective: Critique,
History and International Law 1st ed Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge (2013) 68; C. McCrudden,
Human Rights Histories, 35, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies (2015) 180.

Juridical Tribune Volume 12, Issue 1, March 2022 109
emergence of state-centrism in that legal order.29 Despite paucity of literature,
historians, human rights experts and international lawyers have contended that there
is actually much at stake here when it comes to tracing the origin of the state-centric
human rights order.30 But that is where the consensus ends as the views reflected in
the scarce but animated literature on the subject differ fundamentally in the
viewpoints they advance.31 This is because the history of state-centrism, like the
historiography of international human rights itself, cannot be determined in a linear
form.32 The fluid nature of the development of international human rights makes that
task impossible for academic commentators who have sought to decipher the precise
points of origin for today’s state-centric international human rights orientation.33
What is clear is that doctrinally, the current international human rights regime has
limited itself to state-centric obligations, a confinement which has exalted capital,
international markets, and corporate entities to the position of holy cows.34 TNCs
and other transnational global regimes or institutions, the argument goes, are quasi-
subjects of international law and thus do not bear [much] or [direct] obligations under
the current international human rights order.35
Further, the view that the contemporary global human rights order is an
essential component of international law largely rooted in the law of European
statehood, is academically settled.36 In this conception, the role of international law
was to tame states so that they could best attain their developmental objectives
through the avenue of a domestic human rights’ oriented limited government.37 It is
noteworthy that the history of international human rights law is, therefore, both the
history of self-governing states and the history of the universal norms and values that
29 J. C. Montero, Is the State-Centric Conception of Human Rights Suitable For a Globalised World?
A response to Cristina Lafont, 33, Revista Latinoamerica de Filosofia Politica (2013) 7.
30 D. Pendas, Toward a New Politics? On the Recent Historiography of Human Rights, 21,
Contemporary European History (2012) 96; Hegel The Philosophy of History 1st ed Dover
Publications: New York (1956) at 8.
31 B. S. Brown, From State-Centric International Law towards a Positive International Law of Human
Rights, (2008), 135, retrieved from, http://www.kentlaw.edu/faculty/bbrown/classes/Human
RightsSP10/CourseDocs/2FromStateCentric.pdf, consulted on 07.06. 2021; N. Jagers, Human
Rights Enforcement Towards a People-Centered Alternative? A Reaction to Professor Abdullahi
An-Na’im, 21, Tilburg law review (2016) 275.
32 V. Ozoke, The Imperialism of Rights: Tracing the Politics and History of Human Rights, 4, American
International Journal of Contemporary Research (2014) 3; S. Moyn, Substance, Scale, and Salience:
The Recent Historiography of Human Rights, 8, Annual Review of Law and Social Sciences (2018)
123; MJ. Dembour, What are human rights? Four schools of thought, 32, Human Rights Quarterly
(2010) 21.
33 See above n.22.
34 C. Lafont, Accountability and global governance: challenging the state-centric conception of human
rights, 3, Ethics and Global Politics (2010) 196.
35 D. Uribe, Setting the pillars to enforce corporate human rights obligations stemming from
international law, (2018), 2, retrieved from, https://www.southcentre.int/wp-
content/uploads/2018/10/PB56_Setting-the-pillars-to-enforce-corporate-human-rights-obliga tions-
stemming-from-international-law_EN.pdf, consulted on 24. 07. 2020.
36 C. Walter, Subjects of international law, 28, Max Planck Encyclopaedia of Public International Law
(2007) 129.
37 K. Quintavalla, Priorities and human rights, 23, The International Journal of human rights (2019) 680.

110 Juridical Tribune Volume 12, Issue 1, March 2022
should govern statehood and result in the establishment of universal egalitarianism
and collaboration among the community of nations.38
Although academic commentators concede that the state-centric
international human rights system is largely embedded in the concept of European
state-hood, how, when and where the idea of statehood actually first emerged
remains an educated guess.39 Some academic commentators posit that the law
governing autonomous political communities is historically traceable to antiquity,
sometimes back to pre-colonial international relationships.40 These scholars
recognise the historical linkages which exist between the vocabularies of statehood
and the collapse of the ancient political civilisations such as the early Babylonian
and Greek empires.41 The downfall of these historic civilisations is sequenced with
the history of the demise of the ancient Roman civilisation, and the collapse of the
universal church-driven states in early western modernity, as evidence of the
emergence of early statehood.42
The subsequent depreciation and disappearance of the early forms of
statehood expounded upon above, has led some academic commentators to conclude
that the contemporary state-centric paradigm has been mainly about the relationship
between European states and the [other] understood as more similar to individuals’
relations in a particular domestic political environment.43 This paradigm developed
from the interaction between Europe and the non-European world regulated through
the contractual form of diplomatic encounters or treaties and frequently governed by
the laws of political economy also known as Realpolitik.44 By signing these
international treaties states were deemed to have consented to becoming part of an
international association of nations.45 In their legal form, these treaties implied that,
unlike many traditional interstate agreements, their normative force rested less on
the mutual performance of duties, but more on the universally acknowledged moral
principles, or upon each state's declaration of commitment before the international
community.46
38 D. J. Hill, Estimating the effects of Human Rights Treaties on State Behaviour, 72, The Journal of
Politics (2010) 1161.
39 N. Walker et al, Law, polity and the legacy of statehood: An introduction, 16, International Journal
of Constitutional Law (2018) 1148.
40 L. Wheatley, The Emergence of New States in International Law: The Insights from Complexity
Theory, 15, Chinese Journal of International Law (2015) 580.
41 See above n. 581.
42 P. Carozza & D. Philpott, The Catholic Church, Human Rights, and Democracy Convergence and
Conflict with the Modern State (2012) 5, retrieved from, https://www.stthomas.edu/media/
catholicstudies/center/logosjournal/archives/2012vol15/153/15-3caro zza.pdf, consulted on, 24.07.
2021.
43 C. Schreuer, The Waning of the Sovereign State: Towards a New Paradigm for International-Law?,
31, European Journal of International Law (1993) 447.
44 V. Ozoke, The Imperialism of Rights: Tracing the Politics and History of Human Rights, 4, American
International Journal of Contemporary Research (2014) 1.
45 See above n.2.
46 K. Isiksel, The Rights of Man and the Rights of the Man-Made: Corporations and Human Rights, 38,
Human Rights Quarterly (2016) 329.

Juridical Tribune Volume 12, Issue 1, March 2022 111
Whatever the differences between the aforementioned views, theoretical
viewpoints drawn from both traditional or colonial and post-colonial schools of
thought share a state-centric conceptualisation of the international human rights
regime.47 The dynamics of this view revolve around the ever-present struggle for
political hegemony among self-proclaimed political communities acting on well-
received Machiavellian ideology and principles.48 Other theories, mainly espoused
by free trade idealists, have justified the state-centric paradigm with the rules driving
statecraft in the acclaimed traditions of Laissez Faire and De Jure Belli Ac Pacis
articulated in the language of mercantilism, civilisation, and economic
development.49 Such “Westphalian” perceptions have engendered the depiction of
international human rights law as mainly facilitating and taming state policy, in an
attempt to achieve state cooperation in the community of nations for the betterment
of humanity.50
From the above, it can be argued that the vision of the international human
rights order was then legislated as either realist or idealist depending on the degree
to which it emphasised and entrenched either national sovereignty or state-centric
obligations.51 This view was, from about the mid-20th century, largely supported by
a number of academic commentators, international relations experts and diplomats
who largely advocated for a post-colonial human rights order projected as an anti-
thesis to the international accumulation of imperial power.52 However, the narrative
of universal progress of international human rights was eventually enthroned with a
state-centric human rights order as the crowning achievement of contemporary legal
modernity.53 The current international human rights order has largely preserved and
limited itself to this state-centric vision of human rights.54
47 S. Jensen, The Making of International Human Rights: The 1960s, Decolonisation and the
Reconstruction of Global Values 1st ed Cambridge University Press: Cambridge (2016) at 7.
48 S. Sims, Political Philosophy and the Problems of International Order: Machiavelli, Kant, and
Aristotle, 46, Perspectives on Political Science (2017) 127.
49 M. Palen, Free-Trade Ideology and Transatlantic Abolitionism: A Historiography, 14, Journal of the
History of Economic Thought (2015) 291; B. Tierney, The Idea of Natural Rights-Origins and
Persistence, 2, Northwestern Journal of International Human Rights (2007) 3.
50 A. Hall, The Challenges to State Sovereignty from the Promotion of Human Rights (2010) 4,
retrieved on, https://www.e-ir.info/2010/11/17/the-challenges-to-state-sovereignty-from-the-
promotion-of-human-rights/, consulted on 29.07. 2021; H. Grotius, De Jure Belli Ac Pacis Libri Tres
(1625) 4, retrieved from, https://archive.org/stream/hugonisgrottiide02grotuoft/hugonisgrottiide02
grotuoft_djvu.txt, consulted on 29.07.2021.
51 T. Hanson, The Tensions between Realism in International Relations and Human Rights Studies
(2008) 64, retrieved on https://socialsciences.exeter.ac.uk/politics/research/readingroom/Dunne-
goodhart-chap04.pdf, consulted on, 01.05. 2021.
52 A. Huneeus & M. Madsen, Between universalism and regional law and politics: A comparative
history of the American, European, and African human rights systems, 16, International Journal of
Constitutional Law (2018) 137.
53 M. Freeman, ‘Universalism of Human Rights and Cultural Relativism’, in Sheeran and Rodley (eds)
Handbook of International Human Rights Law 1st ed UNESCO Publishing: Paris (2013) at 61.
54 J. P. Thérien & P. Jolly, All Human Rights for All”: The United Nations and Human Rights in the
Post-Cold War Era, 36, Human Rights Quarterly (2014) 36.

112 Juridical Tribune Volume 12, Issue 1, March 2022
3. Exploring the elements and implications of the state-centric human
rights order in the neoliberal economic era
As alluded to earlier, the contemporary international human rights order
enshrines the basic rights of human beings across the world and imposes a duty on
the United Nations (UN) member states to ensure that such rights are realised in their
countries through their domestic and transnational juridical acts.55 Article 55 of the
Charter obliges member states to establish specialised regional human rights
frameworks to advance the observance of international human rights.56 In
accordance with the precepts of the UN charter, the American Convention on Human
Rights in the Area of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights,57 the African Charter
on Human and Peoples ‘Rights (ACHPR),58 and the European Convention on
Human Rights (ECHR)59 largely pursue the realisation of human rights through the
agency of states as the major subjects of international law.60 Conversely, the new
Protocol to the African Court of Justice and Human and Peoples’ Rights may to some
extent be said to have departed from taking a non-state agency approach to the
protection of human rights by authorising criminal prosecutions of companies that
commit a range of international crimes.61 Lamentably, a major flaw of the said
Protocol is that it grants immunity from prosecution to any serving African Union
(AU) head of state or government, or anybody acting in such capacity during their
tenure of office.62 In cases where the TNCs and their executives are accused of acting
in complicity with state officials, one can opt to prosecute accomplices rather than
55 See the preamble and article 4 of the UN charter. A. Anna’m, The Spirit of Laws is not Universal:
Alternatives to the Enforcement Paradigm for Human Rights, 21, Tilburg Law Review (2016) 4.
56 Article 55 of the UN Charter.
57 Additional Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights in the Area of Economic, Social
and Cultural Rights Protocol of San Salvador. See “Protocol of San Salvador, retrieved from,
https://www.oas.org/dil/1988%20Additional%20Protocol%20to%20the%20American%20
Convention%20on%20Human%20Rights%20in%20the%20Area%20of%20Economic,%20Social
%20and%20Cultural%20Rights%20(Protocol%20of%20San%20Salvador).pdf, consulted on,
20.04. 2021.
58 The African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights was adopted 01 June 1981, retrieved from,
http://srjc.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/African-Charter-on-Human-and-Peoples-Rights.pdf,
consulted on, 21.04.2021.
59 See European Convention on Human Rights, retrieved from, http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/
Convention_ENG.pdf, consulted on, 26.01.2021.
60 M. W. Doyle, A Global Constitution? The struggle over the UN Charter (2010), retrieved from,
http://www.iilj.org/ courses/documents/HC2010Sept22.Doyle.pdf, consulted on, 26.07. 2020.
61 African Commission, Protocol on The Statute of The African Court of Justice and Human Rights,
retrieved from, https://www.peaceau.org/uploads/protocol-statute-african-court-justice-and-human-
rights-en.pdf, consulted on, 26.08.2020; S. Nimigan, The Malabo Protocol, the ICC, and the Idea of
‘Regional Complementarity, 17, Journal of International Criminal Justice (2019), 40; A. Rachovitsa,
On New ‘Judicial Animals’: The Curious Case of an African Court with Material Jurisdiction of a
Global Scope, 19, Human Rights Law Review (2019), 260.
62 N. Ani, Implications of the African Union's stance on immunity for leaders on conflict resolution in
Africa: The case of South Sudan and lessons from the Habré case, 18, African Human Rights Law
Journal (2018), 438.

