Enforcing International Human Rights Law Against Corporations
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
International human rights law is generally thought to apply directly to states, not to corporations since the latter is not a subject of international law. Some domestic courts are, however, enforcing these norms against corporations in domestic settings. Canadian courts have, for instance, recognized that corporations can be liable for breach of customary international law norms while UK courts have enforced international human rights norms indirectly against corporations relying on a combination of domestic corporate and tort law.\nAt the same time, some states are choosing to enforce international human rights norms against corporations using regulatory initiatives. These initiatives, known as due diligence initiatives, vary in scope, but generally prescribe obligations for corporations in the respect of human rights. These initiatives offer greater promise than court enforcement of international human rights norms as states are often able to ex ante legislate the issues with which courts enforcing international human rights norms are struggling.\nNevertheless, while due diligence initiatives offer greater promise than court enforcement of international human rights norms, they are far from a panacea. The initiatives often lack the necessary elements to make them a superior tool – that is, their scope, reach or enforcement possibilities may be limited – and they tend to focus on risks to business rather than risks to human rights, among other limitations.\nGiven the complexities in addressing corporate abuses, adopting a plurality of approaches to mitigate corporate abuse of human rights is likely necessary. Court enforcement and due diligence initiatives are but two approaches, the latter more promising than the first, but neither offers an antidote to the malignancy of corporate abuse. For that, there is a need for greater transformation of the economy such that corporate harms of human rights and the environment are no longer business as usual.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it