Traditionally understood, human rights law is designed to provide protection to individuals from arbitrary use of state power. States, however, are not the only powerful actors that can impact the enjoyment of human rights. It has increasingly been observed that business activity can have detrimental human rights effects. Yet, international human rights law has been slow to react to the challenges posed by corporations. Human rights instruments are primarily directed towards states. The two major universal covenants on human rights -the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) are no exception. Although the recent commentary issued by the treaty bodies of the two Covenants acknowledge the role potentially played by private actors within the framework of human rights protection, their jurisprudence does not extend the obligations to the actors beyond the state. States are under the obligation to regulate abuses by private entities and are usually encouraged to do so domestically through legislation and adjudication. As such, the article surveys the decisions of domestic courts in which the contents of the two Covenants have played a role in defining the human rights obligations of corporations directly. In one of its landmark decisions, the US Supreme Court has characterized the ICCPR as ‘being of little utility’. However, the district courts have not followed this dicta and found the Covenant to ascertain norms of international law with a potential reach to private and non-state actors. Examination of the cases across different jurisdictions reveals that the two Covenants play a relevant role despite their limited scope.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