Juridical Tribune Volume 12, Issue 1, March 2022 113
the principal perpetrators.63 From the foregoing, a deduction can be made that the
international human rights regime, including the regional systems, relies heavily on
states as the primary agents for the achievement of a just world.64 By recognising
states as the primary duty bearers, the international human rights regime advances
and promotes a state-centric accountability system which minimises the role of
TNCs in promoting economic justice.65
A critical reading of the UN charter demonstrates that it entrenches state-
centrism in sync with a number of philosophers who have helped shape the
ideological foundations of the Westphalia system of international law.66 Of
particular import here are the views of John Rawls who contended that international
human rights should be regarded as ubiquitous principles which any political
community should adhere to in order to avoid military interventions by other
enlightened countries.67 This view is further explicated by Ronald Dworkin who
argued that international human rights are simply rights to be treated by one’s
government as a human being whose dignity fundamentally matters.68 In the same
vein, Joshua Cohen refers to international human rights as legislated norms and
principles predicated on the idea of membership in an internationally organised
political community of nations.69 The foregoing scholars, among others, view
international human rights as moral and legal imperatives to be actualised by
governments in order to avoid dehumanisation of human beings across the world.
The UN Charter endorses and reflects this Eurocentric state-centric human rights
paradigm. 70
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) adopted in 1948 as
part of the international bill of rights and supported by the UN advances state-
centrism.71 Perhaps such an ideological position was unavoidable given that the
63 K. Naldia and J. Magliveras, The African Court of Justice and Human Rights: A Judicial Curate’s
Egg, 9, International Organisational Law Review (2012), 399.
64 A. Anna’im, Transcending Imperialism: Human Values and Global Citizenship (2010) 4, retrieved
from, http://tannerlectures.utah.edu/_documents/a-to -z/a/An-Naim_10.pdf, consulted on
26/05.2021.
65 M. Nowak Human Rights or Global Capitalism: The Limits of Privatisation 1st ed University of
Pennsylvania: Philadelphia (2017) at 69.
66 The UN Charter was signed on June 26, 1945 and entered into force on October 24, 1945. United
Nations “Human rights education” http://www.humanrightseducation.info/hr-materials/theunited-
nations-charter.html (accessed on 27/01/2019).
67 J. Rawls, The Law of Peoples, 20, Critical Inquiry (1993), 36.
68 R. Dworkin R “Rights as Trumps” in Waldron J (ed.) Theories of Rights 1st ed Oxford University
Press: Oxford (1984) at 153.
69 J. Cohen, Rethinking Human Rights, Democracy, and Sovereignty in the Age of Globalisation, 36,
Political Theory (2008), 581.
70 J. Zagel, International Organisations and Human Rights: The Role of the UN Covenants in
Overcoming the Accountability Gap, 36, Nordic Journal of Human Rights (2018), 75; M. Terretta,
We Had Been Fooled into Thinking That the UN Watches over the Entire World: Human Rights, UN
Trust Territories, and Africa’s Decolonisation, 34, Human Rights Quarterly (2012), 360.
71 The Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted on 10 Dec, G.A., Res.217A (UN) GAOR 3d
Sess, art. 25. Doc A/ RES/3/ 217 (1948).

114 Juridical Tribune Volume 12, Issue 1, March 2022
UDHR was adopted in a world dominated by states.72 In 1948, the memory of World
War II was still fresh in everyone’s mind and the declaration sought to condemn and
de-legitimatise the unspeakable state-sponsored atrocities the world had just
witnessed.73 However, it is noteworthy that this does not mean that states were the
only perpetrators of such atrocities. Rather, it means that they were almost the only
officially (and politically) recognised aggressors.74
However, since those times, the world has deeply transformed.75 The
Westphalian world comprising of only omnipotent autonomous sovereign states
capable of committing dehumanising acts is fast disappearing.76 The deeply
integrated international economic life that globalisation has imposed upon humanity
means that the activities and actions of TNCs and other supranational institutions
have impacts on the realisation of the human rights of people across the world.77 This
explains why the rights contained in the UDHR ought to have and should be
interpreted as part of a dynamic cosmopolitan project applicable not only or mainly
to states or domestic institutions but also to any transnational institutional global
regime imposed on humanity.78 This requires, as Pogge argues, that the current
international human rights regime be re-configured to ensure that these rights are
realised across the world.79 However, this view is not without shortcomings.80
According to Montero, even if the trans-nationalisation of international human rights
occur and obligations are imposed on other supranational institutions and TNCs,
these obligations cannot be comparatively the same as the human rights
responsibilities of states.81 In spite of this critique, there is scholarly consensus that
the state-centric approach of the UDHR to international human rights does not
adequately provide for the human rights obligations of non-state actors in the form
of the TNCs.82
When further examining how the contemporary international human rights
order encapsulates state-centrism, the classification of human rights becomes
significant.83 First generation human rights, as articulated in the International
72 P. Spiro, The States and International Human Rights, 66, Fordham Law Review (1997), 568.
73 See above n.569.
74 L. Gallegos and D. Uribe, The Next Step against Corporate Impunity: A World Court on Business
and Hu-man Rights?, 57, Harvard International Law Journal (2016), 57.
75 J. Contesse, Settling Human Rights Violations, 60, Harvard International Law Journal (2019), 317.
76 See above n. 318.
77 J. Bernstorff, International Law and Global Justice: On Recent Inquiries into the Dark Side of
Economic Globalisation, 26, The European Journal of International Law (2015), 282.
78 T. Pogge, Cosmopolitanism: A Path to Peace and Justice, 12, Journal of East-West Thought (2015),
9; C. Ryngaert, Non-State Actors: Carving out a Space in a State-Centred International Legal
System, (2016) 63 Netherlands International Law Review (2016), 185.
79 T. Pogge, Are We Violating the Human Rights of the World's Poor?, 14, Yale Human Rights and
Development Law Journal (2011), 32.
80 J. C. Merle (eds.) Spheres of Global Justice Springer: New York (2013) at 595.
81 J. Montero, International Human Rights Obligations within the States System: The Avoidance
Account, 25, Political Philosophy (2017), 38.
82 See above n.40.
83 S. Subedi, A shift in paradigm in international economic law: From State-centric principles to
people-centric policies, 10, Manchester Journal of International Economic Law (2013), 314.

Juridical Tribune Volume 12, Issue 1, March 2022 115
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), and second generation human
rights, embodied in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights (ICESCR),84 though intertwined, are essentially different in the way they
reflect state-centrism.85 Civil and political rights oblige states to ensure that their
people have a democratic right to participate in the civil and political affairs of the
state.86 State parties are enjoined to protect individuals’ physical and mental integrity
in terms of articles 6, 7, 9, and 10 of the ICCPR. According to article 17 of the ICCPR
states must ensure that individuals enjoy freedom in their personal space, such as in
their homes and families, with guaranteed freedom of thought, conscience, and
religion in Article 18, opinion and expression in Article 19, non-discriminatory
treatment in Articles 2(1) and 26, access to courts in Article 14, and the right to take
part in the political system in Article 25.87 Article 2(1) of the ICCPR reflects the
state-centric character of the instrument by placing an obligation on state parties to
“respect” and “ensure” the enjoyment of civil and political rights of individuals
within their territories.88 The ICCPR also makes it clear that states have “negative
and positive” duties to respect human rights.89 These obligations should be fulfilled
immediately and independent of the question of the availability of resources in the
states in question.90
At the behest of the Westphalian system, the state-centric conception of the
international human rights order is reflected more in the ICESCR which imposes
three primary types of obligations on states parties.91 These legal obligations are to
“respect, protect and fulfil” socio-economic rights.92 The three obligations were
famously coined by Henry Shue who maintains that states have a duty to promote,
protect and fulfil fundamental human rights.93 Henry Shue’s three-level typology of
obligations is explicitly recognised by the UN.94 The three-level obligations are
imposed on states to realise the right to education in Article 13 of the ICESCR, the
84 The ICESCR, United Nations General Assembly resolution 2200A (XXI) of 16 December1966 came
into force on 3 January 1976.
85 A. Von der Decken, K. Arnauld, ‘Recognistion of New Rights’ in Arnauld et al (eds) The Cambridge
Handbook of New Human Rights, Recognition, Novelty, Rhetoric 1st ed Cambridge University Press:
Cambridge (2020) 7.
86 B. Simmons, Civil Rights in International Law: Compliance with Aspects of the International Bill of
Rights, 16, Indiana Journal of Global Legal (2009), 17.
87 A. Alston and G. Quinn, The Nature and Scope of State Parties’ Obligations under the International
Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 9, Human Rights Quarterly (1987), 156.
88 DC. Chirwa, & L. Chenwi (eds) The Protection of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in Africa
1st ed Cambridge University Press: Cambridge (2016) at 3.
89 R. Hirschl, Negative Rights vs Positive Entitlements: A Comparative Study of Judicial Interpretations
of Rights in an Emerging Neo-Liberal Economic Order, 22, Human Rights Quarterly (2000), 1060.
90 P. Macklem, Human rights in international law: Three generations or one?, 3, London Review of
International Law (2015), 19.
91 D. Marcus, The Normative Development of Socioeconomic Rights through Supranational
Adjudication, 42, Stanford Journal of International Law (2006), 53.
92 See above n.54.
93 H. Shue, On Basic Rights (1981) 4, retrived from, https://commons.pacificu.edu/cgi/viewcontent
.cgi?article=1317&context=eip, consulted on, 27. 08.2021.
94 See above n. 5.

