Who are those doing 'business and human rights' (BHR) stuff, and for whom are they doing these things?
This post offers two reflections on the BHR 'movement'.
(I'm conscious that I'm at risk of over-thinking things about the BHR movement or 'field'. Examples of this include posts asking 'has BHR lost its way?' or one reflecting on what the field itself comprises.)
The first reflection I've used since 2016 in my Masters (LLM) course in BHR, to stimulate student thinking. It might be framed as who 'does' BHR?
The second reflection is one I offered at a recent talk at ANU's RegNet, my doctoral alma mater. It might be framed as who is BHR for?
Who 'does' BHR?
Many students study human rights with a view to 'making a difference'. Most of my students accordingly focus on classic public law and public international law subjects.
Yet -- and this is what I leave my students with each course-end -- perhaps the most effective BHR lawyers of the future will not be steeped in conventional human rights skills and knowledge. They will be people who understand contract law, corporate law, fiduciary duties of institutional investors, international trade and investment law and negotiations... they will also be students who have grasped that understanding the significance of local political economy dynamics is as important as fluency in the UN Guiding Principles on BHR: law and power, law as power.
BHR could do with more reflection, for example, on expertise, who is doing it, on how 'power law and expertise shape the global political economy' in a David Kennedy (2016) sense.
Many activists (and academics) in this field appear not only not to understand business or corporations, they sometimes seem not to want to understand them. Business and investment is something that happens out there, by some people who are probably not as nice or worldly as us.... Yet one has to question BHR strategies grounded in knee-jerk distaste for the very entities that one needs to understand (and sometimes engage with!) in order to transform problematic patterns.
Who is BHR 'for'?
Two of the BHR topics that perhaps dominate in Australia at present are (i) data, new technology and human rights; and (ii) corporate action on human rights risks in the supply chain under the intended Modern Slavery Act.
Both are important, complex, etc. Yet both, in different ways, have the effect of focusing very much on 'us' (in the first world) rather than 'them' (places where the aggregate of serious, systemic adverse BHR impacts occur).
Take the supply chains focus, which is one I'm part of. (An earlier post linked above noted that BHR is about a lot more than just 'modern slavery', as current and important and hard as that problem is).
There is a possible critique that the orientation of our current 'modern slavery' enquiries is parochial or inward looking. Its dominant vein is as follows: we must act to ensure we -- and our jurisdiction, our supermarket shelves, our wardrobes -- are not 'tainted' by association with modern slavery risk. That is not the same as saying 'we must tackle this phenomenon wherever it occurs'.
Have we succeeded if, through altered purchasing and procurement patterns (etc.) we rid Australia of any tainting trace of modern slavery, even if the phenomenon is alive and well in our region?
At least on Modern Slavery Act matters, is BHR as a movement (and so to a degree BHR scholarship) at risk of framing things as 'what can we do to rid ourselves of this human stain?' rather than 'what raft of measures will best address this topic in its own right?', that is, what works irrespective of how it affects our space?
This second reflection might be viewed as a bit unfair. After all, we (in Australia) are simply looking for ways, within our sphere of influence (so to speak), to address a global problem. And it is natural for analysis to 'begin at home' and focus on such issues. Still, its just a reflection.
Jo
No comments:
Post a Comment