بررسی تطبیقی رویکرد سیستم حقوقی ایران در مواجهه با اصول راهنمای تجارت و حقوق بشر (اصول جان راگی) مصوب 2011

نوع مقاله : علمی پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دکتری حقوق نفت و گاز، دانشکده حقوق و علوم سیاسی، دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران

2 دانشجوی دکتری حقوق بین الملل، دانشکده حقوق، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، تهران، ایران

3 استادیار گروه حقوق خصوصی، دانشکده حقوق و علوم سیاسی، دانشگاه مازندران، بابلسر، ایران

چکیده

در جهان امروز، با قدرت گرفتن شرکت های تجاری به ویژه شرکت های چندملیتی و فراملی و تداخلی که فعالیت های آنها با مسائل حقوق بشری دارد، دیگر نمی توان دولت ها را تنها ناقضان حقوق بشر دانست. از همین رو شورای حقوق بشر سازمان ملل متحد، به منظور تبیین رابطه میان «حقوق بشر» با «فعالیت های تجاری» و با هدف هر چه بیشتر پاسخگو نمودن شرکت های تجاری،‌ سندی را در سال 2011 تصویب نمود که از آن به «اصول راهنمای تجارت و حقوق بشر» یاد می شود. اصول مذکور در قالب سه بخش اصلی، ضمن ایجاد تعهد برای دولت ها در حمایت از حقوق بشر و تامین آزادی اساسی، شرکت ها را نیز در قبال رعایت اصول حقوق بشر، متعهد و مسئول نموده و در صورت نقض هر یک از موازین حقوق بشر، امکان طرح دعوی و مطالبه خسارت را برای زیان دیده فراهم ساخته است. با این وصف به جهت ماهیت «حقوق نرم» بودن اصول راهنما، شورای حقوق بشر از دولت ها درخواست نموده تا در کنار تلاش برای تدوین یک سند الزام‌آور برای تبعیت شرکت‌های تجاری از تعهدات حقوق بشری در قالب «حقوق سخت»، نظام‌های حقوقی داخلی را نیز با ارائه «برنامه اقدام ملی» و اصلاح و وضع قوانین جدید، تقویت نمایند. بررسی رویه دولت ها از زمان تصویب اصول راهنما، به‌ویژه ایجاد کارگروهی برای تهیه پیش‌نویس یک سند الزام‌آور در سال 2014، نشان دهنده استقبال رو به تزاید از آن می باشد. با این وجود سیستم حقوقی ایران، به‌رغم پیوستن به اسناد اصلی حاکم در زمینه حقوق بشر، قواعد مشخص و واضحی در زمینه تجارت و حقوق بشر نداشته و اگر چه از مجموع قوانین مختلف و پراکنده، امکان استنباط رویکردی هماهنگ با اصول راهنما وجود دارد، ولیکن این میزان کفایت نکرده و ضرورت دارد تا با تبیین و تعرفه هر چه بهتر اصول راهنما، زمینه های ارائه برنامه اقدام ملی و اصلاح و وضع قوانین جدید را فراهم نمود.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات

عنوان مقاله [English]

A comparative study of Iran legal order in facing the guiding principles of business and human rights (john ruggie Principles) approved in 2011

نویسندگان [English]

  • Eisa Rajabi 1
  • Shahriar Kazemi Azar 2
  • Mohammad Farzanegan 3
1 PhD in Oil and Gas Law, Faculty of Law and Political Science, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
2 PhD student of International Law, Faculty of Law, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran
3 Assistant Professor, Department of Private Law, Faculty of Law and Political Science, University of Mazandaran , Babolsar, Iran
چکیده [English]

Nowadays, in line with the increasing economic power of commercial companies, including multinational and transnational companies, and their commercial acts¢ impacts on human rights, states can no longer be considered the only human rights violators. Therefore, the United Nations Human Rights Council approved a document in 2011 in order to clarify the relationship between "human rights" and "commercial activities" and make commercial companies more accountable. It is called "Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights". The aforementioned principles, in the form of three main parts, while creating an obligation for states to protect human rights and basic freedoms, also make companies responsible for observing the principles of human rights. Also, in cases of human rights violations, it has made it possible for the victim to file a lawsuit and claim damages. Based on this, due to the "soft law" nature of the guiding principles, the Human Rights Council has requested that states try to develop a binding document for commercial companies to comply with human rights obligations in the form of hard law. The Council has also asked the states to strengthen domestic legal systems by presenting a "National Action Plan" and enacting new regulations. A review of state practice since the adoption of the Guiding Principles, particularly the creation of a working group in order to draft a binding document in 2014, shows growing acceptance. Despite this fact, Iran's legal order, adhering to the main documents in the field of human rights, does not have specific and clear rules in the fields of business and human rights. Although it is possible to infer a harmonized approach based on the guiding principles from the perspective of existence laws, it is necessary to provide the grounds for presenting the national action plan and establishing new regulations by clarifying the guiding principles.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Business and Human Rights
  • Corporate Social Responsibility
  • Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights
  • National Action Plan
  • Human Rights Council

مراجع

Abbott, K.W., & Snidal, D. (2000), Hard and Soft Law in International Governance, International Organization, Vol. 54, Issue 3.
 
