La présente étude a pour objectif de vérifier si le Canada respecte les prescriptions internationales en matière de droits de l’homme et d’entreprises vis-à-vis de l’encadrement qu’il exerce sur les sociétés minières canadiennes évoluant à l’étranger. En 2011, le Conseil des droits de l’homme de l’ONU a adopté des «Principes directeurs» afin de mettre en oeuvre le cadre de référence « Protéger, Respecter, Réparer » du Représentant spécial chargé de la question des droits de l’homme et des sociétés transnationales et autres entreprises. Selon ce cadre de référence, les États ont des obligations de protection et de réparation alors que les entreprises ont seulement la responsabilité de respecter les droits humains. Après six années de travail, le Représentant spécial John Ruggie, a fait le choix de formuler dans ses «Principes directeurs» des directives non contraignantes à l’égard des États et des entreprises afin de les aider à remplir leurs obligations et responsabilités vis-à-vis des droits de l’homme. Selon, l’ONU, cet instrument de portée universelle est le plus élaboré en la matière, si bien qu’il est recommandé aux entreprises et plus particulièrement aux États de s’y conformer lors de l’élaboration de leurs politiques respectives en matière d'activité économique et de droits humains. Il convient donc de vérifier d’une part si l’encadrement exercé par l’appareil législatif et gouvernemental vis-à-vis des sociétés minières canadiennes évoluant à l’étranger est conforme au principe directeur «Protéger». D’autres part, il convient de vérifier si les recours judiciaires et extrajudiciaires disponibles au Canada remplissent les exigences du principe directeur «Réparer». Cette double analyse permettra de conclure que le Canada respecte dans les grandes lignes ces «Principes directeurs» mais qu’il pourrait faire bien plus notamment en terme d’accès à des réparations effectives pour les victimes étrangères de minières canadiennes. / This study propose to assess whether Canada meets the international requirements of business and human rights in relation to the supervision it has on Canadian mining companies operating abroad. In 2011, the Human rights Council adopted the Special Representative’s Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights in order to implement the United Nations “Protect, Respect and Remedy” Framework. According to this framework, States have obligations to protect and remedy while companies only have responsibilities to respect human rights. After six years of work, the Special Representative on Business and Human rights, John Ruggie, has chosen to give in its Guiding Principles non- binding recommendations in order to help States and businesses to encounter their obligations and responsibilities towards human rights. According to the UN, this universal instrument is the most developed in the field. Thus, it is strongly recommended that companies and especially States, comply those «guiding principles» when they elaborate their respective policies on economic activity and human rights. It is therefore necessary to check first if the supervision exercised by the legislature and the government on Canadian mining companies operating abroad succeeds to comply with the "Protect" principles. On the other hand, it must be checked whether the judicial and extrajudicial remedies available in Canada meet the requirements of the «Remedy" principles. This dual analysis will led to conclude that Canada meets broadly the "Guiding Principles" but could do much more, especially in terms of access to effective remedies for foreign victims of Canadian mining companies.

La responsabilité des entreprises en matière de droits de l’homme implique une série d’obligations et des responsabilités de nature diverse, tant pour les États que pour les entreprises mêmes, afin d’identifier, prévenir ou réparer les atteintes aux droits de l’homme. Toutefois, le droit international est appelé à jouer un rôle de « guide », tandis que la pratique étatique de droit interne et des entreprises peuvent éventuellement se cristalliser en une série d’obligations contraignantes permettant de mettre en œuvre les principes, les droits et les responsabilités établies à l’échelle internationale. / Corporate responsibility in the field of human rights implies a series of obligations and responsibilities of diverse nature, both for States and businesses, in order to identify, prevent and redress potential human rights violations. Nevertheless, international law is called to play merely a "guiding role", while State practice at the domestic level, as well as corporate practice, can eventually transform into a series of binding obligations allowing to put in practice the principles, rights and responsibilities established at the international level.