116 Juridical Tribune Volume 12, Issue 1, March 2022
right to an adequate standard of living including adequate food, clothing, and
housing in Article 11 of the ICESCR, the right to the highest attainable standard of
health in Article 12 of the ICESCR and also the right to take part in cultural life in
Article 15 of the ICESCR.95 Larking has observed that by encapsulating socio-
economic rights such as education, health, food, and housing, it appears that the
ICESCR challenges the neoliberal contempt for non-market-based forms of
economic redistribution.96 However, many academic commentators find this view
problematic as the ICESCR does not adequately address material inequality in
accessing these social goods as an issue and does not require immediate fulfilment
of socio-economic rights.97 This is despite the fact that states are required to take
concrete steps towards realising these rights to the maximum extent of their available
resources.98
According to the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
(CESCR) which is mandated to monitor states’ compliance, implementation and
realisation of the rights contained in the ICESCR, states parties to the ICESCR are
obliged to adopt broad based economic empowerment and market-based distributive
policies to ensure that a minimum standard of material equality is met.99 Such
redistributive policies include support for fiscal distribution of economic resources,
modest land redistribution programs, micro credit schemes and other limited
methods of economic empowerment.100 These broad based forms of economic
empowerment advanced by the CESCR demonstrate, prima facie, that the current
international human rights regime stands, to some extent, in opposition to
neoliberalism.101 But, conversely, the said human rights regime, especially the socio-
economic rights elements, conform to rather than challenge the neoliberal
paradigm. 102 This is because the realisation of socio-economic rights is founded on
95 M. Ssenyonjo, The Influence of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
in Africa, 64, Netherlands International Law Review (2017) 13.
96 E. Larking, Human Rights Rituals: Masking Neoliberalism and Inequality, and Marginalizing
Alternative World Views, 32, Canadian Journal of Law and Society (2017), 9.
97 M. Ssenyonjo, Reflections on state obligations with respect to economic, social and cultural rights
in international human rights law, 15, The International Journal of Human Rights (2011), 969.
98 See above n.16; G. MacNaughton and FD. Frey (eds) Economic and Social Rights in a Neoliberal
World 1st Cambridge University Press: Cambridge (2018) at 4.
99 P. Alston and G. Quinn, The Nature and Scope of States Parties’ Obligations under the International
Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 38, Human Rights Quarterly (1987), 299.
100 Human Rights Commission, Achieving substantive economic equality through rights-based radical
socio-economic transformation in South Africa (2017) 4, retrieved from,
https://www.sahrc.org.za/home/21/files/SAHRC%20Equality%20Report%202017_18.pdf,
consulted on, 28.07.2021.
101 C. Gilbert, Moving towards a Right to Land: The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights” Treatment of Land Rights as Human Rights (2015) 10, retrieved from, https://www.escr-
net.org/resources/moving-towards-right-land-committee-economic-social-and-cultural-rights-
treatment-land, consulted on, 29. 04. 2021.
102 J. Gideon, Accessing Economic and Social Rights under Neoliberalism: Gender and rights in Chile,
27, Third World Quarterly (2006), 1270.

Juridical Tribune Volume 12, Issue 1, March 2022 117
a market-based growth and development model.103
As noted above, in the ICESCR context, the state-centric model of human
rights dominates.104 States parties commitment to protect human rights, and claims
of social harm or injustice are embedded in the language of state-based obligations.
The espousing of this state-centric approach to socio-economic and cultural rights in
the ICESCR can be deduced from the corpus of the instrument.105 The ICESCR
claims to depoliticise socio-economic matters that are highly political and
controversial thereby masking the material interests at stake.106 It can be strongly
argued that the ICESCR is committed to the realisation of socio-economic rights
based on a market-oriented society that adores individual self-interest, economic
efficiency, and neoliberal ideology.107 Therefore, the ICESCR concedes to neo-
liberalism in all its three dimensions: (a) ideology; (b) mode of governance; and (c)
policy preferences.108 Charlesworth argues that it has been a conjecture of the
international human rights order that underdevelopment is a result of failure to meet
the prescriptions of the capitalist-driven economic order.109 Development has been
misinterpreted to mean industrialisation and westernisation.110 Accordingly, while
the nature and form of development that should be pursued under the human rights
order is highly contested, neoliberalism has prevailed.111
Notably, the inability of the state-centric international human rights regime
to act as an effective system of human rights accountability for the TNCs, their
shareholders has resulted in the global domination of the neoliberal economic
paradigm.112 Additionally, the state-centric international human rights order cloaks
the material realities of inequality, as evidenced in the way the ICESCR’s “agrarian
reform” provisions are couched and implemented in struggles for access to land by
marginalised peoples in developing countries.113 Under the pretext of moderate
agrarian land reform, the World Bank (WB), the International Monetary Fund (IMF)
103 M. Pieterse, Eating socio-economic rights: The usefulness of rights talk in alleviating social
hardship revisited, 50, Human Rights Quarterly (2007), 796.
104 See above n.798.
105 J. Fraser, State-centricity and legalism: Promoting the role of social institutions in the domestic
implementation of international human rights law, 23, International Journal of Human Rights
(2019), 976; V. Hoh, General Comment No. 24 (2017) on State Obligations Under the International
Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in the Context of Business Activities (CESCR),
58, International Legal Materials (2019), 872.
106 See above n. 887.
107 See above n. 888.
108 J. Wills & B. Warwick, Contesting Austerity: The Potential and Pitfalls of Socioeconomic Rights
Discourse, 23, Indian Journal of Global Legal Studies (2016), 269.
109 H. Charlesworth, The Public/Private Distinction and the Right to Development in International Law,
19, Australian Year Book of International Law (1988), 196.
110 See above n. 197.
111 See above n. 199.
112 G. Macnaughton & F. Frey, Challenging Neoliberalism: ILO, Human Rights, and Public Health
Frameworks on Decent Work, 21, Health and Human Rights Journal (2018), 44.
113 H.P. Hans et al. Agricultural Land Redistribution toward Greater Consensus, 1st ed. World Bank
Publication: Washington, D.C. (2009) 45.

118 Juridical Tribune Volume 12, Issue 1, March 2022
and other international financial institutions have conditioned their loans on, inter
alia, the promotion of a neoliberal land reform regime where transfer of privately-
held land, often in the hands of minority groups, is largely pre-conditioned state
acquiring the land on a modest land reform “model.114 The land holdings in question
are vast in scale, and the history of their acquisition can usually be traced to colonial
conquest or gifting from unrepresentative and, therefore, undemocratic
governments.115 Overlooking this colonial legacy, transfers to the landless facilitated
by the WB through agrarian reform related loans are conditioned on the “willing
buyer willing seller” policies slowing the pace for the attainment of distributive
justice.116 This model of economic development is premised upon limited market-
based reform with minimum consideration of other forms of reform. It assumes that
economic development and growth depend on the implementation of the neoliberal
economic model.117
At the command of the state-centric international human rights order, under
the “banner” of the natural right of freedom to trade, the international trading regime
espouses a neoliberal economic model and framework of rights.118 Notably, in the
era of neoliberal globalisation there is a deliberate effort to establish a state-centric
global governance system predicated on economic policies, property rights, rule of
law, international human rights and even domestic constitutionalism that entrenches
and institutionalises the political project called neoliberalism.119 This project is
established through international legal instruments or institutions such as the UN
Charter, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT),120 the World Trade
Organisation (WTO), the United States Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA),121
Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs),122 regional trade agreements, and powerful
development finance institutions such as the IMF and WB, which largely seek to
entrench the economic logic of neoliberalism and the interests of global economic
114 E. Lahiff, Willing buyer, willing seller’: South Africa's failed experiment in market-led agrarian
reform, 28, Third World Quarterly (2007), 157; R. Hall & T. Kepe, Elite capture and state neglect:
New evidence on South Africa’s land reform, 44, Review of African Political Economy (2017), 1.
115 R. Home, Culturally Unsuited to Property Rights?’ Colonial Land Laws and African Societies, 40,
Journal of Law and Society (2013), 19.
116 J. Pereira, The World Bank’s ‘Market-Assisted’ Land Reform as a Political Issue: Evidence from
Brazil 1997-2006, 82, European Review of Latin American and Caribbean Studies (2007), 21.
117 J. Wills, Contesting World Order: Socio-Economic Rights and the Global Justice Systems, in J.
Wills, Neo-liberal Globalisation and Socioeconomic Rights: An Overview: Socioeconomic Rights
and Global Justice Movements Cambridge University Press: Cambridge (2017) at 49.
118 C. Gammage, Protecting Human Rights in the Context of Free Trade? The Case of the SADC Group
Economic Partnership Agreement, 11, European Law Journal (2014), 783.
119 S. Regilme, Constitutional Order in Oligarchic Democracies: Neoliberal Rights versus Socio-
Economic Rights, 16, Law, Culture and the Humanities (2016) 1.
120 GATT is a multilateral agreement whose major purpose is to promote free trade between the
contracting parties by reducing trade barriers such as tariffs and quotas.
121 N. Butler & S. Subedi, The Future of International Investment Regulation: Towards a World
Investment Organisation?, 64, Netherlands International Law Review (2017), 43.
122 The USMCA is a free trade agreement between the US, Mexico and Canada.

Juridical Tribune Volume 12, Issue 1, March 2022 119
entities.123 According to Schneiderman the constitutional rules of this regime are also
being internalised and materially embedded within the dialect of the international
human rights order and national constitutional regimes via diplomacy and economic
pressure.124 In the domestic sphere, these are accommodated through constitutional
reform and, oftentimes, adjudication processes. 125
The aforementioned international legal instruments and institutions
responsible for international trade governance, including global investment
instruments or treaties which promote and protect investments are, in their present
form largely asymmetrical and state-centric in character.126 Foreign investors, which
are mainly TNCs but sometimes individuals, enjoy substantive rights under these
international treaties without being subject to comprehensive and meaningful
obligations.127 The inability of the state-centric human rights order to impose binding
human rights obligations on TNCs participating in international trade and investment
contributes to the subsistence of a dysfunctional global system of governance which
is avowedly individualistic, and promoting of market fundamentalism.128
4. Transnationalising the international human rights order:
dewesternisation and decoloniality
In order to move away from the current western state-centric international
human rights order which is ineffective in deterring violations of human rights
perpetrated by powerful TNCs operating in the context of a global economy, there
is a compelling need to take a decolonised approach to reforming the international
human rights order.129 The dominant Eurocentric paradigm which recognises states
as the [principal] subjects to which international law, including human rights law, is
deployed needs to be supplemented with an inclusive dual accountability system
123 E. Haugen et al., ‘Trade and Investment Agreements: What Role for Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights in International Economic Law?’ in E. Riedel et al (eds) Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights in International Law Oxford University Press: Oxford (2014) at 259; V. Besirevic,
‘Pigeonholing Human Rights in International Investment Arbitration: A Claim or a Defense?,’ in v.
Várady and M. Jovanović, (eds) Human Rights in the 21st Century Eleven International Publishing:
Amsterdam (2020) at 218.
124 D. Schneiderman, Investor Rights and the Judicial Denial of the Neoliberal Constitutionalism (2015)
6, retrieved from, http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2671292, consulted on 26.07.2021.
125 M. Pieterse, Beyond the Welfare State: Globalisation of Neo-Liberal Culture and the Constitutional
Protection of Social and Economic Rights in South Africa, 14, Stellenbosch Law Review (2003), 3.
126 See above n.974.
127 V. Kube & E. Petersmann, Human Rights Law in International Investment Arbitration, 27, Asian
Journal of WTO and International Health Law and Policy (2016), 5.
128 M. Nolan, Human Rights and Market Fundamentalism (2014) 7, retrieved from, http://diana-
n.iue.it:8080/bitstream/handle/
1814/31206/MWP_LS_Nolan_2014_02.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y, consulted on, 14.06.
2021; N. Nolan, Gender and Utopian Visions in a Post-Utopian Era: Americanism, Human Rights,
Market Fundamentalism, 44, Central European History (2011),14.
129 De Sousa Santos, Making the future possible again (2017) 7, retrieved from, http://www.
boaventuradesousasantos.pt/media/Boaventura_Making%20the%20future%20possible%20again_
April2017.pdf, consulted on, 5.02.2021.

