Internationally, 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. / LLM (Import and export Law), North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2014

Internationally, 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. / LLM (Import and export Law), North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2014

Ce travail mise à étudier comment les standards internationaux de droit souple contenues dans les principes directeurs des Nations Unies relatifs aux entreprises et aux droits de l’homme sont en train d’influencer la législation européenne et celle des états membres. Le premier chapitre analyse la responsabilité (ou mieux son absence) des entreprises multinationales dans le droit international et devant les courts nationaux. Dans ce contexte, on assiste à l’affirmation des codes de conduite internationaux de droit souple. Le deuxième chapitre est concentré sur trois codes de conduite internationaux : les lignes directrices de l’OCDE, la déclaration de l’OIT et les normes des Nations Unies. Cette analyse est visée à offrir au lecteur une idée plus claire du cadre qui a porté à l’approbation des principes directeurs. Le troisième chapitre est entièrement confié à l’analyse de ces principes et leurs trois piliers, avec une attention spécifique au devoir de l’état de protéger les droits de l’homme. Finalement, le dernier chapitre étudie, à travers une méthode comparée, l’actualisation des principes directeurs par l’Union européenne et ses états membres. Cette recherche a permis de conclure que les principes directeurs sont en train d’influencer largement le processus législatif européen et national. Elle veut alors contribuer au débat concernant le rôle croissante du droit souple dans la solution des problématiques liées à la mondialisation et à la perte de puissance du principe de la souveraineté des états / The twofold aim of the research is to study how the international soft law standards laid down in the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human rights (UNGPs) are shaping both the European and the National legislations, and what are the further developments expected. The first chapter explores the (lack of) responsibility of MNEs in international law and in front of national courts. In this scenario, the role of international soft law has been particularly important. The second chapter examines three different public codes of conduct regulating MNEs, The OECD Guidelines for multinational corporations, the ILO Tripartite Declaration and the UN Norms. This analysis serves to give the reader a clearer idea of the context in which the UNGPs has seen the light. The third chapter is entirely dedicated to the analysis of the UN Guiding Principles endorsed in 2011 and of their three pillar, with a special focus on the State duty to protect. Finally, the fourth chapter analyses, through a comparative method, the UNGPs implementation in the EU and in some Member states. It concludes that the UN Guiding Principles are largely influencing the European policy in this sector, and that both the European Union and the Member states are implementing this policy through several measures, both voluntary and mandatory. Finally, the research intends to make a contribution to the debate on the increasing role of international soft law in solving challenges of a globalized world where the State sovereignty principle has lost importance