Right to Water and the Threat of Business: Corporate Accountability and the State's Duty to Protect

ABSTRACT

This article assesses the contribution of the treaty bodies monitoring implementation of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (respectively, the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, or CESCR, and of the Human Rights Committee, or CCPR) to the definition of the human right to water and of the related state duty to protect it from the harmful impacts of business activities. Furthermore, the article assesses the influence exerted by the work of CESCR on the recognition and definition of a human right to water and sanitation and on corporate accountability by reviewing selected examples of national and regional jurisprudence that resorts to existing international standards on the right to water as interpretive tools. I argue that the progressive approach of CESCR to the protection of the right to water, especially concerning the extraterritorial dimension of human rights obligations, and to the promotion of corporate accountability, can contribute to shaping the content of the proposed business and human rights treaty currently under discussion at the Human Rights Council.

KEYWORDS:

• Right to Water
• Human Rights Committee
• CESCR
• ETOs
• Corporate Accountability
• Business and Human Rights

Notes

1 UNGA Res 64/292 (28 July 2010) UN Doc A/RES/64/292; UNHRC Res 15/9 (30 September 2010) UN Doc A/HRC/RES/15/9.

2 For an overview: Jernej L Cernic, ‘Corporate Obligations Under the Human Right to Water’ (2011) 39(2) DJILP 303, 320–21. National constitutions containing an explicit right to water provision include those of DRC, Ecuador, Slovenia, South Africa, Uganda, Uruguay: Jootaek Lee and Maraya Best, The Human Right to Water: A Research Guide and Annotated Bibliography (Northeastern University Press 2017) 26 <https://www.northeastern.edu/law/pdfs/academics/phrge/right-to-water.pdf> accessed May 2017.

3 CESCR, ‘General Comment 15: The Right to Water’ (2003) UN Doc E/C12/2002/11.

4 ICESCR, ICCPR, art 1(2); Antonio Cassese, ‘The Self-Determination of Peoples’ in Louis Henkin (ed), The International Bill of Rights: The Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CUP 1981) 92, 106.

5 Amartya Sen, Commodities and capabilities (North-Holland Press 1985).

6 Lyla Mehta, ‘Water and Human Development’ (2014) 59 WD 59, 62–63.

7 Sustainable Development Goal 6: ‘Ensure access to water and sanitation for all’, UNGA Res 70/1 (2015) UN Doc A/RES/70/1.

8 Felix Horne, ‘“Such a Brutal Crackdown”: Killings and Arrests in Response to Ethiopia's Oromo Protests’ (Human Rights Watch, 16 June 2016) <https://www.hrw.org/report/2016/06/16/such-brutal-crackdown/killings-and-arrests-response-ethiopias-oromo-protests> accessed 19 September 2016.

9 Holly Yan and Shawn Nottingham, ‘Tribe Files Emergency Request to Stop Dakota Access Pipeline’ (CNN, 9 September 2016) <http://edition.cnn.com/2016/09/05/us/dakota-access-pipeline/> accessed 16 September 2016. 

10 Amanda Klasing, ‘Make it Safe: Canada's Obligation to End the First Nations Water Crisis’ (Human Rights Watch, 7 June 2016) <https://www.hrw.org/news/2016/06/07/canada-water-crisis-puts-first-nations-families-risk> accessed 15 September 2016.

11 UNHRC, ‘Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights: Implementing the United Nations “Protect, Respect and Remedy” Framework’ (2011) UN Doc A/HRC/17/31.

12 Cernic (n 2) 331.

13 General Comment 15 (n 3) para 3.

14 CESCR, ‘Concluding Observations: Israel’ (2011) UN Doc E/C.12/ISR/CO/3, para 29; ‘Concluding Observations: Iraq’ (2015) UN Doc E/C.12/IRQ/CO/4, paras 51–52.

15 CESCR, ‘Concluding Observations: Cameroon’ (1999) UN Doc E/C.12/1/Add.40, para 22; ‘Concluding Observations: Libya’ (2006) E/C.12/LYB/CO/225, paras 18, 35; ‘Concluding Observations: Angola’ (2008) UN Doc E/C.12/AGO/CO/3, para 30; ‘Concluding Observations: Nepal’ (2014) UN Doc E/C.12/VNM/CO/2-4, para 31; ‘Concluding Observations: Guyana’ (2015) UN Doc E/C.12/GUY/CO/2-4, paras 46–47; ‘Concluding Observations: Sudan’ (2015) UN Doc E/C.12/SDN/CO/2, paras 21–22.