120 Juridical Tribune Volume 12, Issue 1, March 2022
which generates human rights obligations based on the conduct of TNCs and
supranational institutions.130 In other words, such a decolonised approach to the
international human rights order recognises that TNCs and other supranational
institutions ought to be subject to human rights accountability on similar footing or
basis as states.131
It can be strongly argued that a decolonised international human rights order
with its concomitant dual system of accountability recognises the crucial role that
the incipient discourse of human rights should play in articulating the core demands
of social justice, transparency, economic self-determination, and economic equality
in a neoliberal era.132 Further, a dual international human rights system of
accountability should be designed in a way that tackles the doctrinal and other
“complexity” issues emanating from corporate structures that have shielded TNCs
who commit human rights violations with impunity.133 This means there is also a
need to re-define and develop the concepts of separate corporate entity and limited
liability which make it particularly difficult to hold parent companies legally
accountable for egregious human rights violations by their subsidiaries.134 These
long established legal concepts have their roots in colonisation and were first used
to protect the British and Dutch East India Companies.135 A parent TNC can escape
liability for the actions of a subsidiary by simply asserting that they are separate legal
entities, even when in a position to control the conduct of the subsidiary.136 The
principle of corporate entity in its present form enables parent TNCs to successfully
argue that the subsidiary is the responsible party. Only in exceptional circumstances
will the lifting of the corporate veil occur in order to enable the imposition of
corporate accountability on the parent TNC.137
As observed by the CESCR, establishing the causal nexus between the
conduct of a TNC based in one jurisdiction and human rights abuses that occurred
in another jurisdiction remains a legal dilemma. In Okpabi v Royal Dutch Shell plc
and Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria Ltd,138 a case which revolves
130 T. Isiksel, The Rights of Man and the Rights of the Man-Made: Corporations and Human Rights,
38, Human Rights Quarterly (2016), 294.
131 M. Koskenniemi, Histories of International Law: Dealing with Eurocentrism, 19, Rechtsgeschichte-
Zeitschrift des Max-Planck-Instituts für europäische Rechtsgeschichte (2011), 152.
132 See above n.153.
133 E. Petersmann, ‘Limits of WTO Jurisprudence: Comments from an International Law and Human
Rights Perspective’, in T. Cottier Tand P. Mavroidis (eds), The Role of The Judge In International
Trade Regulation: Experience and Lessons for The WTO University of Michigan Press: Michigan
(2003) at 81.
134 C. Christian & P, Pettit The Possibility, Design, and Status of Corporate Agents Oxford University
Press: Oxford (2013)1.
135 Salomon v Salomon (1896) KHL 1; A, Vastardis & R, Chambers, Overcoming the Corporate Veil
Challenge: Could Investment Law Inspire the Proposed Business and Human Rights Treaty?, 19,
International and Comparative Law Quarterly (2018), 389.
136 D. Cabrelli, Liability for the Violation of Human Rights and Labour Standards in Global Supply
Chains: A Common Law Perspective, 10, Journal of European Tort Law (2019), 110.
137 Pioneer Concrete Services Ltd v Yelnah Pty Ltd (1987) AC ACLC, Gorton v Federal Commissioner
of Taxation (1965) 113 CLR 604; the Amlin (SA) Pty Ltd v Van Kooij 2008 (2) SA 558 (C).
138 (2018) EWCA Civ 191.

Juridical Tribune Volume 12, Issue 1, March 2022 121
around violations of human rights by a TNC, a United Kingdom (UK) court ruled
that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the claims of human rights violations against the
TNC’s subsidiary.139 However, in Vedanta Resources PLC v. Lungowe,140 the court
dismissed the appeal of the UK Company, Vedanta Resources, which was
challenging a previous court decision to allow claimants from Zambia to pursue their
case in the UK thereby allowing the case to be adjudicated by the UK courts. This
decision is significant because it demonstrates that there is a possibility of holding
TNCs accountable for human rights violations committed by their subsidiaries in an
extraterritorially.141
In order to develop a decolonised international human rights order
underpinned by a dual system of human rights accountability, there is a need to adopt
a comprehensive UN-driven treaty on business which incorporates substantive
human rights principles and norms.142 Such a treaty will expand obligations
generated by the international human rights order and contribute towards holding to
account injurious corporate power by imposing direct obligations on TNCs and
providing remedies for their human rights violations.143 The development of an
international human rights regime which is sensitive to obligations generated by
human rights is premised on reassuring objecting parties that such an alteration will
lead to enhanced recognition of human rights, without reversing the business and
human rights agenda. This means prudence must be taken to ensure that the creation
of a revised model within the international human rights regime would not have a
chilling effect on the attraction, protection and promotion of Foreign Direct
Investment (FDI) in developing countries.144
However, the design and adoption of a dual international human rights
system of accountability may be problematic when interrogated from a corporate
business and human rights perspective. There is a potential conflict relating to the
epistemic norms driving the regulation of business entities including TNCs and the
principles governing the protection of international human rights.145 Some academic
commentators argue that the imposition of human rights obligations on TNCs, in
the same way that states have accepted such obligations for themselves, may be
overreaching.146 International human rights law primarily generates obligations for
139 (2018) EWCA Civ 191.
140 (2019) UKSC 20.
141 (2019) UKSC 21.
142 Europe-Third World Centre, Treaty on transnational corporations and their supply chain with
regards to human rights” (2017) 9, retrieved from, https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/
HRCouncil/WGTransCorp/Session3/CETIM-TNI_EN.pdf, consulted on 3. 02. 2021.
143 See above n.10.
144 D. Baumann-Pealy and J. Nolan, Business and Human Rights: From Principle to Practice 1st ed
Routledge: Oxfordshire (2016) 77.
145 M. Fasciglione, Another Step on the Road? Remarks on the Zero Draft Treaty on Business and
Human Rights, 3, Diritti Umani E Diritto Internazionale (2018), 630.
146 See above n.631.

122 Juridical Tribune Volume 12, Issue 1, March 2022
states, as opposed to private entities.147 The argument is that TNCs and other non-
state actors are not endowed with the same democratic authority in the political
economy as states whose responsibilities are to create the required socio-legal and
political environment in which the fundamental human rights and the welfare of the
people can be realised.148 This means imposing international human rights
obligations directly on TNCs and other non-state actors when such obligations often
do not exist at the domestic level suggests that states may be seeking to use private
entities as scapegoats for their own disinclination and inability to protect their
people's human rights.149 Transferring the states’ obligations to TNCs would be
inappropriate for those rights-holders who depend on their states to develop and
enforce regulations.150 It is, therefore, important to conceptualise an international
human rights model which adequately provides potential solutions for dealing with
the foregoing objections.
Another strong objection that can be potentially raised is that delegating
states’ responsibilities and duties to TNCs could be undesirable as it may amount to
the privatisation of international human rights law.151 This objection flows from the
view that only sovereign states endowed with the necessary democratic authority can
deliver effective protection of human rights while balancing the same with other
pertinent competing political interests.152 In this vein, TNCs neither have the
democratic authority nor the ability to perform orthodox governmental duties and
functions. The efforts of TNCs can only assist in advancing and promoting human
rights in a complimentary way and not as a substitute for domestic level state
efforts.153 Further, some scholars maintain that the amorphous nature of the
international law of human rights makes it prone to broad interpretation, which will
still enable TNCs to escape liability for human rights violations whether criminal,
civil, or otherwise.154
Notwithstanding the above, the proposal for adopting a non-state centric
treaty on business and human rights is not entirely exclusive.155 Such a treaty could
147 J. Ruggie, Quo Vadis? Unsolicited Advice to Business and Human Rights Treaty Sponsors (2014)
2, retrived on, http://www.ihrb. org/commentary/quovadis- unsolicited-advice-business.html,
consulted on, 3.03.2021.
148 See above n. 3.
149 Kiobel v Royal Dutch Petroleum Co 569 U.S. 108 (2013) ; S.A. v Brown 564 U.S. 915, 131 S. Ct.
2846 (2011),
150 J. Zerk, Corporate Liability for Gross Human Rights Abuses: Towards a Fairer and More Effective
System of Domestic Law Remedies, (2014)1, retrieved from, http://www.ohchr.org/
Documents/Issues/Business/DomesticLawRemedies/StudyDomesticeLaw Remedies.pdf, consulted
on 8.05.2021.
151 See above n. 2.
152 See Velásquez Rodriguez v. Honduras Ct. H.R. (ser. C) No. 4, 175 (1988).
153 R. Skinner et al, The Third Pillar: Access to Judicial Remedies for Human Rights Violations by
Transnational Business (2016) 4, retrieved from, https://www.business-humanrights.org/en/latest-
news/pdf-the-third-pillar-access-to-judicial-remedies-for-human-rights-violations-by-
transnational-business/, consulted on 17.04.2021.
154 See above n.5.
155 Human Rights Council, Human Rights and Transnational Corporations and Other Business
Enterprises, UN Doc. A/HRC/RES/17/4 of 7 July 2011.

Juridical Tribune Volume 12, Issue 1, March 2022 123
appropriate or borrow other elements from the pertinent soft law, the UDHR and the
ICESCR.156 The more elements are incorporated, the more effective a treaty might
be in ensuring TNCs’ respect for human rights, and in providing appropriate
remedies for any violations.157 Conversely, the more ambitious the content of the
treaty maybe, the harder it may become for states to accept the treaty, especially the
home states of the TNCs, and to attract the support of the TNCs that exert significant
influence on state positions during treaty negotiations.158
A global treaty which places the human rights obligations of TNCs at the
centre of commercial activities and global human rights governance should
enunciate the obligations of TNCs and other non-state actors, regarding socio-
economic rights.159 Such a treaty has the potential to reform global corporate
governance thereby protecting socio-economically marginalised people mostly
impacted by violations of human rights by players in the corporate sector.160 Further,
the creation of the framework treaty should be an inclusive, community-driven and
participatory process encompassing the involvement of all affected stakeholders.161
This would provide an essential platform for the participation of members of
communities that are directly affected, including those in South Africa, seeking to
address the issue of material inequality, distributive justice and economic
empowerment.162
It is noteworthy that the idea of adopting an international treaty for
addressing the human rights violations of TNCs is currently gaining traction among
scholars and at the UN level.163 The UN Human Rights Council has published the
2020 second revised draft treaty which generates binding human rights obligations
for TNCs and other corporate entities.164 Compared with the earlier drafts, the 2020
revised Draft treaty contains major improvements concerning the rights afforded to
the victims of corporate human rights violations in particular under Article 4 and 5
156 C. Humberto, Negotiating a Treaty on Business and Human Rights: The Early Stages, 44, The
University of New South Wales Law Journal (2017), 1200.
157 O. De Schutter, Towards a New Treaty on Business and Human Rights, 1, Business and Human
Rights Law Journal (2016), 41.
158 De Schutter (2016) at 43.
159 D. Weissbrodt, Human Rights Standards Concerning Transnational Corporations and Other
Business Entities, 23, Minnesota Journal of International Law (2014), 135.
160 Weissbrodt (2014) at 137.
161 McBrearty (2016) at 13.
162 J. Ruggie, The Past as Prologue? A Moment of Truth for UN Business and Human Rights Treaty
(2014) 1, retrieved from, http://www.hks.harvard.edu/m-rcbg/CSRI/Treaty_Final.pdf, consulted
on, 9.07.2021).
163 International Institute for Sustainable Development, The Revised Draft of a Treaty on Business and
Human Rights: Ground-breaking improvements and brighter prospects (2019) 1, retrieved from,
https://www.iisd.org/itn/2019/10/02/the-revised-draft-of-a-treaty-on-business-and-human-rights-
ground-breaking-improvements-and-brighter prospects-carlos-lopez/, consulted on, 10. 08.2021.
164 UN Human Rights Council, Second Revised Draft 2020 1, retrieved from, https://www.
ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/HR Council/WGTransCorp/Session6/OEIGWG_Chair-
Rapporteur_second_revised_draft_LBI_on_TNCs_and_OBEs_with_respect_to_
Human_Rights.pdf, consulted on, 9.08.2021.

