A clarification like that is obviously necessary due to the specifics of the said region. Thus, allegations included the violations of, id est, right to health (art. 16), collective right to a general satisfactory environment favorable to their development (art. 24), right to property (art. 14), right to freely dispose their wealth and natural resources (art. 21). Moreover, Nigerian government not only failed to prevent but actively encouraged the aforementioned human rights violations. This is proved by such state officials’ actions as never trying to regulate oil production, not establishing due safety regulations in the production zones, not informing local people about the harmfulness of the oil plants, and most importantly providing governmental military forces to the oil company which consequently led to destruction of several Ogoni villages during security forces attacks. This case is crucial in terms of understanding the existing problem with business and human rights. A different lawsuit that encompasses human rights violations committed by businesses is Betagro & Thammakaset case7 . Unlike the previous example, this series of lawsuits concerns not the ecological issues and human rights related to those but another ground human right – the right to work. The proceeding started in late 2016 after a group of migrant workers filed a complaint against a Thai food chain corporation. The complaint included, inter alia, forced labor, confiscation of documents, limitations of movement, lack of properly established working schedule. However, the most referred to statement was unlawful payment mechanisms, including unpaid extra hours, unsolicited salary reductions and overall low salary size which appeared to be below the minimum wage as established both in Thailand and international labor institutions. 

7. https://www.business-humanrights.org

8. International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), art. 7

9. Prasadi Wijesinghe, “Human Rights Violations by Multinational Corporations: Nestle as the culprit”, p.3

IT IS IMPORTANT TO STRESS TH AT NEITHER GUIDING PRINCIPLES NOR THE ARTICLES ARE LEGALLY BINDING IN TERMS OF IEL; BOTH DOCUMENTS ARE OF DECL AR ATI V E CH AR ACTER. SUCH DIFFERENCE IS SUBJECT TO THE CONCEPT OF SOFT L AW

As follows, the ground document relevant to this issue is Articles on the responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts adopted in the annex to General Assembly resolution 56/83 of 12 December 200110. Article 11 thereof appears to be of particular interest since it does not prescribe state responsibility for corporations’ actions unless “the State acknowledges and adopts the conduct in question as its own”. This article demonstrates the tendency of separation of transnational corporations’ and states’ responsibility for human rights violations. However, an opposite kind of tendency is formulated in Norms on the Responsibilities of Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises with Regard to Human Rights that were approved 13 August 2003 by the United Nations Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights11. As the Preamble reads, transnational companies and other forms of business entities as well as other social institutions shall be responsible for the protection and promotion of human rights on the same terms as the states. The same rule is affirmed and further developed in Guiding Principles for Business and Human Rights12 issued in 2011 when the Human Rights Council adopted Resolution 17/4 simultaneously establishing a specialized working group in order to implement the new document on a global scale. Chapter ii thereof implies that human rights shall be respected by all business enterprises regardless of their locations and State’s capacity to perform their own human rights related obligations. It is important to stress that neither guiding principles nor the articles are legally binding in terms of IEL; both documents are of declarative character. Such difference is subject to the concept of soft law. The concept is defined by the Oxford Dictionary of Law Enforcement as “Guidelines of behavior, such as those provided by treaties not yet in force, resolutions of the United Nations, or international conferences, that are not binding in themselves but are more than mere statements of political aspiration”13. Definition like that seems to be the most reasonable option since it underlines that soft law contrasts with both hard law and abstract political commitments.

10. Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, 2001

11. Norms on the Responsibilities of Transnational Corporations and Other Business

12. Enterprises with Regard to Human Rights, 2003

13. Oxford Dictionary of Law Enforcement, 2 ed., 2015 8 9 1

14. Daniel Thürer , “Soft Law”, MPEPIL, 2009, web version

15. Hugh Thirlway, “The Sources of International Law (2nd Edition)”, OSAIL, 2019, web version 1

It goes without saying that such sort of problematics with implementation of principles concerning human rights needs to be handled without any delay. Still, introducing new ways of overcoming this flaw is an added challenge. Finding new ways to grant diligent remedies to victims of human rights violations by major corporations should be based on the previous experiences of dealing with same problems in other fields. That being said, the most efficient way of resolving this problem is to introduce new legal mechanisms of remedies in order to assert liability against both major business entities and governments within jurisdiction whereof this entities lie. First and foremost, this legal mechanisms shall be established via conclusion of legally binding multilateral treaties. Parties to these agreements shall be the most economically active states and states that are parties to international economic organizations. However, all legally binding international treaties are built on the basis of international courts’ practice. This is why the process of approaching the problem should start with stimulation and dissemination of international courts’decisions.

