Cookies Policy

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies.

I accept this policy

Find out more here

Corporate and State Responsibilities in Conflict-Affected Areas

No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
The full text of this article is not currently available.

Brill’s MyBook program is exclusively available on BrillOnline Books and Journals. Students and scholars affiliated with an institution that has purchased a Brill E-Book on the BrillOnline platform automatically have access to the MyBook option for the title(s) acquired by the Library. Brill MyBook is a print-on-demand paperback copy which is sold at a favorably uniform low price.

Access this article

+ Tax (if applicable)
Add to Favorites
You must be logged in to use this functionality

image of Nordic Journal of International Law

Some of the emblematic cases of corporate-related infringements of human rights have appeared in unstable and violence-ridden zones, including armed conflict and other contexts with lower levels of conflict, internal disturbances, widespread violence and latent tensions. Businesses have been involved in different ways, as direct perpetrators, accomplices or mere trading partners. This article tracks the issue of conflict-affected areas as elaborated in the United Nations (UN) Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights during the Special Representative’s mandate (2005–2011) and the post-mandate period of 2011–2014, especially by looking at the UN Working Group on business and human rights and the emerging National Action Plans. Conflict was a theme of high priority during John Ruggie’s UN mandate but lost visibility in the post-2011 period. What could explain this change? This article analyses in depth the relevant provisions in the UN Guiding Principles, particularly Principle 7, and how stakeholders have responded to the Special Representative’s policy recommendations. The results of this analysis indicate that, contrary to appearances, Principle 7 is not merely an operational, context-specific principle limited to conflict-affected zones where the host state is incapacitated by conflict; rather Principle 7 should be seen as a foundational principle about gross abuses, about the responsibilities of home states to act preventively and reactively when ‘their’ companies are involved in gross abuses in conflict-affected areas and beyond.

Affiliations: 1: Senior Researcher, Raoul Wallenberg Institute of Human Rights and Humanitarian Law, Lund, Sweden; Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, Lund University, Sweden,


Full text loading...


Data & Media loading...

Article metrics loading...



Can't access your account?
  • Tools

  • Add to Favorites
  • Printable version
  • Email this page
  • Subscribe to ToC alert
  • Get permissions
  • Recommend to your library

    You must fill out fields marked with: *

    Librarian details
    Your details
    Why are you recommending this title?
    Select reason:
    Nordic Journal of International Law — Recommend this title to your library
  • Export citations
  • Key

  • Full access
  • Open Access
  • Partial/No accessInformation