124 Juridical Tribune Volume 12, Issue 1, March 2022
of the aforesaid treaty.165 Further, the 2020 Draft treaty provides access to remedy
for the victims of corporate human rights violations and adjudicative jurisdiction
under Articles 8 and 9 respectively.166 Also noteworthy are provisions which require
TNCs to foster accountability through adopting human rights due diligence
measures. It also offer legal protection of human rights activities and defenders.167
Innovatively, Article 7.5 of the 2020 Draft treaty prevents state parties from invoking
the infamous doctrine of forum non conveniens often replied upon by the TNCs to
escape liability by challenges judicial proceedings instituted against them by victims
of their human rights violations in their home countries.168 The doctrine allow courts
in TNCs home states to dismiss cases based on the view that they should be heard in
the jurisdiction where the abuse occurred although the courts in such countries may
neither have the judicial independence and capacity to remedy the human rights
violations.169
Further, Article 9.5 of the 2020 Draft treaty permits victims of TNCs human
rights violations to bring their claims in home states of the TNCs if they will be
potentially denied access to fair trial in their own countries.170 Article 12 of the same
treaty allows victims of human rights violations to request that their claim be
determined in accordance with the law of the State where the abuse occurred or
where the purported TNCs is domiciled thereby enabling them to elect the kind of
legal rules amicable to their claim.171 Article 9.4 of the 2020 Draft treaty provides to
victims of TNCs human right violations the right to sue both the parent and the
foreign subsidiary of a company in their place of origin provided there is sufficiently
connected between the two.172 While the 2020 Draft treaty is commendable, similar
to earlier draft, it does not provide victims of the TNCs human rights violation with
remedies of preventative nature.173 The remedies under Article 4 of the 2020 Draft
treaty are only based only ex post facto judicial action for groups or individuals who
have suffered irreparable damage and fail to include the victims’ rights to
precautionary procedures and measures. The 2020 Draft Treaty fails to provide
human rights victims right to reparation.174 Adopting an express provision which
recognise reparations is important for providing comprehensive protection of the
victims’ rights and distinguishing this notion from other available forms of remedies
such as compensation and restitution.175 The 2020 Draft treaty clumsly mention
reparations under Article 8 without acknowledged it as a right afforded to victims of
165 R V. Segate, The first binding treaty on business and human rights: a deconstruction of the EU’s
negotiating experience along the lines of institutional incoherence and legal theories, 1,
International Journal of Human Rights (2021), 7.
166 The 2020 revised Draft treaty.
167 The 2020 revised Draft treaty.
168 The 2020 revised Draft treaty.
169 The 2020 revised Draft treaty.
170 The 2020 revised Draft treaty.
171 The 2020 revised Draft treaty.
172 The 2020 revised Draft treaty
173 The 2020 revised Draft treaty.
174 The 2020 revised Draft treaty.
175 The 2020 revised Draft treaty.

Juridical Tribune Volume 12, Issue 1, March 2022 125
human rights.176
Notwistanding the above shortcomings, there is still an opportunity for
improving the 2020 Draft treaty in pursuit of a decolonised human rights order which
provides adequate protection to the victims of corporate human rights abuse.177 On
this score, it can be argued that the final binding treat should have a chapter that deals
with the effects of the activities of non-state entities on the realisation of socio-
economic rights and the attainment of global economic equality.178 Some academic
commentators envision the development an international treaty which consist of
three facets, namely, the adjudicatory, investigatory, and promotional functions.179
The adjudicatory function will consist of an ad hoc judicial committee, constituted
as and when the need arises, with responsibility to make binding judicial decisions
enforceable under international law, in a way to the WTO dispute settlement
panels.180 The judicial committee will adjudicate human rights claims against TNCs
and other supranational institutions.181 This means it will be composed of experts
drawn from the disciplines of human rights, trade law, and corporate governance. It
is submitted that at least one representative from the home state of the respondent
TNC should be a voting member of the judicial committee.182 The committee should
be endowed with the power to decide on complaints concerning human rights
violations committed by the TNCs domiciled in the territory of the parties to the
treaty.183
The envisaged judicial committee should provide remedial recourse to the
victims of human rights violations committed by the TNCs.184 It should provide
176 The 2020 revised Draft treaty.
177 N. Barakat, The U.N. Guiding Principles: Beyond Soft Law, 12, Hastings Business Law Journal
(2016), 593.
178 See Human Rights Council Res. 26/9, U.N. Doc. A/HRC/RES/26/9 (July 14, 2014), retrieved from,
https://documents-ddsny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G14/082/52/PDF/G1408252.pdf?Open
Element, consulted on, 11, 02.2021.
179 Business and Human Rights Resource Centre, Statement on behalf of a Group of Countries at the
24th Session of the Human Rights Council (2014) 3, retrieved from,
humanrights.org/sites/default/files/media/documents/statement-unhrclegally-binding.pdf,
consulted on, 18.07.2021.
180 S. Suttle, Rules and values in international adjudication: The case of the WTO Appellate Body, 70,
International and Comparative Law Quarterly (2019), 401.
181 Settle (2019) at 402.
182 L. Lan, The Horizontal Effect of International Human Rights Law in Practice: A Comparative
Analysis of the General Comments and Jurisprudence of Selected United Nations Human Rights
Treaty Monitoring Bodies, 5, European Journal of Comparative Law and Governance (2018), 5.
183 J. Ruggie, A UN Business and Human Rights Treaty?, retrieved from, http://
businesshumanrights.org/sites/default/files/media/documents/ruggie-on-un-business-human-
rights-treaty-jan-2014.pdf, consulted on, 14.02.2021; European Parliament, Access to legal
remedies for victims of corporate human rights abuses in third countries, retrieved from,
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/
etudes/STUD/2019/603475/EXPO_STU(2019)603475_EN.pdf, consulted on, 27.06.2021.
184 P. Thielborger & T. Manandhar, Bending the Knee or Extending the Hand to Industrial Nations? A
Comment on the New Draft Treaty on Business and Human Rights (2019) 1, retrieved from,
https://www.ejiltalk.org/bending-the-knee-or-extending-the-hand-to-industrial-nations-a-
comment-on-the-new-draft-treaty-on-business-and-human-rights, consulted on 16.08.2021.

126 Juridical Tribune Volume 12, Issue 1, March 2022
sufficient compensation for such infringements in the form of guarantees of
minimum monetary compensation, non-repetition, commitments to distributive
justice, compliance with fair labour standards and sustainable development.185 These
remedies should be provided under the extant international human rights order and
developing countries should fully incorporate them into their domestic legal
frameworks.186 Further, to ensure that the remedies availed by the judicial committee
are made good, a fund may be created under the treaty. This fund should be resourced
and replenished from taxes imposed on TNCs by the states in which they are
domiciled.187 Such a taxation system may be based upon the TNCs compliance with
the obligations created by the treaty. This means corporates with poor human rights
records will be required to pay more than those with better track records of human
rights observance.188 Additionally, the treaty body should be authorised to carry out
investigative functions including yearly reviews of the world’s major TNCs to
ascertain the extent of their compliance with human rights obligations. This could be
done in the same manner that the rotating annual Universal Periodic Reviews (UPR)
are conducted by the Human Rights Council.189 This means that major TNCs will be
required to periodically report on their human rights compliance including the
activities they have taken to advance socio-economic rights. The treaty body will
also be empowered to receive submissions from other stakeholders including the
community leaders, non-governmental organisations, and individuals.190 Indeed, this
global treaty could be a milestone development for the realisation of human rights in
developing countries.191
5. Concluding remarks
This article has argued that the state-centric conception of the current
international human rights order is unsuitable for the demands of the contemporary
185 M. Español, The lengthy journey towards a treaty on business and human rights (2019) 2, retrieved
from, https://www.open globalrights.org/the-lengthy-journey-towards-treaty-on-business-and-
human-rights, consulted on, 2. 06.2021.
186 S. Barrow, UN treaty on business and human rights vital for economic and social justice (2019) 2,
retrieved from, https://www.socialeurope.eu/un-treaty-on-business-and-human-rights-vital-for-
economic-and-social-justice, consulted on, 9.08.2021.
187 D. Daum, A Future Treaty on Business and Human Rights - Its Main Functions (2018) 3, retrieved
from, https://voelker rechtsblog.org/a-future-treaty-on-business-and-human-rights-its-main-
functions, consulted on, 7.10.2021.
188 A. Latorre, In Defence of Direct Obligations for Businesses under International Human Rights Law,
5, Business and Human Rights Journal (2020), 27.
189 United Nations Office of the High Commissioner, Human Rights Council and its Universal Periodic
Review, retrieved from, https://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/IPeoples/IPeoplesFund/Pages/Human
RightsCouncilUniversalPeriodicReview.aspx, and consulted on, 26.08.2021.
190 UN Office of the Commissioner, Human Rights: Handbook for Parliamentarians (2005) 5, retrieved
from, https://www.ohchr. org/Documents/Publications/HandbookParliamentarians.pdf, consulted
on, 28.10.2021.
191 High Commissioner for Human Rights, Business and Human Rights: A Progress Report (2005) 4,
retrieved from, https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/BusinessHRen.pdf, consulted on,
27.08.2021.

Juridical Tribune Volume 12, Issue 1, March 2022 127
cosmopolitan governance of TNCs and other economic entities wielding significant
economic and political influence192 Since the inception of the Westphalian system
of international law which embeds state-centric human rights accountability, the
world has experienced deep transformations which present challenges for the
realisation of human rights protection in a globalised era of economic
interdependence and supranational political structures.193 The state-centric view as
developed and codified under the current international human rights order is unable
to meet these challenges.194 Accordingly, it has failed to effectively impose human
rights obligations on TNCs in a manner that promotes distributive justice and
challenges the neoliberal economic order which may sacrifice human rights in the
pursuit of profit.195
In light of the scarcely convincing human rights adherence record of TNCs,
the currently state-centred international human rights order must be decolonised, de-
westernised and re-oriented in favour of a binary system of international human
rights accountability.196 Such a system may be developed via the adoption of a global
treaty which imposes direct human rights and distributive justice obligations on all
manifestations of transnational capital.197 The adoption of decolonised binary human
rights obligations will challenge the pervasive neoliberal deregulation,
commodification, and privatisation agenda currently prevailing in the international
human rights system.198 This approach to international human rights governance will
close the current regulatory gap with regard to TNCs’ activities having a negative
bearing on human rights, the unclear status of extraterritorial human rights
obligations and the potential conflicts between the demands of international
investment law and human rights law.199 Such a call for a decolonised human rights
regime has the potential to confront and significantly mitigate the effects of the
TNCs’ market fundamentalism in the pursuit of human dignity, equality and
freedom.200
192 E. Petersmann, Human rights require ‘cosmopolitan constitutionalism’ and cosmopolitan law for
democratic governance of public goods (2013) 2, retrieved from, https://cadmus.eui.eu/
handle/1814/27155, consulted on, 01.09.2021.
193 See above n.3.
194 J. Atteberry, Turning in the Widening Gyre: History, Corporate Accountability and Transitional
Justice in the Postcolony, 19, Chicago Journal of International Law (2019), 357.
195 A. Yamin, Struggles for Human Rights in Health in an Age of Neoliberalism: From Civil
Disobedience to Epistemic Disobedience, 11, Journal of Human Rights Practice (2019), 372.
196 A. Glück, De-Westernisation Key concept paper (2015) 3, retrieved from, http://www.mecodem.
eu/wp-content/uploads/2015/ 05/Glueck-2016_De-Westernisation.pdf, consulted on 06.09.2021; S.
Pandey, Are the Concepts of Human Rights Western-Centric Euro-Centric or Universalizable?
(2016) 2, retrieved on, http;domain.003/Downloads/ResearchPaper.pdf, consulted on 7.09. 2021.
197 See above n.1017.
198 K. Nash, The cultural politics of human rights and neoliberalism, 18, Journal of Human Rights
(2019), 493.
199 See above.n.6.
200 B. Olivier, Decolonisation, Identity, Neo-Colonialism and Power, 20, Phronimon (2019), 6.

