Ruggie's rights

The UN human rights system is grappling with the challenges of economic globalisation, and one man holds great sway over the direction it should take: Harvard University international relations professor John Ruggie.

Ruggie was appointed UN Special Representative on business and human rights in July 2005, when long-running debates over how multinational companies affect equity and accountability in the world economy ground to a halt. Western capitals were adamantly opposed to a set of guidelines known as the UN Norms, which were designed to impose broad and binding human rights obligations on multinational firms.

Ruggie has good pedigree. From 1997 to 2001 he was Assistant Secretary-General and chief advisor for strategic planning to UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan. He was Dean of Columbia University's School of International and Public Affairs and he directed the University of California's Institute on Global Conflict and Cooperation.

On Tuesday he addresses an annual meeting of the UN's seven human rights treaty bodies, which track how treaties like the International Covenant on Political and Civil Rights are being implemented and hand down guidance on their interpretation.

The treaty bodies have been shuffling in the direction of addressing their guidance to businesses: either directly, or by instructing states about regulatory measures they should take. Their judgments and opinions have been increasingly pointing to sectoral issues, such as how oil and infrastructure projects affect indigenous people, or broad labour market issues, such as firms discriminating against staff.

Ruggie’s remit asked for his ‘views and recommendations’ on this trend; but he has dodged that request, citing lack of time. Instead, he will simply tell the treaty bodies what positions they have reached and what issues now need clarification and elaboration. Ruggie’s lines of argument are already known, and he is set to pose some difficult questions:

• When a company is ‘complicit’ for the repressive acts of a state security force, does it need to give it practical help, or just tacitly benefit from the acts?
• When does a government contractor – such as a security firm in Iraq – take on the legal character of a branch of government?
• Should governments be held at fault for granting a mining concession without adequate consultation of local communities?