Lottie Lane is a PhD Candidate at the Groningen Centre for Law and Governance at the University of Groningen. She holds an LLB from the University of Durham, UK (First Class Honours) and an LLM in International law with a specialisation in human rights from the University of Groningen (summa cum laude). Her PhD research focuses on the desirability and legitimacy of direct international human rights obligations for non-state actors, including multi-national corporations and multi-national non-profit organisations (such as FIFA). She is President and Editor-in-Chief of the Groningen Journal of International Law and is the Co-Chair of the Netherlands School of Human Rights Research Working Group on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Phone: +31 503638150
Many essential public services (EPS) are provided by private businesses, rather than the public s... more Many essential public services (EPS) are provided by private businesses, rather than the public sector. This may be for several reasons. It could be that the State has never been involved in the provision of a service, but it is still considered “essential”. Alternatively, a State may delegate provision because it feels that it has inadequate resources to provide the service on its own, because it may be cheaper than providing the service itself, and/or because the expertise of private companies within a particular sector is of a kind which public entities do not possess. Regardless, private actor involvement in EPS raises several important questions of international human rights protection, since many public services correspond very strongly to particular internationally protected human rights (examples being the right to water and housing). The main problem is the fact that as non-state actors, private companies are not subject to any direct human rights obligations to respect, protect or fulfill the enjoyment of human rights, in a similar manner that States would have such obligations. This is problematic, because, de facto, private companies are often engaging in activities of essential services provision which could otherwise be considered within the realm of States’ positive human rights obligations. Therefore, this Chapter explores whether and how private EPS providers are, or can be held, responsible and accountable for human rights protection in EPS, not only de facto, but also de jure. Several options for legal protection of users can be envisaged. This includes, for example, the use of “universal services obligations” (USOs), the extension of the current international human rights framework to private EPS provider, private corporate codes of conduct, or the use of contractual clauses containing specific human rights obligations for these actors. As the editors and other contributors to this volume have supported, USOs are highly useful regulatory tools to ensure that human rights are respected, protected and fulfilled by corporations providing a service. They are able to fulfil a broad range of human rights objectives directly. At the same time, USOs arguably still represent an indirect, and rather State-oriented manner of ensuring human rights protection in EPS provision (EPSP). In order to understand the benefits and limitations of USOs better, this Chapter will first outline and discuss the correlations between USOs and human rights in further detail. It highlights both their benefits and drawbacks from a human rights perspective. Subsequently, the Chapter will explore three alternative regulatory approaches through which private EPSP could be better regulated from a perspective of human rights. These include XXXX. [e.g.: The protection offered under such type of regulation would be based on the more direct legal responsibility of businesses under international human rights law.] Before engaging in the appraisal of USOs and the other two/three options for regulating private EPS provision, the Chapter first includes some observations on the current international human rights framework pertaining to non-state actors in Section 1. Finally, to make the discussions in this Chapter more practical, examples on the regulation of private EPSP will be drawn from the provision of access to Internet services as an EPS.
Preventing long-term risks to human rights in smart cities: A critical review of responsibilities... more Preventing long-term risks to human rights in smart cities: A critical review of responsibilities for private AI developers.
Preventing long-term risks to human rights in smart cities: A critical review of responsibilities... more Preventing long-term risks to human rights in smart cities: A critical review of responsibilities for private AI developers.