128 Juridical Tribune Volume 12, Issue 1, March 2022
Bibliography
1. A. Vastardis & R, Chambers, Overcoming the Corporate Veil Challenge: Could
Investment Law Inspire the Proposed Business and Human Rights Treaty?, 19,
International and Comparative Law Quarterly (2018), 389.
2. A. Alston and G. Quinn, The Nature and Scope of State Parties’ Obligations under
the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 9, Human
Rights Quarterly (1987), 156.
3. A. Anna’im, Transcending Imperialism: Human Values and Global Citizenship
(2010) 4, retrieved from, http://tannerlectures.utah.edu/_documents/a-to -z/a/An-
Naim_10.pdf, consulted on 26/05.2021.
4. A. Anna’m, The Spirit of Laws is not Universal: Alternatives to the Enforcement
Paradigm for Human Rights, 21, Tilburg Law Review (2016) 4.
5. A. Glück, De-Westernisation Key concept paper (2015) 3, retrieved from,
http://www.mecodem.eu/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Glueck-2016_De-
Westernisation.pdf, consulted on 06.09.2021.
6. A. Hall, The Challenges to State Sovereignty from the Promotion of Human Rights
(2010) 4, retrieved on, https://www.e-ir.info/2010/11/17/the-challenges-to-state-
sovereignty-from-the-promotion-of-human-rights/, consulted on, 29.07. 2021.
7. A. Huneeus & M. Madsen, Between universalism and regional law and politics: A
comparative history of the American, European, and African human rights systems,
16, International Journal of Constitutional Law (2018) 137.
8. A. Latorre, In Defence of Direct Obligations for Businesses under International
Human Rights Law, 5, Business and Human Rights Journal (2020), 27.
9. A. Rachovitsa, On New ‘Judicial Animals’: The Curious Case of an African Court
with Material Jurisdiction of a Global Scope, 19, Human Rights Law Review (2019),
260.
10. A. Von der Decken, K. Arnauld, ‘Recognistion of New Rights’ in Arnauld et al (eds)
The Cambridge Handbook of New Human Rights, Recognition, Novelty, Rhetoric 1st
ed Cambridge University Press: Cambridge (2020) 7.
11. A. Yamin, Struggles for Human Rights in Health in an Age of Neoliberalism: From
Civil Disobedience to Epistemic Disobedience, 11, Journal of Human Rights Practice
(2019), 372.
12. Additional Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights in the Area of
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights Protocol of San Salvador. See “Protocol of San
Salvador, retrieved from, https://www.oas.org/dil/1988 %20Additional%20
Protocol%20to%20the%20American%20Convention%20on%20Human%20Rights
%20in%20the%20Area%20of%20Economic%20Social%20and%20Cultural%20Rig
hts%20(Protocol%20of%20San%20Salvador).pdf, consulted on, 20.04. 2021.
13. African Commission, Protocol on The Statute of The African Court of Justice and
Human Rights, retrieved from, https://www.peaceau.org/uploads/protocol-statute-
african-court-justice-and-human-rights-en.pdf, consulted on, 26.08.2020.
14. Amlin (SA) Pty Ltd v Van Kooij 2008 (2) SA 558 (C).
15. B. Fagbayibo, Some Thoughts on Centring Pan-African Epistemic in the Teaching of
Public International Law in African Universities, 21, International Community Law
Review (2019) 171.

Juridical Tribune Volume 12, Issue 1, March 2022 129
16. B. Golde, Beyond redemption? Problematising the critique of human rights in
contemporary international legal thought,2, London Review of International Law
(2014), 98.
17. B. Ikejiaku, International Law is Western Made Global Law: The Perception of Third-
World Category, 6, African Journal of Legal Studies (2013) 339.
18. B. Simmons, Civil Rights in International Law: Compliance with Aspects of the
International Bill of Rights, 16, Indiana Journal of Global Legal (2009), 17.
19. B. Tierney, The Idea of Natural Rights-Origins and Persistence, 2, Northwestern
Journal of International Human Rights (2007) 3.
20. B. S. Brown, From State-Centric International Law towards a Positive International
Law of Human Rights, (2008), 135, retrieved from, http://www.kentlaw.edu/faculty/
bbrown/classes/HumanRightsSP10/Course Docs/ 2FromStateCentric.pdf, consulted
on 07.06.2021.
21. Business and Human Rights Resource Centre, Statement on behalf of a Group of
Countries at the 24th Session of the Human Rights Council (2014) 3, retrieved from,
humanrights.org/sites/default/files/media/documents/statement-unhrclegally-
binding.pdf, consulted on, 18.07.2021.
22. C. Christian & P, Pettit The Possibility, Design, and Status of Corporate Agents
Oxford University Press: Oxford (2013)1.
23. C. Gammage, Protecting Human Rights in the Context of Free Trade? The Case of
the SADC Group Economic Partnership Agreement, 11, European Law Journal
(2014), 783.
24. C. Gilbert, Moving towards a Right to Land: The Committee on Economic, Social and
Cultural Rights” Treatment of Land Rights as Human Rights (2015) 10, retrieved
from, https://www.escr-net.org/resources/ moving-towards-right-land-committee-
economic-social-and-cultural-rights-treatment-land, consulted on, 29. 04. 2021.
25. C. Humberto, Negotiating a Treaty on Business and Human Rights: The Early Stages,
44, The University of New South Wales Law Journal (2017), 1200.
26. C. Lafont, Accountability and global governance: challenging the state-centric
conception of human rights, 3, Ethics and Global Politics (2010) 196.
27. C. McCrudden, Human Rights Histories, 35, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies (2015)
180.
28. C. Ryngaert, Non-State Actors: Carving out a Space in a State-Centred International
Legal System, (2016) 63 Netherlands International Law Review (2016), 185.
29. C. Schreuer, The Waning of the Sovereign State: Towards a New Paradigm for
International-Law?, 31, European Journal of International Law (1993) 447.
30. C. Walter, Subjects of international law, 28, Max Planck Encyclopaedia of Public
International Law (2007) 129.
31. D. Baumann-Pealy and J. Nolan, Business and Human Rights: From Principle to
Practice 1st ed Routledge: Oxfordshire (2016) 77.
32. D. Cabrelli, Liability for the Violation of Human Rights and Labour Standards in
Global Supply Chains: A Common Law Perspective, 10, Journal of European Tort
Law (2019), 110.
33. D. Daum, A Future Treaty on Business and Human Rights - Its Main Functions (2018)
3, retrieved from, https://voelkerrechtsblog.org/a-future-treaty-on-business-and-
human-rights-its-main-functions, consulted on, 7.10.2021.
34. D. Marcus, The Normative Development of Socioeconomic Rights through
Supranational Adjudication, 42, Stanford Journal of International Law (2006), 53.

130 Juridical Tribune Volume 12, Issue 1, March 2022
35. D. Miller, ‘How Neoliberalism Got Where It Is: Elite Planning, Corporate Lobbying
and the Release of the Free Market’, in K. Birch and V. Mykhnenko, (eds) The Rise
and Fall of Neoliberalism: The Collapse of an Economic Order 1st ed Zed Books:
London (2010) at 23.
36. D. Pendas, Toward a New Politics? On the Recent Historiography of Human Rights,
21, Contemporary European History (2012) 96; Hegel The Philosophy of History 1st
ed Dover Publications: New York (1956) at 8.
37. D. Schneiderman, Investor Rights and the Judicial Denial of the Neoliberal
Constitutionalism (2015) 6, retrieved from, http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2671292,
consulted on 26.07.2021.
38. D. Uribe, Setting the pillars to enforce corporate human rights obligations stemming
from international law, (2018), 2, retrieved from, https://www.southcentre.int/wp-
content/uploads/2018/10/PB56_Setting-the-pillars-to-enforce-corporate-human-
rights-obligations-stemming-from-international-law_EN.pdf, consulted on 24. 07.
2020.
39. D. Weissbrodt, Human Rights Standards Concerning Transnational Corporations and
Other Business Entities, 23, Minnesota Journal of International Law (2014), 135.
40. D. C. Chirwa, & L. Chenwi (eds,) The Protection of Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights in Africa 1st ed Cambridge University Press: Cambridge (2016) at 3.
41. De Sousa Santos, Making the future possible again (2017) 7, retrieved from,
http://www.boaventuradesousa
santos.pt/media/Boaventura_Making%20the%20future%20possible%20again_April
2017.pdf, consulted on, 5.02.2021.
42. D. J. Hill, Estimating the effects of Human Rights Treaties on State Behaviour, 72,
The Journal of Politics (2010) 1161.
43. E. Altmetric, Decolonial Critique of Private law and Human rights, 34, South African
Journal on Human Rights (2018), 492.
44. E. De Brabandere, Non-State Actors, State-Centrism and Human Rights Obligations,
22, Leiden Journal of International Law (2009) 191.
45. E. Haugen et al, ‘Trade and Investment Agreements: What Role for Economic, Social
and Cultural Rights in International Economic Law?’ in E. Riedel et al (eds)
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in International Law Oxford University Press:
Oxford (2014) at 259.
46. E. Lahiff, Willing buyer, willing seller’: South Africa's failed experiment in market-
led agrarian reform, 28, Third World Quarterly (2007), 157; R. Hall & T. Kepe, Elite
capture and state neglect: New evidence on South Africa’s land reform, 44, Review
of African Political Economy (2017), 1.
47. E. Larking, Human Rights Rituals: Masking Neoliberalism and Inequality, and
Marginalizing Alternative World Views, 32, Canadian Journal of Law and Society
(2017), 9.
48. E. Petersmann, ‘Limits of WTO Jurisprudence: Comments from an International Law
and Human Rights Perspective’, in T. Cottier Tand P. Mavroidis (eds), The Role of
The Judge in International Trade Regulation: Experience and Lessons for The WTO
University of Michigan Press: Michigan (2003) at 81.
49. E. Petersmann, Human rights require ‘cosmopolitan constitutionalism’ and
cosmopolitan law for democratic governance of public goods (2013) 2, retrieved from,
https://cadmus.eui.eu/handle/1814/27155, consulted on, 01.09.2021.