Forced labour presents a severe human rights violation and affects about 27.6 million people worldwide. Most forced labour in the private economy takes place in businesses linked to the global market economy. In efforts against forced labour, it is therefore crucial to address the role of business operations in global supply chains. The European Commission has presented a proposal for a ban on products made with forced labour on the EU market which applies to all companies and industries. Although this initiative has been welcomed broadly the proposal has served as a topic for political debate in the EU. Stakeholders have contrasting views on what would serve as the most effective solution to the problem and, indeed, what actually constitutes the problem. Research on policy design acknowledge that the way a problem is framed and understood determines which kind of solutions will be deemed as appropriate. This thesis aims to understand the foundations of how the European Commission perceives the problem by conducting a frame analysis of the proposal focusing in turn on how the problem is framed, which actors are included, and how causes and solutions are framed. The frame analysis reveals that the Commission’s framing of the problem is ambiguous and twofold - it includes aspects of human rights perspectives as well as market and trade perspectives. The aim of the proposal is to contribute to the eradication of forced labour, but it also addresses the issue of distortion on the internal EU market and on removing unfair competition. Although the proposal fails to address some of the underlying root causes of forced labour this initiative, together with other legal measures in the business and human rights field, presents an important step towards keeping companies accountable for their adverse human rights impacts.

The purpose of the study is to investigate the governance by the Swedish government of the state-owned enterprises in relation to UN Guiding Principles for Business and Human Rights. In the study the Swedish state’s ownership policy is analyzed together with the Swedish national action plan for business and human rights in relation to article 4 in the UN Guiding Principles.The method used in the study is a critical legal reasoning around the text combined with other external perspectives such as the underpinning values and the context. The conclusion of the study is that the Swedish state’s ownership policy should be interpreted in the light of international law, since there are compelling reasons grounded in previous research that article 4 in the UN Guiding Principles is related to the state’s duty to protect and the requirement of due diligence. The study demonstrates that the Swedish government has taken several steps in relation to the state-owned companies, although it is hard to conclude that these are additional in the meaning of article 4. The requirement in the UN Guiding Principles on state-owned enterprises to perform human rights due diligence and supported by international law is not expressed in the State’s ownership policy. Another conclusion is that the requirements and expectations on state-owned enterprises with regard to human rights are integrated with firm expectations on business opportunities. These requirements and expectations could be characterized as instrumental for the overriding objective of the state-owned enterprises: long-term value generation.

Lo studio si inserisce nel dibattito sul potere delle multinazionali e il rispetto dei diritti umani fondamentali e approfondisce i concetti di responsabilità sociale delle imprese (CSR) e della loro "accountability", inquadrando l'analisi nel contesto più ampio degli investimenti esteri diretti (FDI), con i relativi aspetti economici, tecnologici e sociali, nonché ambientali e politici. Si analizzano le norme internazionali in tema di rispetto dei diritti umani da parte delle aziende, ed i meccanismi legali per rendere le società "accountable", soprattutto in caso di complicità aziendali negli abusi perpetrati dagli Stati, anche attraverso la giurisprudenza dei tribunali penali internazionali e dei tribunali statunitensi. Viene data attenzione al settore della sicurezza, i.e. "Private Military and Security Companies" (PMSCs, interessato da notevole crescita negli ultimi decenni. Le PMSCs, impiegate da parte dei governi che esternalizzano una funzione tipicamente dello stato e da imprese e ONG attive in contesti difficili, hanno operato senza adeguato controllo. Le loro attività sollevano questioni su potenziali abusi dei diritti umani commessi dai propri dipendenti oltre che su violazioni dei diritti del lavoro subite dagli stessi. Le azioni ONU per portare le PMSCs fuori dalla 'zona legale grigia' in cui hanno operato vengono trattate insieme alle iniziative di autoregolamentazione. / The study, given the debate about the increasing power of corporations and the attempts to ensure their respect of fundamental human rights, deepens the concepts of corporate social responsibility (CSR) and corporate accountability, framing the analysis within the broader discourse of Foreign Direct Investment (FDI), with its economic, technological and social aspects as well as environmental and political issues. International standards in the area of corporations’ human rights obligations are analyzed in addition to legal mechanisms to hold corporations accountable, particularly for corporate complicity in human rights abuses by States, through the jurisprudence of international criminal tribunals and U.S. Courts. Special attention is given to the security sector, i.e. Private Military and Security Companies (PMSCs), interested in the last decades by a steady growth. PMSCs, increasingly contracted by governments willing to outsource a typical state function and by companies and NGOs active in difficult contexts, have been operating without proper supervision and accountability. PMSCs activities raise issues concerning potential human rights violations committed by their employees and labour rights abuses their employees might suffer themselves. UN actions aimed at bringing PMSCs out of the legal ‘grey zone’ where they have been operating are tackled alongside with self-regulatory initiatives.