Many essential public services (EPS) are provided by private businesses, rather than the public s... more Many essential public services (EPS) are provided by private businesses, rather than the public sector. This may be for several reasons. It could be that the State has never been involved in the provision of a service, but it is still considered “essential”. Alternatively, a State may delegate provision because it feels that it has inadequate resources to provide the service on its own, because it may be cheaper than providing the service itself, and/or because the expertise of private companies within a particular sector is of a kind which public entities do not possess. Regardless, private actor involvement in EPS raises several important questions of international human rights protection, since many public services correspond very strongly to particular internationally protected human rights (examples being the right to water and housing). The main problem is the fact that as non-state actors, private companies are not subject to any direct human rights obligations to respect, protect or fulfill the enjoyment of human rights, in a similar manner that States would have such obligations. This is problematic, because, de facto, private companies are often engaging in activities of essential services provision which could otherwise be considered within the realm of States’ positive human rights obligations. Therefore, this Chapter explores whether and how private EPS providers are, or can be held, responsible and accountable for human rights protection in EPS, not only de facto, but also de jure. Several options for legal protection of users can be envisaged. This includes, for example, the use of “universal services obligations” (USOs), the extension of the current international human rights framework to private EPS provider, private corporate codes of conduct, or the use of contractual clauses containing specific human rights obligations for these actors. As the editors and other contributors to this volume have supported, USOs are highly useful regulatory tools to ensure that human rights are respected, protected and fulfilled by corporations providing a service. They are able to fulfil a broad range of human rights objectives directly. At the same time, USOs arguably still represent an indirect, and rather State-oriented manner of ensuring human rights protection in EPS provision (EPSP). In order to understand the benefits and limitations of USOs better, this Chapter will first outline and discuss the correlations between USOs and human rights in further detail. It highlights both their benefits and drawbacks from a human rights perspective. Subsequently, the Chapter will explore three alternative regulatory approaches through which private EPSP could be better regulated from a perspective of human rights. These include XXXX. [e.g.: The protection offered under such type of regulation would be based on the more direct legal responsibility of businesses under international human rights law.] Before engaging in the appraisal of USOs and the other two/three options for regulating private EPS provision, the Chapter first includes some observations on the current international human rights framework pertaining to non-state actors in Section 1. Finally, to make the discussions in this Chapter more practical, examples on the regulation of private EPSP will be drawn from the provision of access to Internet services as an EPS.
Preventing long-term risks to human rights in smart cities: A critical review of responsibilities... more Preventing long-term risks to human rights in smart cities: A critical review of responsibilities for private AI developers.
Preventing long-term risks to human rights in smart cities: A critical review of responsibilities... more Preventing long-term risks to human rights in smart cities: A critical review of responsibilities for private AI developers.
A multitude of initiatives have been introduced in an attempt to bring the conduct of multination... more A multitude of initiatives have been introduced in an attempt to bring the conduct of multinational corporations (MNCs) in line with international human rights law standards. A particular focus has been placed on the accountability of MNCs interfering with the enjoyment of human rights. Efforts have included allowing self-regulation by MNCs themselves, the introduction of non-binding principles and guidelines to be followed by MNCs, and more recently, an agreement to explore the possibility of a binding international treaty on business and human rights.
Despite these laudable efforts, no single initiative has been a resounding success. Undeniably, each has made inroads and developed the protection of individuals’ human rights, but widespread improvement in human rights protection on the ground remains inconsistent. The combined effect of the initiatives has nevertheless been considerable. The amalgamation of measures, taken at the local, national and international level by various actors, can be seen as constituting a multi-level regulatory governance approach. This paper will argue that such an approach is the most appropriate in relation to MNCs.
Accordingly, the paper will first discuss the multi-level regulatory governance approach to MNCs and human rights. It will also explain how current initiatives fit into a multi-level regulatory governance model. An assessment of the impact of these measures will then lead to a suggestion of a further initiative to be taken. The proposal will be focused on achieving human rights accountability for MNCs through a peer review-based mechanism. The Universal Periodic Review procedure, the African Peer Review Mechanism and the Code of Conduct of the International Stability Operations Association will be taken as analogous starting points to suggest a comparable model for MNCs. The paper aims to maximise the potential of cooperative action and interplay between different actors affecting human rights protection, and the different mechanisms in place to achieve it.
Non-State actors are not commonly considered as bearers of direct human rights obligations. Howev... more Non-State actors are not commonly considered as bearers of direct human rights obligations. However, the life, health, freedom and other basic interests of individuals or groups are often harmed by non-State actors. In many cases – especially in the Global South – no public authority can provide effective protection from such harmful conducts. This paper addresses the questions to what extent human rights obligations imposed upon non-State actors are desirable and legitimate. The proposed approach is substantiated by three examples of cases in which human rights are affected by harmful conducts of three types of non-State actors: (1) private owners of publicly accessible spaces; (2) multinational corporations; and (3) non-State armed groups. These three examples evidence the multi-level structure of regulatory governance. While the first example mainly concerns regulatory governance at the local, national or regional level, the second and third examples are dealt with from a global regulatory governance perspective.