Juridical Tribune Volume 12, Issue 1, March 2022 131
50. European Convention on Human Rights, retrieved from, http://www.echr.coe.int/
Documents/Convention_ ENG.pdf, consulted on, 26.01.2021.
51. European Parliament, Access to legal remedies for victims of corporate human rights
abuses in third countries, retrieved from, https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData
/etudes/STUD/2019/603475/EXPO_STU(2019)6034 75_EN.pdf, consulted on,
27.06.2021.
52. Europe-Third World Centre, Treaty on transnational corporations and their supply
chain with regards to human rights” (2017) 9, retrieved from,
https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/WGTransCorp/
Session3/CETIM-TNI_EN.pdf, consulted on 3. 02. 2021.
53. F. Fanon, The Wretched of the Earth (1963) 35, retrieved from, http://abahlali.org/wp-
content/uploads/ 2011/04/Frantz-Fanon-The-Wretched-of-the-Earth-1965.pdf,
consulted on 03.08. 2021.12.31
54. F. Hoffmann, B. Assy, ‘Decolonising Human Rights’ in J. Bernstorff and P. Dann
(eds) The Battle for International Law in the Decolonisation Era 1st ed Oxford
University Press, Cape Town, 2011, p.1.
55. G. Macnaughton & F. Frey, Challenging Neoliberalism: ILO, Human Rights, and
Public Health Frameworks on Decent Work, 21, Health and Human Rights Journal
(2018), 44.
56. G. Macnaughton and FD. Frey (eds) Economic and Social Rights in a Neoliberal
World 1st Cambridge University Press: Cambridge (2018) at 4.
57. H. Charlesworth, The Public/Private Distinction and the Right to Development in
International Law, 19, Australian Year Book of International Law (1988), 196.
58. H. Grotius, De Jure Belli Ac Pacis Libri Tres (1625) 4, retrieved from,
https://archive.org/stream/
hugonisgrottiide02grotuoft/hugonisgrottiide02grotuoft_djvu.txt, consulted on
29.07.2021.
59. H. Shue, On Basic Rights (1981) 4, retrived from, https://commons.pacificu.
edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article =1317&context=eip, consulted on, 27. 08.2021.
60. High Commissioner for Human Rights, Business and Human Rights: A Progress
Report (2005) 4, retrieved from, https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/
BusinessHRen.pdf, consulted on, 27.08.2021.
61. HP. Hans et al Agricultural Land Redistribution toward Greater Consensus 1st ed
World Bank Publication: Washington, D.C. (2009) 45.
62. Human Rights Commission, Achieving substantive economic equality through rights-
based radical socio-economic transformation in South Africa (2017) 4, retrieved from,
https://www.sahrc.org.za/home/21/files/
SAHRC%20Equality%20Report%202017_18.pdf, consulted on, 28.07.2021.
63. Human Rights Council Res. 26/9, U.N. Doc. A/HRC/RES/26/9 (July 14, 2014),
retrieved from, https://documents-ddsny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G14/082/52/
PDF/G1408252.pdf?OpenElement, consulted on, 11. 02.2021.
64. Human Rights Council, Human Rights and Transnational Corporations and Other
Business Enterprises, UN Doc. A/HRC/RES/17/4 of 7 July 2011.
65. I. Wuerth, International Law in the Post-Human Rights Era, 96, Taxas Law Review
(2017), 280.
66. International Institute for Sustainable Development, The Revised Draft of a Treaty on
Business and Human Rights: Ground-breaking improvements and brighter prospects
(2019) 1, retrieved from, https://www.iisd. org/itn/2019/10/02/the-revised-draft-of-a-
treaty-on-business-and-human-rights-ground-breaking-improvemen ts-and-brighter
prospects-carlos-lopez/, consulted on, 10. 08.2021.

132 Juridical Tribune Volume 12, Issue 1, March 2022
67. J. Atteberry, Turning in the Widening Gyre: History, Corporate Accountability and
Transitional Justice in the Postcolony,19, Chicago Journal of International Law
(2019), 357.
68. J. Barreto, Epistemologies of the South and Human Rights: Santos and the Quest for
Global and Cognitive Justice, 21, Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies (2014) 395.
69. J. Bernstorff, International Law and Global Justice: On Recent Inquiries into the Dark
Side of Economic Globalisation, 26, The European Journal of International Law
(2015), 282.
70. J. Cohen, Rethinking Human Rights, Democracy, and Sovereignty in the Age of
Globalisation, 36, Political Theory (2008), 581.
71. J. Contesse, Settling Human Rights Violations, 60, Harvard International Law Journal
(2019), 317.
72. J. Fraser, State-centricity and legalism: Promoting the role of social institutions in the
domestic implementation of international human rights law, 23, International Journal
of Human Rights (2019), 976.
73. J. Gideon, Accessing Economic and Social Rights under Neoliberalism: Gender and
rights in Chile, 27, Third World Quarterly (2006), 1270.
74. J. Montero, International Human Rights Obligations within the States System: The
Avoidance Account, 25, Political Philosophy (2017), 38.
75. J. Pereira, The World Bank’s ‘Market-Assisted’ Land Reform as a Political Issue:
Evidence from Brazil 1997-2006, 82, European Review of Latin American and
Caribbean Studies (2007), 21.
76. J. Rawls, The Law of Peoples, 20, Critical Inquiry (1993), 36.
77. J. Ruggie, A UN Business and Human Rights Treaty?, retrieved from,
http://businesshumanrights.org/sites/ default/files/media/documents/ruggie-on-un-
business-human-rights-treaty-jan-2014.pdf, consulted on 14.02. 2021.
78. J. Ruggie, Quo Vadis? Unsolicited Advice to Business and Human Rights Treaty
Sponsors (2014) 2, retrived on, http://www.ihrb.org/commentary/quovadis-
unsolicited-advice-business.html, consulted on, 3.03.2021.
79. J. Ruggie, The Past as Prologue? A Moment of Truth for UN Business and Human
Rights Treaty (2014) 1, retrieved from, http://www.hks.harvard.edu/m-
rcbg/CSRI/Treaty_Final.pdf, consulted on, 9.07.2021).
80. J. Ward & C. Flowers, How the Trump Administration’s Efforts to Redefine Human
Rights Threaten Economic, Social, And Racial Justice, 27, Columbia Human Rights
Law Review (2019), 5.
81. J. Wills & B. Warwick, Contesting Austerity: The Potential and Pitfalls of
Socioeconomic Rights Discourse, 23, Indian Journal of Global Legal Studies (2016),
269.
82. J. Wills, Contesting World Order: Socio-Economic Rights and the Global Justice
Systems, in J. Wills, Neo-liberal Globalisation and Socioeconomic Rights: An
Overview: Socioeconomic Rights and Global Justice Movements Cambridge
University Press: Cambridge (2017) at 49.
83. J. Zagel, International Organisations and Human Rights: The Role of the UN
Covenants in Overcoming the Accountability Gap, 36, Nordic Journal of Human
Rights (2018), 75.
84. J. Zerk, Corporate Liability for Gross Human Rights Abuses: Towards a Fairer and
More Effective System of Domestic Law Remedies, (2014)1, retrieved from,
http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Business/DomesticLawRemedies/StudyDo
mesticeLawRemedies.pdf, consulted on 8.05.2021.

Juridical Tribune Volume 12, Issue 1, March 2022 133
85. J. C. Merle (eds.) Spheres of Global Justice Springer: New York (2013) at 595.
86. J. C. Montero, Is the State-Centric Conception of Human Rights Suitable for a
Globalised World? A response to Cristina Lafont, 33, Revista Latinoamerica de
Filosofia Politica (2013) 7.
87. J. D. Ruggie, Just Business: Multinational Corporations and Human Rights 1st ed 1.
W. W. Norton and Company: New York (2013) at 2.
88. J. D. Ruggie, Multinationals as global institution: Power, authority and relative
autonomy, 12, Regulation and Governance (2017) 317.
89. J. M. Barreto, Decolonial Strategies and Dialogue in the Human Rights Field: A
Manifesto, 3, Transnational Legal Theory (2012), 3.
90. J. P. Thérien & P.Jolly, All Human Rights for All”: The United Nations and Human
Rights in the Post-Cold War Era, 36, Human Rights Quarterly (2014) 36.
91. K. Buhmann, Business and Human Rights Research Methods, 36, Nordic Journal of
Human Rights (2018) 324.
92. K. Isiksel, The Rights of Man and the Rights of the Man-Made: Corporations and
Human Rights, 38, Human Rights Quarterly (2016) 329.
93. K. Naldia and J. Magliveras, The African Court of Justice and Human Rights: A
Judicial Curate’s Egg, 9, International Organisational Law Review (2012), 399.
94. K. Nash, The cultural politics of human rights and neoliberalism, 18, Journal of
Human Rights (2019), 493.
95. K. Quintavalla, Priorities and human rights, 23, The International Journal of human
rights (2019) 680.
96. Kiobel v Royal Dutch Petroleum Co 569 U.S. 108 (2013); S.A. v Brown 564 U.S. 915,
131 S. Ct. 2846 (2011),
97. L. Lan, The Horizontal Effect of International Human Rights Law in Practice: A
Comparative Analysis of the General Comments and Jurisprudence of Selected United
Nations Human Rights Treaty Monitoring Bodies, 5, European Journal of
Comparative Law and Governance (2018), 5.
98. L. Gallegos and D. Uribe, The Next Step against Corporate Impunity: A World Court
on Business and Hu-man Rights?, 57, Harvard International Law Journal (2016), 57.
99. L. Kennedy and V. Singh, Drivers of Authoritarian Populism in the United States,
retrieved from, (2018), 2, retrieved from, https://www.americanprogress.org/
issues/democracy/reports/2018/05/10/450552/drivers-authoritarian-populism-united-
states/, consulted on 17. 06. 2021.
100. M. Palen, Free-Trade Ideology and Transatlantic Abolitionism: A Historiography, 14,
Journal of the History of Economic Thought (2015) 291.
101. M. Ahmad, The Economic Globalisation and its Threat to Human Rights, 2,
International Journal of Business and Social Science (2011) 274.
102. M. Español, The lengthy journey towards a treaty on business and human rights (2019)
2, retrieved from, https:// www.openglobalrights.org/the-lengthy-journey-towards-
treaty-on-business-and-human-rights, consulted on, 2.06.2021.
103. M. Fasciglione, Another Step on the Road? Remarks on the Zero Draft Treaty on
Business and Human Rights, 3, Diritti Umani E Diritto Internazionale (2018), 630.
104. M. Freeman, ‘Universalism of Human Rights and Cultural Relativism’, in Sheeran
and Rodley (eds) Handbook of International Human Rights Law 1st ed UNESCO
Publishing: Paris (2013) at 61.
105. M. Koskenniemi, Histories of International Law: Dealing with Eurocentrism, 19,
Rechtsgeschichte-Zeitschrift des Max-Planck-Instituts für europäische
Rechtsgeschichte (2011), 152.

