企业补救责任(第三支柱Ruggie框架)-三个主要石油泄漏案例的企业反应分析:壳牌-尼日利亚,BP -美国(海湾),雪佛龙-厄瓜多尔

T. Lambooy, M. Varner, Aikaterini Argyrou
{"title":"企业补救责任(第三支柱Ruggie框架)-三个主要石油泄漏案例的企业反应分析:壳牌-尼日利亚,BP -美国(海湾),雪佛龙-厄瓜多尔","authors":"T. Lambooy, M. Varner, Aikaterini Argyrou","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.1953190","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"From 2005-2011, the UN Special Representative for Human Rights and Business, Prof. John Ruggie, has built a governance framework comprising three pillars, i.e., ‘Protect, Respect, Remedy,’ to clarify the complementary roles of governments (public actors) and companies (private actors) in respect to the protection and realisation of human rights. The first pillar of the framework concerns the State’s duty to protect citizens from human rights violations by private actors, such as companies. The second pillar regards the corporate responsibility to respect human rights. The third pillar is about the shared responsibility of States and companies to provide legal and non-legal remedies to victims of corporate (mis)conduct. The concepts and ideas contained in this pillar still require sharpening as well as discussion on how to put them into practice. This article centres on the third pillar. First, it discusses the background and content of the third pillar: what does it mean to provide remedies, both from the corporate governance perspective and from a more operational perspective? It analyses what Ruggie’s ‘Guiding Principles’ state on providing effective remedies. Next, three case studies concerning major oil spills will be presented. In each of them, problems with communities escalated resulting in many legal procedures. The first is the BP disaster in the Gulf of Mexico. The second and third cases concern the oil spills and environmental pollution in water basins and soil in Ecuador and Nigeria for which, respectively, Chevron and Shell are being held accountable in various legal proceedings. The corporate responses by each of these multinationals towards said proceedings are analysed from the perspective of Remedy (and the prevention of conflicts). Finally, an attempt is made to test the oil companies’ remedies against the effectiveness parameters as contained in Ruggie’s Guiding Principles, meanwhile indicating where possibilities lay for improvement.","PeriodicalId":388507,"journal":{"name":"Energy Law & Policy eJournal","volume":"20 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2011-11-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Corporate Responsibility to Remedy (3rd Pillar Ruggie Framework) - Analysis of the Corporate Responses in Three Major Oil Spill Cases: Shell - Nigeria, BP – US (the Gulf), Chevron – Ecuador\",\"authors\":\"T. Lambooy, M. Varner, Aikaterini Argyrou\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/SSRN.1953190\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"From 2005-2011, the UN Special Representative for Human Rights and Business, Prof. John Ruggie, has built a governance framework comprising three pillars, i.e., ‘Protect, Respect, Remedy,’ to clarify the complementary roles of governments (public actors) and companies (private actors) in respect to the protection and realisation of human rights. The first pillar of the framework concerns the State’s duty to protect citizens from human rights violations by private actors, such as companies. The second pillar regards the corporate responsibility to respect human rights. The third pillar is about the shared responsibility of States and companies to provide legal and non-legal remedies to victims of corporate (mis)conduct. The concepts and ideas contained in this pillar still require sharpening as well as discussion on how to put them into practice. This article centres on the third pillar. First, it discusses the background and content of the third pillar: what does it mean to provide remedies, both from the corporate governance perspective and from a more operational perspective? It analyses what Ruggie’s ‘Guiding Principles’ state on providing effective remedies. Next, three case studies concerning major oil spills will be presented. In each of them, problems with communities escalated resulting in many legal procedures. The first is the BP disaster in the Gulf of Mexico. The second and third cases concern the oil spills and environmental pollution in water basins and soil in Ecuador and Nigeria for which, respectively, Chevron and Shell are being held accountable in various legal proceedings. The corporate responses by each of these multinationals towards said proceedings are analysed from the perspective of Remedy (and the prevention of conflicts). Finally, an attempt is made to test the oil companies’ remedies against the effectiveness parameters as contained in Ruggie’s Guiding Principles, meanwhile indicating where possibilities lay for improvement.\",\"PeriodicalId\":388507,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Energy Law & Policy eJournal\",\"volume\":\"20 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2011-11-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"6\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Energy Law & Policy eJournal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.1953190\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Energy Law & Policy eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.1953190","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

摘要

从2005年至2011年,联合国人权与工商业问题特别代表约翰·鲁吉教授建立了一个由“保护、尊重、补救”三大支柱组成的治理框架,以阐明政府(公共行为体)和公司(私营行为体)在保护和实现人权方面的互补作用。该框架的第一个支柱涉及国家保护公民不受公司等私人行为者侵犯人权的义务。第二个支柱是企业尊重人权的责任。第三个支柱是国家和公司向公司(不当)行为的受害者提供法律和非法律补救的共同责任。这一支柱所包含的概念和思想仍然需要加强,也需要讨论如何将其付诸实践。本文以第三个支柱为中心。首先,讨论了第三个支柱的背景和内容:从公司治理的角度和更具操作性的角度来看,提供救济意味着什么?分析了鲁吉的“指导原则”对提供有效救济的规定。接下来,将介绍三个关于重大石油泄漏的案例研究。在每一个国家,社区问题升级导致许多法律程序。首先是英国石油公司在墨西哥湾的灾难。第二起和第三起案件涉及厄瓜多尔和尼日利亚的石油泄漏和流域和土壤的环境污染,雪佛龙和壳牌分别在各种法律诉讼中被追究责任。从补救(和预防冲突)的角度分析了这些跨国公司对上述诉讼的企业反应。最后,尝试测试石油公司的补救措施对有效性参数包含在Ruggie的指导原则,同时指出在哪里的可能性奠定了改进。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Corporate Responsibility to Remedy (3rd Pillar Ruggie Framework) - Analysis of the Corporate Responses in Three Major Oil Spill Cases: Shell - Nigeria, BP – US (the Gulf), Chevron – Ecuador
From 2005-2011, the UN Special Representative for Human Rights and Business, Prof. John Ruggie, has built a governance framework comprising three pillars, i.e., ‘Protect, Respect, Remedy,’ to clarify the complementary roles of governments (public actors) and companies (private actors) in respect to the protection and realisation of human rights. The first pillar of the framework concerns the State’s duty to protect citizens from human rights violations by private actors, such as companies. The second pillar regards the corporate responsibility to respect human rights. The third pillar is about the shared responsibility of States and companies to provide legal and non-legal remedies to victims of corporate (mis)conduct. The concepts and ideas contained in this pillar still require sharpening as well as discussion on how to put them into practice. This article centres on the third pillar. First, it discusses the background and content of the third pillar: what does it mean to provide remedies, both from the corporate governance perspective and from a more operational perspective? It analyses what Ruggie’s ‘Guiding Principles’ state on providing effective remedies. Next, three case studies concerning major oil spills will be presented. In each of them, problems with communities escalated resulting in many legal procedures. The first is the BP disaster in the Gulf of Mexico. The second and third cases concern the oil spills and environmental pollution in water basins and soil in Ecuador and Nigeria for which, respectively, Chevron and Shell are being held accountable in various legal proceedings. The corporate responses by each of these multinationals towards said proceedings are analysed from the perspective of Remedy (and the prevention of conflicts). Finally, an attempt is made to test the oil companies’ remedies against the effectiveness parameters as contained in Ruggie’s Guiding Principles, meanwhile indicating where possibilities lay for improvement.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信