Many essential public services (EPS) are provided by private businesses, rather than the public s... more Many essential public services (EPS) are provided by private businesses, rather than the public sector. This may be for several reasons. It could be that the State has never been involved in the provision of a service, but it is still considered “essential”. Alternatively, a State may delegate provision because it feels that it has inadequate resources to provide the service on its own, because it may be cheaper than providing the service itself, and/or because the expertise of private companies within a particular sector is of a kind which public entities do not possess. Regardless, private actor involvement in EPS raises several important questions of international human rights protection, since many public services correspond very strongly to particular internationally protected human rights (examples being the right to water and housing). The main problem is the fact that as non-state actors, private companies are not subject to any direct human rights obligations to respect, protect or fulfill the enjoyment of human rights, in a similar manner that States would have such obligations. This is problematic, because, de facto, private companies are often engaging in activities of essential services provision which could otherwise be considered within the realm of States’ positive human rights obligations.
Therefore, this Chapter explores whether and how private EPS providers are, or can be held, responsible and accountable for human rights protection in EPS, not only de facto, but also de jure. Several options for legal protection of users can be envisaged. This includes, for example, the use of “universal services obligations” (USOs), the extension of the current international human rights framework to private EPS provider, private corporate codes of conduct, or the use of contractual clauses containing specific human rights obligations for these actors. As the editors and other contributors to this volume have supported, USOs are highly useful regulatory tools to ensure that human rights are respected, protected and fulfilled by corporations providing a service. They are able to fulfil a broad range of human rights objectives directly. At the same time, USOs arguably still represent an indirect, and rather State-oriented manner of ensuring human rights protection in EPS provision (EPSP).
In order to understand the benefits and limitations of USOs better, this Chapter will first outline and discuss the correlations between USOs and human rights in further detail. It highlights both their benefits and drawbacks from a human rights perspective. Subsequently, the Chapter will explore three alternative regulatory approaches through which private EPSP could be better regulated from a perspective of human rights. These include XXXX. [e.g.: The protection offered under such type of regulation would be based on the more direct legal responsibility of businesses under international human rights law.] Before engaging in the appraisal of USOs and the other two/three options for regulating private EPS provision, the Chapter first includes some observations on the current international human rights framework pertaining to non-state actors in Section 1.
Finally, to make the discussions in this Chapter more practical, examples on the regulation of private EPSP will be drawn from the provision of access to Internet services as an EPS.
Global economic governance is understood as the mechanisms, bodies and norms creating rules accor... more Global economic governance is understood as the mechanisms, bodies and norms creating rules according to which finance should be managed globally. The World Bank is a very prominent actor in global economic governance. In spite of some developments in recent years, the Bank remains notorious for inadequately considering human rights in its operations. Under the current international human rights law framework the World Bank is considered to be a non-state actor, with no direct obligations to respect or protect human rights. Notwithstanding widespread pressure, suggestions to impose direct obligations on the institution, and several initiatives having been taken by the World Bank itself, gaps still remain in preventing human rights interferences related to its operations. These gaps are partially caused by the Bank's current inability to achieve good governance standards. This paper suggests that a multilevel regulatory governance approach should be adopted to improve both global economic governance and the Bank's human rights footprint. This involves complementary measures being taken by various actors at the local, national and international level. Given the failure of previous efforts to respect human rights standards in global economic governance, taking advantage of different actors' expertise through a multilevel regulatory governance approach is more likely to lead to positive change on the ground. In particular, the paper argues that the values and principles behind human rights should and can be integrated throughout the whole of the Bank's operations, suggesting some ways in which this could be achieved. The paper will first summarise the relationship between global economic governance and human rights (particularly for what concerns the World Bank), and explain the necessary requirements for achieving a good governance structure against which the Bank should be assessed. Part 2 will demonstrate the need for a new governance structure within global economic governance. The treatment of the World Bank under the current international human rights law framework and the practice of the Bank will thus be examined, highlighting the main ways in which the Bank fails to comply with good governance standards. Part 3 will advocate a new, multilevel regulatory governance perspective and apply the approach to the World Bank. In the interests of space, the paper does not attempt a full exploration of possible initiatives to be taken under a multilevel regulatory governance approach. Nevertheless, some suggestions for moving forwards will be submitted in Part 3. The findings of each previous section of the paper will then be drawn upon to lead to a coherent conclusion. Word count Without footnotes: 6, 718 With footnotes: 9, 112 * Lottie Lane, LLM is a PhD Candidate at the Groningen Centre for Law and Governance at the University of Groningen. She holds an LLB degree from Durham University and an LLM degree from the University of Groningen. Her PhD research deals with the desirability and legitimacy of imposing human rights obligations on 2 Introduction Global economic governance is understood as the mechanisms, bodies and norms creating rules according to which finance should be managed globally. 