134 Juridical Tribune Volume 12, Issue 1, March 2022
106. M. Nolan, Human Rights and Market Fundamentalism (2014) 7, retrieved from,
http://dianan.iue.it:8080/bits
tream/handle/1814/31206/MWP_LS_Nolan_2014_02.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=
y, consulted on, 14.06. 2021.
107. M. Nowak Human Rights or Global Capitalism: The Limits of Privatisation 1st ed
University of Pennsylvania: Philadelphia (2017) at 69.
108. M. Pieterse, Beyond the Welfare State: Globalisation of Neo-Liberal Culture and the
Constitutional Protection of Social and Economic Rights in South Africa, 14,
Stellenbosch Law Review (2003), 3.
109. M. Pieterse, Eating socio-economic rights: The usefulness of rights talk in alleviating
social hardship revisited, 50, Human Rights Quarterly (2007), 796.
110. M. Recep Taş, Ngũgĩ wa Thiongo’s Decolonising the mind: The Politics of Language
in African 1986 Literature Adli Eserinin Sömürgecilik - Dil İlişkisi Açisindan
İncelenmes, 5, International Journal of Language Academy (2017), 190.
111. M. Ssenyonjo, Reflections on state obligations with respect to economic, social and
cultural rights in international human rights law, 15, The International Journal of
Human Rights (2011), 969.
112. M. Ssenyonjo, The Influence of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and
Cultural Rights in Africa, 64, Netherlands International Law Review (2017) 13.
113. M. Terretta, We Had Been Fooled into Thinking That the UN Watches over the Entire
World: Human Rights, UN Trust Territories, and Africa’s Decolonisation, 34, Human
Rights Quarterly (2012), 360.
114. M. Woessner, ‘Provincialising Human Rights? The Heideggerian Legacy from
Charles Malik to Dipesh Chakrabarty’, in J. Barreto, (ed) Human Rights from a Third
World Perspective: Critique, History and International Law 1st ed Newcastle upon
Tyne: Cambridge (2013) 68.
115. M. J. Dembour, What are human rights? Four schools of thought, 32, Human Rights
Quarterly (2010) 21.
116. M. W. Doyle, A Global Constitution? The struggle over the UN Charter (2010),
retrieved from, http://www. iilj.org/courses/documents/HC2010Sept22.Doyle.pdf,
consulted on, 26.07. 2020.
117. N. Barakat, The U.N. Guiding Principles: Beyond Soft Law, 12, Hastings Business
Law Journal (2016), 593.
118. N. Butler & S. Subedi, The Future of International Investment Regulation: Towards
a World Investment Organisation?, 64, Netherlands International Law Review (2017),
43.
119. N. Jagers, Human Rights Enforcement Towards a People-Centered Alternative? A
Reaction to Professor Abdullahi An-Na’im, 21, Tilburg law review (2016) 275.
120. N. Nolan, Gender and Utopian Visions in a Post-Utopian Era: Americanism, Human
Rights, Market Fundamentalism, 44, Central European History (2011),14.
121. N. Walker et al, Law, polity and the legacy of statehood: An introduction, 16,
International Journal of Constitutional Law (2018) 1148.
122. N. Ani, Implications of the African Union's stance on immunity for leaders on conflict
resolution in Africa: The case of South Sudan and lessons from the Habré case, 18,
African Human Rights Law Journal (2018), 438.
123. O. De Schutter, Towards a New Treaty on Business and Human Rights, 1, Business
and Human Rights Law Journal (2016), 41.
124. Okpabi v. Royal Dutch Shell plc and Shell Petroleum Development Company of
Nigeria Ltd (2018) EWCA Civ 191.

Juridical Tribune Volume 12, Issue 1, March 2022 135
125. P. Alston and G. Quinn, The Nature and Scope of States Parties’ Obligations under
the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 38, Human
Rights Quarterly (1987), 299.
126. P. Alston, ‘The Not-a-Cat Syndrome: Can the International Human Rights Regime
Accommodate Non-State Actors?’ in P. Alston, (ed) Non-State Actors and Human
Rights 1st ed Oxford University Press: Oxford (2005) at 17.
127. P. Alston, The Populist Challenge to Human Right, 9, Journal of Human Rights
Practice (2017), 1.
128. P. Carozza & D. Philpott, The Catholic Church, Human Rights, and Democracy
Convergence and Conflict with the Modern State (2012) 5, retrieved from,
https://www.stthomas.edu/media/catholic studies/center/logos
journal/archives/2012vol15/153/15-3carozza.pdf, consulted on, 24.07. 2021.
129. P. Macklem, Human rights in international law: Three generations or one?, 3, London
Review of International Law (2015), 19.
130. P. Spiro, The States and International Human Rights, 66, Fordham Law Review
(1997), 568.
131. P. Thielborger & T. Manandhar, Bending the Knee or Extending the Hand to Industrial
Nations? A Comment on the New Draft Treaty on Business and Human Rights (2019)
1, retrieved from, https://www.ejiltalk.org/ bending-the-knee-or-extending-the-hand-
to-industrial-nations-a-comment-on-the-new-draft-treaty-on-busi ness-and-human-
rights, consulted on 16.08.2021.
132. Pioneer Concrete Services Ltd v Yelnah Pty Ltd (1987) AC ACLC, Gorton v Federal
Commissioner of Taxation (1965) 113 CLR 604; the Amlin (SA) Pty Ltd v Van Kooij
2008 (2) SA 558 (C).
133. Pioneer Concrete Services Ltd v Yelnah Pty Ltd (1987) AC ACLC, Gorton v Federal
Commissioner of Taxation (1965) 113 CLR 604.
134. R V. Segate, The first binding treaty on business and human rights: a deconstruction
of the EU’s negotiating experience along the lines of institutional incoherence and
legal theories, 1, International Journal of Human Rights (2021), 7.
135. R. Burke, Decolonisation and the Evolution of International Human Rights 1st
Pennsylvania University Press: Pennsylvania, 2011, p.2.
136. R. Dworkin R “Rights as Trumps” in Waldron J (ed) Theories of Rights 1st ed Oxford
University Press:Oxford (1984) at 153.
137. R. Hirschl, Negative Rights vs Positive Entitlements: A Comparative Study of Judicial
Interpretations of Rights in an Emerging Neo-Liberal Economic Order, 22, Human
Rights Quarterly (2000), 1060.
138. R. Home, Culturally Unsuited to Property Rights?’ Colonial Land Laws and African
Societies, 40, Journal of Law and Society (2013), 19.
139. R. Skinner et al, The Third Pillar: Access to Judicial Remedies for Human Rights
Violations by Transnational Business (2016) 4, retrieved from, https://www.business-
humanrights.org/en/latest-news/pdf-the-third-pillar-access-to-judicial-remedies-for-
human-rights-violations-by-transnational-business/, consulted on 17.04.2021.
140. S. Barrow, UN treaty on business and human rights vital for economic and social
justice (2019) 2, retrieved from, https://www.socialeurope.eu/un-treaty-on-business-
and-human-rights-vital-for-economic-and-social-justice, consulted on, 9.08.2021.
141. S. Jensen, The Making of International Human Rights: The 1960s, Decolonisation and
the Reconstruction of Global Values 1st ed Cambridge University Press: Cambridge
(2016) at 7.

136 Juridical Tribune Volume 12, Issue 1, March 2022
142. S. McBrearty, The Proposed Business and Human Rights Treaty: Four Challenges
and an Opportunity, 57, Havard International Law Journal (2014) 4.
143. S. Moyn, A Powerless Companion: Human Rights in the Age of Neoliberalism, 77,
Law and Contemporary Problems (2017), 149; D. Grewal & J. Purdy Introduction:
Law and Neoliberalism, 77, Law and Contemporary Problems (2014), 1.
144. S. Moyn, Substance, Scale, and Salience: The Recent Historiography of Human
Rights, 8, Annual Review of Law and Social Sciences (2018) 123.
145. S. Nimigan, The Malabo Protocol, the ICC, and the Idea of ‘Regional
Complementarity, 17, Journal of International Criminal Justice (2019), 40.
146. S. Pandey, Are the Concepts of Human Rights Western-Centric Euro-Centric or
Universalizable? (2016) 2, retrieved on, http; domain.003/Downloads/ResearchPaper.
pdf, consulted on 7.09. 2021.
147. S. Regilme, Constitutional Order in Oligarchic Democracies: Neoliberal Rights
versus Socio-Economic Rights, 16, Law, Culture and the Humanities (2016) 1.
148. S. Subedi, A shift in paradigm in international economic law: From State-centric
principles to people-centric policies, 10, Manchester Journal of International
Economic Law (2013), 314.
149. S. Suttle, Rules and values in international adjudication: The case of the WTO
Appellate Body, 70, International and Comparative Law Quarterly (2019), 401.
150. S. Wheatley, The Emergence of New States in International Law: The Insights from
Complexity Theory, 15, Chinese Journal of International Law (2015) 580.
151. S. Sims, Political Philosophy and the Problems of International Order: Machiavelli,
Kant, and Aristotle, 46, Perspectives on Political Science (2017) 127.
152. Salomon v Salomon (1896) KHL 1.
153. T. Hanson, The Tensions between Realism in International Relations and Human
Rights Studies (2008) 64, retrieved on https://socialsciences.exeter.ac.uk/politics/
research/readingroom/Dunne-goodhart-chap04.pdf, consulted on, 01.05. 2021.
154. T. Isiksel, The Rights of Man and the Rights of the Man-Made: Corporations and
Human Rights, 38, Human Rights Quarterly (2016), 294.
155. T. Pogge, Are We Violating the Human Rights of the World's Poor?, 14, Yale Human
Rights and Development Law Journal (2011), 32.
156. T. Pogge, Cosmopolitanism: A Path to Peace and Justice, 12, Journal of East-West
Thought (2015), 9.
157. The African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights was adopted 01 June 1981,
retrieved from, http://srjc. org.za/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/African-Charter-on-
Human-and-Peoples-Rights.pdf, consulted on, 21.04. 2021.
158. The UN Charter was signed on June 26, 1945 and entered into force on October 24,
1945. United Nations “Human rights education” http://www.humanrightseducation.
info/hr-materials/theunited-nations-charter.html (accessed on 27/01/2019).
159. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted on 10 Dec, G.A., Res.217A (UN)
GAOR 3d Sess, art. 25. Doc A/ RES/3/ 217 (1948).
160. UN Human Rights Council, Second Revised Draft 2020 1, retrieved from,
https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/WGTransCorp/Session6/
OEIGWG_Chair-
Rapporteur_second_revised_draft_LBI_on_TNCs_and_OBEs_with_respect_to_Hu
man_Rights.pdf , consulted on, 9.08.2021.
161. UN Office of the Commissioner, Human Rights: Handbook for Parliamentarians
(2005) 5, retrieved from, https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/
HandbookParliamentarians.pdf, consulted on, 28.10.2021.

Juridical Tribune Volume 12, Issue 1, March 2022 137
162. United Nations Office of the High Commissioner, Human Rights Council and its
Universal Periodic Review, retrieved from, https://www.ohchr.org/EN/
Issues/IPeoples/IPeoplesFund/Pages/HumanRightsCouncil
UniversalPeriodicReview.aspx, consulted on, 26.08.2021.
163. V. Besirevic, ‘Pigeonholing Human Rights in International Investment Arbitration:
A Claim or a Defense?,’ in v. Várady and M. Jovanović, (eds) Human Rights in the
21st Century Eleven International Publishing: Amsterdam (2020) at 218.
164. V. Hoh, General Comment No. 24 (2017) on State Obligations Under the
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in the Context of
Business Activities (CESCR), 58, International Legal Materials (2019), 872.
165. V. Kube & E. Petersmann, Human Rights Law in International Investment Arbitration,
27, Asian Journal of WTO and International Health Law and Policy (2016), 5.
166. V. Ozoke, The Imperialism of Rights: Tracing the Politics and History of Human
Rights, 4, American International Journal of Contemporary Research (2014) 3.
167. V. Ozoke, The Imperialism of Rights: Tracing the Politics and History of Human
Rights, 4, American International Journal of Contemporary Research (2014) 1.
168. Vedanta Resources PLC v. Lungowe (2019) UKSC 20.
169. Velásquez Rodriguez v. Honduras Ct. H.R. (ser. C) No. 4, 175 (1988).
170. W. Vandenhole, ‘Decolonising children’s rights: of vernacularisation and
interdisciplinarity’ in R. Budde and U. Manista, Childhood and Children’s Rights
between Research and Activism 1st ed Springer: Bern, 2020, p.187.