Access to remedies and emerging ethical dilemmas: changing contours within the business - human rights debate

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to contest the inclusion of human rights waivers in settlement agreements and argue that such agreements create barriers to access to justice especially in cases involving corporate human rights abuse. Settlements, which essentially use human rights waivers, are widely touted as the desired remedial norm in cases of corporate wrongdoings. These agreements force the survivors of corporate wrongdoings to waive their right to access judicial remedies and nonchalantly extinguish the legal liability of corporations in exchange for monetary compensation. To tackle this contentious issue this paper will firstly explore settlement agreements from an ethical perspective. Secondly, it will be argued that such human rights waivers create compulsive situations because of which survivors are denied their human rights. The article will take three different perspectives on how these compulsive situations can be counter-theorized namely through: asserting the right to life, challenging settlements through public policy clauses and securing ethical remedies within the Guiding Principles. The paper concludes by stating that the nature of remedies needs to be embedded in a more ethical framework to address complex business-human rights issues. It is important to explore the research through the prism of interdisciplinary research considering the magnitude of its consequences on the lives of many who are effected by such indirect violations of their remedial rights.