1 Prominent actors in global economic governance include the International Monetary Foundation (IMF) and the World Bank (WB). In spite of some developments in recent years, these bodies remain notorious for inadequately considering human rights in their operations. Under the current international human rights law framework the bodies are considered to be non-state actors, with no direct obligations to respect or protect human rights. Notwithstanding widespread pressure, suggestions to impose direct obligations on the institutions, 2 and several initiatives having been taken by the IMF and WB themselves, 3 gaps still remain in preventing human rights interferences related to their operations. This paper suggests that a multilevel regulatory governance approach should be taken to better harmonise global economic governance and human rights. This involves complementary measures being taken by various actors at the local, national and international level. Taking advantage of different actors' expertise (including that of the IMF and WB themselves) through a multilevel regulatory governance approach is likely to lead to positive change on the ground and improve the institutions' human rights footprint. The paper will focus its analysis on the current treatment of human rights by the World Bank in particular, due to its recent and ongoing reforms related to human rights. In particular, the paper argues for human rights principles to be embedded throughout the institutional framework of the World Bank. The paper will first summarise the relationship between global economic governance and human rights (particularly for what concerns the World Bank), and explain the necessary requirements for achieving a good governance structure against which the Bank should be assessed. Part 2 will demonstrate the need for a new governance structure within global economic governance. To do so, the treatment of the World Bank under the current international human rights law framework and the practice of the Bank will be examined, highlighting the main ways in which the Bank fails to comply with good governance standards. Part 3 will then advocate a new, multilevel regulatory governance approach. The application of this approach to the World Bank will also be explored in this Part. In the interests of space, the paper does not attempt a full exploration of possible initiatives to be taken under a multilevel regulatory governance approach. Nevertheless, some suggestions for moving forwards will be submitted in Part 3, again concentrating on the role of the World Bank. The findings of each previous section of the paper will then be drawn upon to lead to a coherent conclusion.
Uploads
Papers by Lottie Lane
Despite these laudable efforts, no single initiative has been a resounding success. Undeniably, each has made inroads and developed the protection of individuals’ human rights, but widespread improvement in human rights protection on the ground remains inconsistent. The combined effect of the initiatives has nevertheless been considerable. The amalgamation of measures, taken at the local, national and international level by various actors, can be seen as constituting a multi-level regulatory governance approach. This paper will argue that such an approach is the most appropriate in relation to MNCs.
Accordingly, the paper will first discuss the multi-level regulatory governance approach to MNCs and human rights. It will also explain how current initiatives fit into a multi-level regulatory governance model. An assessment of the impact of these measures will then lead to a suggestion of a further initiative to be taken. The proposal will be focused on achieving human rights accountability for MNCs through a peer review-based mechanism. The Universal Periodic Review procedure, the African Peer Review Mechanism and the Code of Conduct of the International Stability Operations Association will be taken as analogous starting points to suggest a comparable model for MNCs. The paper aims to maximise the potential of cooperative action and interplay between different actors affecting human rights protection, and the different mechanisms in place to achieve it.
Therefore, this Chapter explores whether and how private EPS providers are, or can be held, responsible and accountable for human rights protection in EPS, not only de facto, but also de jure. Several options for legal protection of users can be envisaged. This includes, for example, the use of “universal services obligations” (USOs), the extension of the current international human rights framework to private EPS provider, private corporate codes of conduct, or the use of contractual clauses containing specific human rights obligations for these actors. As the editors and other contributors to this volume have supported, USOs are highly useful regulatory tools to ensure that human rights are respected, protected and fulfilled by corporations providing a service. They are able to fulfil a broad range of human rights objectives directly. At the same time, USOs arguably still represent an indirect, and rather State-oriented manner of ensuring human rights protection in EPS provision (EPSP).
In order to understand the benefits and limitations of USOs better, this Chapter will first outline and discuss the correlations between USOs and human rights in further detail. It highlights both their benefits and drawbacks from a human rights perspective. Subsequently, the Chapter will explore three alternative regulatory approaches through which private EPSP could be better regulated from a perspective of human rights. These include XXXX. [e.g.: The protection offered under such type of regulation would be based on the more direct legal responsibility of businesses under international human rights law.] Before engaging in the appraisal of USOs and the other two/three options for regulating private EPS provision, the Chapter first includes some observations on the current international human rights framework pertaining to non-state actors in Section 1.
Finally, to make the discussions in this Chapter more practical, examples on the regulation of private EPSP will be drawn from the provision of access to Internet services as an EPS.