Victims’ rights, whether they take the form of a procedural right of access to justice or participation, or a substantive right to reparation, fulfil a number of important functions. Ideally, they allow victims to assert their rights, redress power imbalances manifest in violations, provide a measure of justice and furnish the victim(s) with the means to cope and rebuild their lives. They may also lead to a public acknowledgement of wrongdoing that recognises unlawful suffering, demonstrates society’s respect for, and solidarity with, the victim(s), and affirms the rule of law. In addition, victims’ rights play an important role in contributing to prevention through deterrence (punishment and/or payment of damages or other forms of reparation) and systemic changes to counter violations, such as legislative and institutional reforms. A series of open questions and challenges remain. Do the rights granted in various treaties and declarations translate into a right to reparation under international law, and, if so, does this apply in relation to all or only some particularly serious human rights violations? Who are the rights-holders and what are their entitlements? Recent developments also raise questions of coherence and effectiveness in light of the proliferation of victims’ rights in various bodies of international law.

IOM wields power over individuals and is capable of violating their rights, for instance when it contributes to migrant detention operations or when it engages in migrant returns that are ‘voluntary under compulsion’. This chapter assesses IOM’s legal human rights accountability in three steps. First, IOM’s human rights obligations are identified. While there has been much debate about their proper source, there is today little doubt that organizations such as IOM as have at least a core bundle of human rights obligations. The second step is to identify and analyze the mechanisms that may potentially hold IOM to account for violations of its human rights obligations. I identify the Office of the Inspector General and domestic courts as the only two IOM human rights accountability mechanisms, and analyze their rules on access, participation, neutrality, and outcomes using doctrinal legal methodology. Third, I assess the sufficiency of these two accountability mechanisms, in light of the right to an effective remedy and procedural justice research. The chapter concludes with an overall assessment of IOM’s human rights accountability, and some thoughts on potential avenues for reform.

This chapter deals with the implementation of corporate human rights responsibility. It introduces human rights due diligence (HRDD) as a legal standard and managerial process. It outlines the elements of a HRDD process, consisting of the identification of human rights impacts, responding to the impacts, tracking the responses, and reporting on their effectiveness. A number of specific tools are touched on, such as human rights policy commitments, human rights impact assessments, operational-level grievance mechanisms, and human rights measurement and performance indicators. The chapter also engages with the requirement of effective remediation of negative human rights impacts. Some common implementation challenges and criticisms of HRDD are discussed. In a final step, the chapter reflects on what else corporations ought to do beyond HRDD to truly organize for human rights. Particular attention is given to fostering rights-respecting business cultures. Topics addressed in this regard range from responsible leadership to value-based recruiting practices to the importance of incentives and remuneration.

This chapter develops the criteria relevant to assess a dispute resolution mechanism or DRM’s compliance with fair trial standards. The discussion focuses on the three broad fair trial guarantees that an institutional DRM must incorporate if it is to be considered appropriate. These are independence, impartiality and fairness. First, the discussion shows that for a DRM to be considered independent, it must possess institutional, decisional and personal/individual independence. Those three aspects will be explained succinctly. The chapter then focuses on the concept of judicial impartiality. For a fair trial to be provided, impartiality in its objective and subjective sense is critical. Finally, the chapter demonstrates how the right to a fair trial also demands that a claimant is treated fairly. Fairness is a broad guarantee and is explored through seven sub-component fair trial rights. Fairness cannot be achieved unless the right to equal access to the courts, the right to equality of arms, the right to an oral hearing, the right to appeal, the right to a reasoned judgment, the right to access justice without undue delay and the right to an effective remedy are provided for in the law, and importantly, practically realised.

This chapter tests the assumption that by virtue of the strong supranational adjudication and lawmaking by the Court, the ECHR could be considered supranational law in terms of its effect in domestic legal systems. The hypothesis of vertical integration is verified by adopting a two-fold approach analyzing both the perspective of the Court and the point of view of national legal orders. The first part of the chapter challenges the notion of implementation freedom. Taking a closer look at the Convention level reveals how the ECtHR developed a subtle yet sophisticated framework requiring domestic integration of the Convention’s substance and national courts to uphold and protect ECHR rights. The second part of the chapter looks at how domestic legal orders have received Convention law. Surveying existing studies demonstrates that Convention law may be considered de-facto supranational law, because it is, by and large, directly invocable by individuals vis-à-vis domestic authorities and effectively enforceable within national legal systems. Domestic resistance against the ECtHR, in its current form, must not necessarily be understood as an antithesis to integration, but can equally be regarded epiphenomenal.

The tension that has been witnessed in recent years between the law of foreign investment which guarantees investors' protections and legitimate expectations, on one hand, and the need not to unduly restrict the right of host governments to implement their public policy, including the protection of the environment and human rights, and the promotion of social and economic justice within the host country, on the other, is the result of the growing concern of the wider stakeholders about the developments within this area of law. The issues relating to the need to reconcile public interests with private interests within international investment law has in recent been a matter of debate both within and beyond the traditional legal academic literature. It is in this context that this chapter examines some possible options designed to reconcile public interests with private interests in international investment arbitration and to secure an effective remedy for investment-related human rights violations globally in general and in Asia in particular. In doing so, this chapter focusses on the human rights issues raised by economic and other land concessions in many developing countries and various options for remedy for those adversely affected by such concessions.

This chapter explores the concept of vulnerability, its recognition and use in international human rights law, and the broader debate on the (potential) advantages and downsides of focusing on vulnerable identities to strengthen protection. Following this overview, it examines core categories of vulnerability that are either already reflected in international human rights law, largely in the form of anti-discrimination instruments, or constitute a priority area in recent debates and legal developments. This includes ‘race’, gender and sexual orientation, persons with disabilities, persons living in extreme poverty, age (the rights of children are addressed in a discreet chapter), as well as refugees, migrants and internally displaced persons (IDPs). For each of these categories, the chapter examines core notions, highlights specific concerns, charts relevant legal developments and analyses both advancements made and remaining challenges.