16 CESCR, ‘Concluding Observations: Nepal’ (2001) UN Doc E/C.12/1/Add.66, para 60 (referring to privatisation of the water service); ‘Concluding Observations: Madagascar’ (2009) UN Doc E/C.12/MDG/CO/2, para 25; ‘Concluding Observations: Mauritius’ (2010) UN Doc E/C.12/MUS/CO/4, para 1; ‘Concluding Observations: Nepal’ (n 15) para 31; ‘Concluding Observations: Angola’ (n 15), para 30.

17 CESCR, ‘Concluding Observations: Ecuador’ (2004) UN Doc E/C.12/2004/9, para 301; ‘Concluding Observations: Indonesia’ (2014) UN Doc E/C.12/IDN/CO/1, paras 27–28; ‘Concluding Observations: Paraguay’ (2015) UN Doc E/C.12/PRY/CO/4, para 25.

18 CESCR, ‘Concluding Observations: Argentina’ (2011) UN Doc E/C.12/ARG/CO/3, para 9; ‘Concluding Observations: Peru’ (2012) UN Doc E/C.12/PER/CO/2-4, para 22; ‘Concluding Observations: Tanzania’ (2012) UN Doc E/C.12/TZA/CO/1-3, para 25.

19 ‘Concluding Observations: Indonesia’ (n 17) paras 27–28; ‘Concluding Observations: Paraguay’ (n 17) para 25.

20 ‘Concluding Observations: Nepal’ (n 15), para 31; CESCR, ‘Concluding Observations: India’ (2008) UN Doc E/C.12/2008/3, para 34; ‘Concluding Observations: Kazakhstan’ (2010) UN Doc E/C12/KAZ/CO/1, para 35.

21 CESCR, ‘Concluding Observations: Republic of Korea’ (2009) UN Doc E/C.12/KOR/CO/3, para 32.

22 UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs) (2011) UN Doc A/HRC/17/31, Principle 2, Commentary

23 ibid.

24 CESCR, ‘General Comment 12: The Right to Adequate Food’ (1999) UN Doc E/C12/1999/5, para 36.

25 CESCR, ‘General Comment 14: The Right to the Highest Attainable Standard of Health’ (2000) UN Doc E/C.12/2000/4, para 39 (emphasis added).

26 General Comment 15 (n 3) para 31

27 ibid para 33 (emphasis added).

28 ibid para 31.

29 ibid.

30 UNGA, ‘Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Human Right to Safe Drinking Water and Sanitation’ (2013) UN Doc A/68/264, para 46.

31 ‘States must desist from acts and omissions that create a real risk of nullifying or impairing the enjoyment of economic, social and cultural rights extraterritorially. The responsibility of States is engaged where such nullification or impairment is a foreseeable result of their conduct … ’: Maastricht Principles on Extraterritorial Obligations of States in the area of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (2011) Principle 13.

32 General Comment 15 (n 3) para 33; General Comment 14 (n 25) para 39; General Comment 12 (n 24) para 36.

33 General Comment 15 (n 3) para 33.

34 CESCR, ‘Concluding Observations: Germany’ (2011) UN Doc E/C12/DEU/CO/5, para 10; ‘Concluding observations: Norway’ (2013) UN Doc E/C12/NOR/CO/5, para 6; ‘Concluding Observations: Austria’ (2013) UN Doc E/C12/AUT/CO/4, para 12; ‘Concluding observations: Finland’ (2014) UN Doc E/C12/FIN/CO/6, Section C.

35 CESCR, ‘Concluding Observations: China’ (2014) UN Doc E/C12/CHN/CO/2, para 13; ‘Concluding Observations: United Kingdom’ (2016) E/C12/GBR/CO/6, paras 11–12 (emphasis added).

36 Compare, for instance, UNGPs’ Principle 2 with the recommendation to the UK and to Finland to ‘[e]stablish a clear regulatory framework for companies operating in the State party to ensure that their activities do not negatively affect the enjoyment of  …  human rights’: ‘Concluding Observations: Finland’ (n 34) para 10; ‘Concluding Observations: United Kingdom’ (n 35) para 12.

