This article discusses three questions. First, what drives business to ignore human rights, or even worse, consciously undermine the achievement of human rights? Second, given the state of affairs of business and human rights, why is there not a quick regulatory fix to the problems that we see? Third, in light of the failure of business and of regulation so far, what can be done? The article posits that reform of company law is key to ensuring business respect for human rights, as an intrinsic element of the transition to sustainability. The article outlines how company law can facilitate sustainable business. It concludes with some reflections on the drivers for change that make it possible to envisage that the necessary reform of company law will be enacted.

This article delves into the deep seabed mining regime under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) with a view to inform the negotiating process of the proposed business and human rights (BHR) treaty. It highlights points of convergence and divergence between the two regulatory regimes and explores how the BHR treaty negotiations could draw from the deep seabed mining regime with regard to the responsibility and liability of states and corporations. In particular, it suggests that a BHR treaty could incorporate some of the arrangements of UNCLOS to address state obligations and direct corporate human rights obligations, both of a general and specific nature, including the obligation to carry out human rights due diligence. The article also proposes a mechanism of responsibility and liability of states and corporations under the future BHR treaty going beyond UNCLOS and embracing residual liability for home and/or host states.

The fields of business and human rights (BHR) and business for peace (B4P) have overlaps in how they view business in society and in their multidisciplinary nature. This paper seeks to build on the work of BHR scholars in connecting with the B4P scholarly community, to bridge the divide by explaining the elements of the B4P literature that might be of interest for BHR scholars, and to describe a joint research agenda for scholars in both fields. The paper begins with a literature review of the major assertions and findings of B4P on the role that business can and should play in enhancing peace. Similarities and differences in approach and theories between BHR and B4P are then noted. A common research agenda is proposed that BHR and B4P scholars may use as a starting point for broader collaboration.

This article explores some aspects of the Canadian Supreme Court’s decision on Nevsun Resources v Araya in the light of its exposition on the act of state doctrine and application of core human rights as an integral aspect of international customary law and common law. It examines the Nevsun decision in the context of recent statutory developments in France and the Netherlands, the promised law reform in the European Union, and the proposed business and human rights treaty. I argue that it is high time to abandon the doctrinal fossil that human rights obligations do not apply to corporate governance and operations. It is hoped that COVID-19 contexts, and a post-pandemic world, will expeditiously result in the willing adoption of a treaty on business and human rights.

The relentless spread of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)1 has been exponential, with an alarming number of deaths2 putting health systems under severe strain. The World Health Organization (WHO) has declared COVID-19 a pandemic3 and health experts cannot predict when a vaccine may be available, or when the spread will slow.

Economic and armed non-state actors increasingly operate through their transnational activities. International public law excludes them from any international regulation or accountability process. International humanitarian law (IHL, the law of war) as a branch of international public law is an exception to this because it also regulates the behavior of non-state actors. Recent developments pertaining to the potential liability of business entities for involvement in international crimes, particularly when related to the activities of ANSGs challenge the traditional doctrine of international law and demonstrate the need for its norms to adapt to an evolving reality.

Salinas Grandes is a vast salt flat in the high-altitude Puna region of Salta and Jujuy, two north-western provinces of Argentina. It is situated in one of the world’s driest regions, with an extremely fragile ecosystem. Salinas Grandes is so iconic and beautiful that Argentinians voted it amongst the country’s top seven natural wonders in May 2019.1 In addition to its beauty, this stunning desert of salt also holds one of the largest reserves of lithium in the world. Lithium is a light and versatile metal used to produce, among other things, the lithium-ion batteries that power electric vehicles (EV). As global efforts to phase out fossil fuels from our transport systems and adopt clean energy alternatives increase, lithium is becoming increasingly critical. It is no wonder, therefore, that industry has coined it the ‘white gold’.2 Salinas Grandes is only one of many salt lakes in North West Argentina which, together with Bolivia and Chile, form what is known as the ‘lithium triangle’. It is estimated that these three countries alone account for more than half of the world’s lithium.3 Global demand for lithium to produce EV is expected to grow rapidly over the coming decade. To meet this demand, the lithium industry will require significant investment to ramp up additional supply.4 As a result, all eyes have turned to the ‘lithium triangle’ and investment in the region has soared in recent years.5 For the three developing countries, this represents a unique opportunity to attract much-needed foreign investment and boost economic growth.6

A year ago, in Jam v International Finance Corporation, fishing and farming families from rural India achieved a historic US Supreme Court victory over one of the world’s largest financial institutions. The Supreme Court decided that the World Bank Group, and similar international organizations, do not automatically enjoy ‘absolute’ immunity from suit, but instead can be sued under the same circumstances as foreign governments can be sued in United States (US) courts – including suits based on their commercial activities in the US.