Can Positive Obligations of States Serve as a Remedy for Human Rights Violations Committed by Juristic Persons?
Abstract
Positive obligations of States to protect and implement human rights are considered a part of various effects of human rights in legislations. In this article, it is argued that a crucial problem arises from the inconsistent practice of addressing violations of human rights committed by juristic persons together with a lack of underlying general theory of liability for human rights violations committed by private entities.
Without a major change in the legal doctrine and case-law, we will need to remain focused on the role of the State as a guarantor of human rights, rather than on the imposition of human rights obligations on private-law entities. In this article, it is argued that the nature of the relationship between a juristic person and the State is not the only relevant aspect, as we should also examine the activity of the juristic person in question.