POLYCENTRICITY AND POLYPHONY IN INTERNATIONAL LAW: INTERPRETING THE CORPORATE RESPONSIBILITY TO RESPECT HUMAN RIGHTS
POLYCENTRICITY AND POLYPHONY IN INTERNATIONAL LAW: INTERPRETING THE CORPORATE RESPONSIBILITY TO RESPECT HUMAN RIGHTS
复制标题
国际法中的多中心性和复调性：解读企业尊重人权的责任
DOI：
10.1017/s0020589320000469
复制
发表时间：
2020
影响因子：
2
通讯作者：
E. Partiti
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
E. Partiti
摘要 在传统上仅属于国家和条约制定领域的领域中出现了复杂的多方参与者和多层次治理结构。 《联合国工商业与人权指导原则》（UNGP）的通过确认了企业尊重人权的责任，并通过人权尽职调查（HRDD）（即通过管理流程）来实施。 UNGP 的开放性特征催生了其他软工具的出现，为企业构建 HRDD 提供指导。本文从监管的角度将 UNGP 概念化为基于原则的多中心治理实践，依赖于监管中介机构的解释。然后，它评估了各种特殊规范性文书在向 UNGP 提供解释方面的作用，以及额外一层解释性材料的存在如何有助于负责任的企业行为的制度化。对国际组织、非政府组织和商业组织起草的文书的分析表明，由于对企业人权责任的确切范围存在分歧和分歧，不同中介机构之间存在权力下放的紧张关系，同时也揭示了对 UNGP 的集中解释的企图。文章最后建议对多中心治理制度的使用及其在国际法这一领域缺乏集中解释权威提出一些谨慎的建议，并提出了正式建立集中解释的可能方法。
Abstract Complex multi-actors and multi-level governance structures have emerged in areas that were traditionally exclusively the preserve of the State and treaty-making. The adoption of the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGP) affirmed a corporate responsibility to respect human rights to be implemented through human rights due diligence (HRDD), ie via management processes. The open-ended character of the UNGP generated the emergence of other soft instruments offering guidance to corporations in structuring HRDD. This contribution conceptualises the UNGP from the perspective of regulation as a principles-based exercise in polycentric governance reliant on regulatory intermediaries for interpretation. It then assesses the role of various sui generis normative instruments in providing interpretation to the UNGP and, how the presence of an additional layer of interpretative material contributes to the institutionalisation of responsible corporate conduct. The analysis of instruments drafted by international, non-governmental and business organisations reveals both a decentralising tension between different intermediaries due to disagreements and divergence concerning the precise extent of corporate human rights responsibilities, as well as attempts to centralise the interpretation of the UNGP. The article concludes by recommending some caution towards the employment of polycentric governance regimes and their lack of centralised interpretive authority in this domain of international law and suggests possible ways to formally establish centralised interpretation.