37 ‘Concluding Observations: China’ (n 35) para 13; ‘Concluding Observations: Finland’ (n 34) Section C; ‘Concluding Observations: Thailand’ (2015) UN Doc E/C12/THA/CO/1-2, para 12. In the case of France, CESCR explicitly recommended the expedite adoption of the bill on the company's duty of vigilance (now in force, see infra n 135): CESCR, ‘Concluding Observations: France’ (2016) E/C12/FRA/CO/4, paras 12–13.

38 In relation to extraterritorial violations of the right to water specifically, De Albuquerque expressed similar positions in her 2014 report: UNGA, ‘Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Human Right to Safe Drinking Water and Sanitation, Catarina de Albuquerque’ (2014) UN Doc A/HRC/27/55, paras 70–72.

39 CESCR, ‘Concluding Observations: Canada’ (2016) UN Doc E/C12/CAN/CO/6, paras 15–16.

40 ibid; ‘Concluding Observations: Norway’ (n 34) para 6.

41 General Comment 15 (n 3) paras 30–31, 33; General Comment 12 (n 24) para 36; General Comment 14 (n 25) paras 38–39.

42 Philip Alston, ‘Ships Passing in the Night’ (2005) 27 HRQ 755, 777; Wouter Vandenhole, ‘Extraterritorial Human Rights Obligations: Taking Stock, Looking Forward’ (2013) 5 EJHR 804, 812. See e.g. the statements by the UK, the Czech Republic, Canada, France and Portugal that international cooperation and assistance is a moral obligation but not a legal one: Report of the Open-Ended Working Group on an optional protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights on its second session (10 February 2005) UN Doc E/CN4/2005/52, para 76; Report of the Open-Ended Working Group on an optional protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights on its third session (16 March 2006) UN Doc E/CN4/2006/47, para 82.

43 General Comment 15 (n 3) para 33. This stance is in line with the Maastricht Principles on Extraterritorial Obligations of States in the area of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, paras 9, 26.

44 Compare, for instance, General Comment 15, para 33 with paras 23–24 of the same document.

45 CESCR, ‘Concluding Observations: Israel’ (2002) UN Doc E/C12/1/Add. 90, paras 15, 31; International Court of Justice, ‘Advisory Opinion on Legal Consequences on the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory’ [9 July 2004] ICJ Reports 2004, 136, para 111.

46 CERD, ‘Concluding Observations: Canada’ (2007) UN Doc CERD/C/CAN/CO/18, para 17; ‘Concluding Observations: United States’ (2008) UN Doc CERD/C/USA/CO/6, para 30; ‘Concluding Observations: Australia’ (2010) UN Doc CERD/C/AUS/CO/15-17, para 13; ‘Concluding Observations: United Kingdom’ (2011) UN Doc CERD/C/GBR/CO/18-20, para 29.

47 CRC, ‘Concluding Observations: Australia’ (2012) UN Doc CRC/C/AUS/CO/4, para 28(a); ‘Concluding Observations: United States’ (2013) UN Doc CRC/C/OPSC/USA/CO/2, para 26(d); ‘Concluding Observations: Germany’ (2014) UN Doc CRC/C/DEU/CO/3-4, paras 22, 23(c). See also: CRC, ‘General Comment 16: State Obligations Regarding the Impact of the Business Sector on Children's Rights’ (2013) UN Doc. CRC/C/GC/16, para 45.

48 F Birindwa ci Birhashwirwa and E Tshisekedi wa Malumba v Zaire (2 November 1989) CCPR/C/37/D/242/1987; Safarmo Kurbanova v Tadjikistan (12 November 2003) CCPR/C/79/D/1096/2002; Yubraj Giri v Nepal (27 April 2011) CCPR/C/101/D/1761/2008; Franck Kitenge Baruani v Democratic Republic of the Congo (23 April 2014) CCPR/C/110/D/1890/2009.

49 Tadevosyan v Armenia App no 41698/04 (ECHR, 2 December 2008); Riad and Idiab v Belgium App nos 29787/03 and 29810/03 (ECHR, 24 January 2008); Eugen Gabriel Radu v Romania App no 3036/04 (ECHR, 13 October 2009); Marian Stoicescu v Romania App no 12934/02 (ECHR, 16 July 2009).

50 See, for instance: African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, Institute for Human Rights and Development in Africa v Angola (22 May 2008) Comm no 292/2004; Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Paul Lallion v Grenada (2002) Report No 55/02.

