Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorSoyapi, Caiphas Brewsters
dc.date.accessioned2014-10-28T07:08:22Z
dc.date.available2014-10-28T07:08:22Z
dc.date.issued2014
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10394/12008
dc.descriptionLLM (Import and export Law), North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2014en_US
dc.description.abstractInternationally, the debate on business and human rights has evolved within the last decade, with more efforts being made to address the issue of what role corporations play in the human rights domain. The latest international effort to address the issue was the adoption of the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights: Implementing the United Nations “Protect, Respect and Remedy Framework” by the United Nations Human Rights Council in 2011. In brief, the Guiding Principles observe that the state must protect human rights, that businesses must respect human rights, and that there should be effective remedies for human rights violations. Locally, the Constitutional Court of South Africa ruled that mineworkers who are eligible to get compensation under the Occupational Diseases in Mines and Works Act had a common law right to sue the employer for injuries sustained at work. This was despite the fact that legislation was put in place to replace the common law liability of an employer for injuries or death sustained at work. On a broader scale, the Guiding Principles then formed the yardstick for the determination of whether there are adequate and effective remedies for human rights violations in the South African mining industry. The investigation essentially leads to the conclusion that the South African state has not fallen short of its duty to protect and to provide sufficient remedies for businessrelated human rights violations in the mining industry. The forums are in place and there is legislation that also provides for compensation as remedies for either injuries or death at work. Some issues of concern are the accessibility of the structures in place to address human rights violations, the disparity between compensation provided for in different legislation, and the lack of a more proactive approach by the Human Rights Commission.en_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.subjectGuiding Principlesen_US
dc.subjectBusiness and human rightsen_US
dc.subjectState duty to protecten_US
dc.subjectEffective remediesen_US
dc.subjectJudicial mechanismsen_US
dc.subjectNon-judicial mechanismsen_US
dc.subjectBesigheid en menseregteen_US
dc.subjectStaat se plig om te beskermen_US
dc.subjectEffektiewe remediesen_US
dc.subjectRegtelike meganismesen_US
dc.subjectNie-regtelike meganismesen_US
dc.titleRemedies for human right abuses by multinational corporationsen
dc.typeThesisen_US
dc.description.thesistypeMastersen_US


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

  • ETD@PUK [7473]
    This collection contains the original digitized versions of research conducted at the North-West University (Potchefstroom Campus)

Show simple item record