Les mécanismes de soft law ont joué un rôle central dans le développement de la notion actuelle de la responsabilité des entreprises transnationales en droits de l’homme telle qu’elle est définie dans les Principes directeurs relatifs aux entreprises et aux droits de l’homme, une initiative approuvé par le Conseil des droits de l’homme des Nations unies en juin 2011. La responsabilité des entreprises de respecter les droits de l’homme, telle qu’elle a été conçue par le Représentant spécial, repose sur les attentes de la société plutôt que sur une obligation juridique. Cela signifie que les entreprises « devraient éviter de porter atteinte aux droits de l’homme d’autrui et remédier aux incidences négatives sur les droits de l’homme dans lesquelles elles ont une part ». Les limites de cette approche sont importantes à moyen et à long terme. Même si l’approche pragmatique adopté par le Représentant spécial a permis de surmonter le débat au sein de la communauté internationale autour du Projet de normes sur la responsabilité en matière de droits de l’homme des sociétés transnationales et autres entreprises, elle a aussi éloigné la possibilité d’élaborer un instrument international imposant aux entreprises transnationales des obligations contraignantes en droits de l’homme. Construire la notion de la responsabilité des entreprises transnationales en matière de droits de l’homme uniquement sur les attentes de la société semble insuffisant et dangereux face aux victimes des abus de ces acteurs économiques. La responsabilité de respecter les droits de l’homme, telle que définie aujourd’hui, renforce l’acceptation d’un système international où les entreprises transnationales sont encouragées mais pas obligées à respecter les droits de l’homme, une solution qui laisse les victimes des abus dépourvues de toute action en justice et de réparation. L’objet de cette thèse est de présenter de manière succincte l’évolution de la problématique complexe de la responsabilité des entreprises transnationales du secteur énergétique en matière de droit international des droits de l’homme et de droit international humanitaire depuis son origine jusqu’à nos jours, ainsi que de comprendre les principales limites de l’approche actuelle à la question, afin d’envisager des potentielles solutions. / Soft law mechanisms have played a central role in developing the current notion of the responsibility of transnational corporations in human rights as defined in the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, an initiative approved by the United Nations Human Rights Council in June 2011. Corporate responsibility to respect human rights, as defined by the Special Representative, is based on social expectations rather than on legal obligations. It means that companies should “avoid prejudice to the rights of others and to address adverse impacts on human rights in which they are involved”. The limitations of this approach are important in medium and long term. Although the pragmatic approach adopted by the Special Representative has closed the international community debate on the Draft Norms on the responsibility for human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises, it also ends the chances of developing an international instrument requiring binding obligations in human rights for transnational corporations. Setting the notion of the responsibility of transnational corporations in human rights exclusively on social expectations seems unsatisfactory and dangerous towards victims of violations committed by these economic actors. Responsibility to respect human rights as defined today reinforces the acceptance of a system where transnational corporations are encouraged but are not compelled to respect human rights, a solution that leaves victims of abuse devoid of any legal action and redress. The purpose of this PhD thesis is to present briefly the evolution of the responsibility of transnational corporations in the energy sector in human rights and international humanitarian law from its origins to our days, as well as to understand the main limitations of the current concept in order to explore potential solutions.