51 Liliana Assenova Naidenova et al v Bulgaria (30 October 2012) CCPR/C/106/D/2073/2011.

52 ibid paras 9, 14.2.

53 CCPR, ‘Concluding Observations: Israel’ (2010) UN Doc CCPR/C/ISR/CO/3, paras 8, 18.

54 CESCR, ‘Concluding Observations: Israel’ (n 14) para 29.

55 CCPR, ‘Concluding Observations: Israel’ (n 45).

56 CCPR, ‘General Comment 6’ (1994) UN Doc HRI\GEN\1\Rev1, para 5. See also: Antônio Augusto Cançado Trindade (Judge of the Inter-American Human Rights Court), ‘The Parallel Evolution of Human Rights Protection and Environmental Protection and the Absence of Restrictions upon the Exercise of Recognised Human Rights’ (1991) 13 RIDH 35, 54.

57 CCPR, ‘Concluding Observations: Suriname’ (2015) UN Doc CCPR/C/SUR/CO/3, paras 47–48; ‘Concluding Observations: Costa Rica’ (2016) UN Doc CCPR/C/CRI/CO/6, paras 41–42; ‘Concluding Observations: Namibia’ (2016) UN Doc CCPR/C/NAM/CO/2, para 43–44; ‘Concluding Observations: Sweden’ (2016) UN Doc CCPR/C/SWE/CO/7, paras 38–39.

58 Ángela Poma Poma v Peru (24 April 2009) CCPR/C/95/D/1457/2006.

59 ibid para 2.3.

60 ibid paras 7.1–7.8.

61 CCPR, ‘General Comment 31: The Nature of the General Legal Obligation Imposed on States Parties to the Covenant’ (2004) UN Doc CCPR/C/21/Rev1/Add. 1326, para 10. See also Sergio Euben Lopez Burgos v Uruguay (1981) Supp No 40 (A/36/40).

62 CCPR, ‘Concluding Observations: Germany’ (2012) UN Doc CCPR/C/DEU/CO/6.

63 International Commission of Jurists, International Commission of Jurists’ submission to the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child in advance of the examination of Germany's third and fourth State Party reports in accordance with Article 44 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (2014) para 26, <http://icj.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/CRC-germany-submission-FINAL-10-Jan-2014.pdf> accessed 24 March 2016.

64 ibid paras 26–28; ‘Kaweri Coffee (part of Neumann Gruppe) lawsuit (re-forced eviction in Uganda)’ (Business and Human Rights Resource Centre) <http://business-humanrights.org/en/kaweri-coffee-part-of-neumann-gruppe-lawsuit-re-forced-eviction-in-uganda> accessed 24 March 2016.

65 International Commission of Jurists (n 63) para 28.

66 In the Ugandan case, criminal proceedings were initiated against the government and against Kaweri. The High Court ordered that compensation be paid to the evictees by the lawyers of the German investors and the Ugandan Investment Authority who bought the land for Kaweri: International Commission of Jurists (n 63) para 30.

67 GI-ESCR, Parallel Report submitted by the Global Initiative for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (GI-ESCR) to the Human Rights Committee on the occasion of the consideration of the Sixth Periodic Report of Germany during the Committee's 106th Session (April 2012) <http://www.institut-fuer-menschenrechte.de/fileadmin/user_upload/PDF-Dateien/Pakte_Konventionen/ICCPR/iccpr_state_report_germany_6_2010_parallel_global_ESCR_en.pdf> accessed 5 May 2016.

68 CCPR, List of issues to be taken up in connection with the consideration of the sixth periodic report of Germany (CCPR/C/DEU/6) adopted by the Human Rights Committee at its 105th session (9–27 July 2012) UN Doc CCPR/C/DEU/Q/6, para 17.

69 CCPR, ‘Concluding Observations: Germany’ (2014) (n 47) para 16. See also Human Rights House Network, ‘Uganda: Profits Over People’ (Human Rights House Network, 29 August 2012) <http://humanrightshouse.org/Articles/18539.html> accessed 22 July 2016.

70 CCPR, ‘Concluding Observations: Germany’ (2012) (n 62) para 16.

71 ibid.

72 CCPR, ‘Concluding Observations: Canada’ (2015) UN Doc CCPR/C/CAN/CO/6 (making reference, in particular, to mining companies, and suggesting the establishment of an independent mechanism with powers to investigate their conduct abroad); ‘Concluding Observations: Korea’ (2015) UN Doc CCPR/C/KOR/CO/4, paras 10–11.