Abdollahi, M., & Abbasi, A. (2018), Phenomenology of the Genesis of Soft Law in the Framework Normative System of International Law, Legal Research Quarterly, Vol. 21, Issue 82, (In Persian).
 
Andreas, R. (2021), The UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights: Implications for Corporate Social Responsibility Research, Business and Human Rights Journal, Vol. 6, Issue 2.
 
Angelica, B. (2020), Business and Human Rights in Europe: International Law Challenges, Routledge.
Anita, R. (2015), Corporate Social Responsibility versus Business and Human Rights: Bridging the Gap between Responsibility and Accountability, Journal of Human Rights, Vol. 14, Issue 2.
 
Baxter, R.R. (1980), International Law in Her Infinite Variety, the International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol. 29, Issue 4.
 
Bilchitz, D. (2009), the Ruggie Framework: An Adequate Rubric for Corporate Human Rights Obligations, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract id=1394367
 
Brummer, C. (2011), Soft Law and the Global Financial System: Rule Making in the 21st Century, Cambridge University Press.
 
Buhmann, K. (2006), Corporate Social Responsibility: What Role for Law? Some Aspects of Law and CSR, Corporate Governance, Vol. 6, No. 2.
 
Carroll, B. (1999), Corporate Social Responsibility: Evolution of a Definitional Construct, Business & Society, Vol. 38, No. 3.
 
Cernic, J.L. (2008), Corporate Responsibility for Human Rights: A Critical Analysis of the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises, Hanse Law Review, Vol. 3, No. 1.
 
Chinkin, C.M. (1989), The Challenge of Soft Law: Development and Change in International Law, The International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol. 38, No. 4.
 
D’Amato, A., & Engelm, K. (1996), International Environmental Law Anthology, Anderson Publishing Company.
 
D’Aspremont, J. (2009), Softness in International Law: A Self-Serving Quest for New Legal Materials, European Journal of International Law, Vol. 20, Issue 3.
 
Fastenracht, U. (1993), Relative Normativity in International Law, European Journal of International Law, 10.1093/OXFORDJOURNALS.EJIL.A035832.
 
Franck, T.M. (1980), Legitimacy in the International System, The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 82, No. 4.
 
Gold, J. (1996), Interpretation: The IMF and International Law, Kluwer Law International.
 
Jamali, D., & Mirshak, R. (2007), Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR): Theory and Practice in a Developing Country Context, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 72, No. 3.
 
Jérôme, C., & Tiphaine, B. (2017), The French Law on Duty of Care: A Historic Step Towards Making Globalization Work for All, Business and Human Rights Journal, Vol. 2, Issue 2.
 
Mcinerney, T. (2007), Putting Regulation before Responsibility: Towards Binding Norms of Corporate Social Responsibility, Cornell International Law Journal, Vol. 40, No. 1.
 
Newman, A., & Bach, D. (2014), The European Union as Hardening Agent: Soft Law and the Diffusion of Global Financial Regulation, Journal of European Public Policy, 10.1080/13501763.2014.882968.
 
Raustiala, K. (2005), Form and Substance in International Agreements, the American Journal of International Law, Vol. 99, No. 3.
 
Reisman, W.M, (1988), A Hard Look at Soft Law, American Society of International Law, Vol. 82, No. 2.
 
Reisman, W.M. (2013), Soft Law and Law Jobs, Journal of International Dispute Settlement, 10.1093/jnlids/idq014.
 
Ruggie J., Caroline, R., & Rachel, D. (2021), Ten Years After: From UN Guiding Principles to Multi-Fiduciary Obligations, Business and Human Rights Journal, Vol. 6, Issue 2.
Schaffer, G.C., & Pollack, M.A. (2010), Hard vs. Soft Law: Alternatives, Complements, and Antagonists in International Governance, Minnesota Law Review, Vol. 94.
 
Shelton, D. (2006), Normative Hierarchy in International Law, The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 100, No. 2.
 
Shiravi, A., Mohammad, V. M. (2015), Soft Law, Comparative Law Review, Vol. 6, Issue 1, (In Persian).
 
Smith, J. (2013), Corporate Human Rights Obligations: Moral or Political?, Business Ethics Journal Review, Vol. 1, Issue 2.
 
Stéphanie, L., Thomas, G., & John, C., (eds) (2016), Tracing the Roles of Soft Law in Human Rights, Oxford University Press.
 
Weil, P. (1983), Towards Relative Normativity in International Law, The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 77, No. 3.
 
Yahya. M., Ali, Z., Mehdi, M., & Mohamdreza, A. (2021), Social Responsibility of Companies in the Legal System of Iran and Europe, International Legal Research, Vol. 14, Issue 52, (In Persian).

فایل ها

سابقه مقاله

  • تاریخ دریافت: 30 مهر 1402
  • تاریخ بازنگری: 14 آذر 1402
  • تاریخ پذیرش: 21 دی 1402

هم رسانی

ارجاع به این مقاله

آمار