73 GI-ESCR, ‘Human Rights Committee Recognizes Extra-Territorial Obligations under the ICCPR’ (27 November 2012) <http://globalinitiative-escr.org/human-rights-committee-recognizes-extra-territorial-obligations-under-the-international-covenant-on-civil-and-political-rights/> accessed 5 March 2016.

74 Lee and Best (n 2); Waterlex, WASH United, The Human Rights to Water and Sanitation in Courts Worldwide: A Selection of National, Regional and International Case Law (Waterlex, 2014) <http://www.waterlex.org/publications/the-human-rights-to-water-and-sanitation-in-courts-worldwide/> accessed May 2017.

75 Manuel J Cepeda Espinosa and David Landau, Colombian Constitutional Law: Leading Cases (Oxford University Press 2017) 204.

76 Hernán Galeano Díaz c/ Empresas Públicas de Medellín ESP,y Marco Gómez Otero y Otros c/Hidropacífico SA ESP y Otros [2010] Constitutional Court of Colombia T-616/10.

77 ibid.

78 ibid.

79 Indirectly protected through the right to a healthy environment, art 79, and the State duty to provide water services, art 366 (ibid).

80 ibid para II-2.4ff.

81 ibid para II-2.7.

82 ibid para III.

83 Lindiwe Mazibuko & Others v City of Johannesburg & Others [2009] Case CCT 39/09, ZACC 28, para 53.

84 [2011] Constitutional Court of Colombia T-740-11 <http://www.corteconstitucional.gov.co/relatoria/2011/T-740-11.htm> accessed May 2017.

85 [2010] Constitutional Court of Colombia T-418-10 <http://www.corteconstitucional.gov.co/RELATORIA/2010/T-418-10.htm> accessed May 2017.

86 Abdallah Abu Masad v Water Commissioner [2011] CA 9535/06, Israel Supreme Court, para 20.

87 ibid paras 21–23.

88 ibid para 26.

89 ibid para 29.

90 Bonolo Ramadi Dinokopila, ‘The Right to Water in Botswana: A Review of the Matsipane Mosetlhanyane Case’ (2011) 11 AHRLJ 282, 294.

91 Matsipane Mosetlhanyane & Ors v The Attorney General [2011] CA CACLB-074-10, Court of Appeal of the Republic of Botswana, paras 19.1, 19.2, 22.

92 Sesana and Others v The Attorney-General (52/2002) [2006] BWHC 1.

93 ibid para 16.

94 ibid paras 19–22.

95 Christian Courtis, ‘Argentina: Some Promising Signs’ in Malcolm Langford (ed), Social Rights Jurisprudence: Emerging Trends in International and Comparative Law (Cambridge University Press 2008) 163, 179.

96 Children of the Paynemil Community c/ Acción de amparo [1997] 311-CA-1997, Sala II, Civil Court of Appeal (Neuquen); Quevedo Miguel Angel y Otros c/ Aguas Cordobesas SA, Acción de Amparo [2002] Civil and Commercial First Instance Court (Ciudad de Córdoba). For other examples: Courtis (n 95) 179; M Belén Olmos Giupponia and Martha C Paz, ‘The Implementation of the Human Right to Water in Argentina and Colombia’ (2015) 15(1) AMDI 323.

97 Usuarios y Consumidores en Defensa de sus Derechos Asociación Civil c/ Aguas del Gran Buenos Aires SA [2002] 44.453 Juez de paz (Moreno, Buenos Aires).

98 ibid.

99 ibid.

100 ibid.

101 ibid. The ICESCR, under s 75(22) of the Argentinian Constitution, enjoys constitutional status in the national legal system.

102 Marchisio José Bautista y Otros c/ Superior Gobierno de la Provincia de Córdoba y Otros [2004] 500003/36, Juzgado de Primera Instancia Civil y Comercial.

103 ibid para V.

104 ibid para VIII.

105 ibid.

106 Inga Winkler, ‘Judicial Enforcement of the Human Right to Water: Case Law from South Africa, Argentina and India’ (2008) 1 LGD Journal 58.

107 Case no HD 200.018.358 [2010] LJN BL 6583, Court of appeal of Den Bosch, para 4.10.

108 ibid.

109 ibid para 4.11.

110 ibid para 4.8.

111 ibid paras 4.12, 5.

112 Sudan Human Rights Organisation and Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions v Sudan [2009] 279/03-296/05, ACHPR. See also: Free Legal Assistance Group and Others v Zaire [1995] Comm No 25/89, 47/90, 56/91, 100/93, ACHPR, para 47.

113 Sudan Human Rights Organisation and Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions v Sudan, para 209.

114 ACHPR ‘Resolution on the Right to Water Obligations’ (28 February 2015) ACHPR/Res300 (EXT.OS/XVII) 20.

115 ibid.

116 ibid.

117 Jimena Murillo Chávarro, ‘The Right to Water in the Case-Law of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights’ (2014) 7 ACDI 7, 47.

118 Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Indigenous Community Yakye Axa v Paraguay (2005) Series C no 125, IHRL 1509; Indigenous Community Sawhoyamaxa v Paraguay (2006) Series C No 146, IHRL 1530; Indigenous Community Xákmok Kásek v Paraguay (2010) Series C No 214.

119 Indigenous Community Xákmok Kásek v Paraguay (n 118) paras 194–96.

120 Indigenous Community Yakye Axa v Paraguay (n 118) para 161.

121 ibid paras 166–68.

122 Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Kaliña and Lokono Peoples v Suriname (2015) Series C No 309.

123 IACHR, art 21.

124 Ludovic Hennebel, ‘Les références croisées entre les juridictions internationales des droits de l’homme’ in Le dialogue des juges – Actes du colloque organisé le 28 avril 2006 à l’Université libre de Bruxelles, (Bruylant 2007) 31–76, 34.

125 A search on the HUDOC case-law database shows that CESCR is quoted only in 26 cases, whereas General Comment 15 is referenced in just two cases, and only in dissenting and concurring opinions: Lambert and others v France App no 46043/14 (ECtHR, 5 June 2015), joint partly dissenting opinion; Konstantin Markin v Russia App no 30078/06 (ECtHR, 22 March 2012), concurring opinion.

126 Dubetska and Others v Ukraine App no 30499/03 (ECtHR, 10 February 2011). In the case Tătar v Romania, an accident occurring at a gold mining site caused the release of cyanide-contaminated water into the environment. The Court found a violation of art 8: Tătar v Romania App No 67021/01 (ECtHR, 27 January 2009). See also Dzemyuk v Ukraine App No 42488/02 (ECtHR, 4 September 2014).

127 Butan and Dragomir v Romania App no 40067/2006 (ECtHR, 14 February 2008); Zander v Sweden App no 14282/88 (ECtHR, 25 November 1993).

128 General Comment 15 (n 3) para 55.

129 The process started with the adoption of the ‘Ecuador Resolution’: UNHRC Res 26/9 (2014) UN Doc A/HRC/26/L22/Rev1.

130 Olivier De Schutter, ‘Towards a New Treaty on Business and Human Rights’ (2016) 1(1) BHJ 41.

131 For hypotheses on the possible form of a treaty on business and human rights: De Schutter (n 130); Douglas Cassel and Anita Ramasastry, ‘Options for a Treaty on Business and Human Rights’

(White paper, May 2015) 43 <http://business-humanrights.org/sites/default/files/documents/whitepaperfinal%20ABA%20LS%206%2022%2015.pdf> accessed July 2016.

132 Maastricht Principles on Extraterritorial Obligations of States in the Area of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (2011) para 9(c).

133 ibid, Principle 25.

134 See e.g. the 2017 French law on the parent company's dévoir de vigilance, requiring large companies to monitor their operations and supply chains for human rights and environmental violations: ECCJ, ‘Last Hurdle Overcome For Landmark Legislation: French Corporate Duty of Vigilance Law Gets Green Light from Constitutional Council’ (27 March 2017) <http://corporatejustice.org/news/435-last-hurdle-overcome-for-landmark-legislation-french-corporate-duty-of-vigilance-law-gets-green-light-from-constitutional-council> accessed May 2017.

135 See UN Guiding Principle 4.

136 See UN Guiding Principle 9.

137 CESCR, ‘Concluding Observations: Canada’ (2016) (n 39) paras 15–16. See also Fabrizio Marrella, ‘On the Changing Structure of International Investment Law: The Human Right to Water and ICSID Arbitration’ (2010) 12 ICLR 335.

138 De Schutter (n 130); Cassel and Ramasastry (n 131).

139 Cernic (n 2) 331.

140 Kaliña and Lokono Peoples v Suriname (n 122).