16. Machiko Kanetake, “International Law in Domestic Courts: A Casebook”, OSAIL, 2018

17. “Improving Accountability and Access to Remedy for Victims of Business-Related Human Rights Abuse”, UN, 2016 1

BIBLIOGRAPHY

African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Banjul Charter). - 1986.

Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts. - 2001.

The Ogoni case [Case] = ACHPR. - 2001.

“Improving Accountability and Access to Remedy for Victims of Business-Related Human Rights Abuse”, UN. - 2016.

Guiding Principles for Business and Human Rights. - 2011.

Herdegen Matthias International Economic Law [Book Section] // Max Plank Encyclopedia of Publiс International Law. - 2014. International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). - 1966.

Kanetake Machiko International Law in Domestic Courts: A Casebook [Book Section] // Oxford Scholarly Authorities on International Law. - 2018.

Mechlem K. Harmonizing Trade in Agriculture and Human Rights: Options for the Integration of the Right to Food into the Agreement on Agriculture [Journal]. - 2006.

Norms on the Responsibilities of Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises with Regard to Human Rights. - 2003. Oxfor Scholary Authorities on International Law [Book].

Oxford Dictionary of Law Enforcement, 2 ed. [Book]. - 2015.

Thirlway Hugh The Sources of International Law (2nd Edition) [Book Section] // Oxford Scholarly Authorities on International Law. - 2019.

Thürer Daniel Soft Law [Book Section] // Max Plank Encyclopedia of Public International Law. - 2009.

ANNOTATION: This article provides analysis of the carriage of cargo, passengers and baggage in Private International Maritime Law. The article includes comparison between regulations of maritime shipments from various legal acts. The emphasis is given to the way the legislation of the Russian Federation reconciles internal and international acts.

 

KEY WORDS: maritime, convention, transportation, private international law, cargo.

 

АННОТАЦИЯ: В данной статье приводится анализ перевозки грузов, пассажиров и багажа в международном частном морском праве. В статье приведено сравнение правовых норм морских перевозок из различных законодательных актов. Акцент делается на том, как российское законодательство решает некоторые правовые вопросы при отсутствии регламентации в международных актах, а также возможные коллизии между ними.

 

КЛЮЧЕВЫЕ СЛОВА: морское право, конвенция, перевозка, международное частное право, груз.

Ссылка на скачивание 

The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea was adopted in Geneva in 1982, where the legal regime of the maritime transport environment was established. The Convention has fixed the general provisions and directions of state borders at  their legal status. The convention addresses the problems of Private International Law: right of peaceful passage, nationality of ships and others1 . A great contribution to the codification of international law of the sea was made by the I, II, III UN conferences on the law of the sea and international intergovernmental organizations: International Maritime Organization, UNESCO, United Nations Environment Programme. The following conventions were adopted: “Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone”, “Convention on the High Seas”, “Convention on the Continental Shelf”, “Convention on Fishing and Conservation of the living resources of the High Seas”. International organizations solve the problems of ensuring free shipping, safe navigation, international shipping. The International Maritime Organization (IMO) plays a leading role in addressing these issues. IMO’s activity is aimed to eliminating discriminatory acts affecting international trade shipping, as well as adopting norms (standards) on ensuring maritime safety and preventing pollution of the environment from ships, especially the marine environment [1]. It has a staff of about 300 people. IMO is a kind of forum in which the member states of this organization exchange information, discuss legal, technical and other issues related to shipping. The issues of unification of transport documents and regulation of commercial legal issues of international shipping of goods are dealt with by the Baltic and International Maritime Council, established in 1905. Up to date, there are three legal regimes that govern transportation in various international treaties:

  1. The International Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules of Law relating to Bills of Lading, signed on August 25, 1924 in Brussels, known as the Hague Rules.

  2. Protocol amending International Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules of Law

1. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982

2. The Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, 1992

3. The International Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules of Law relating to Bills of Lading, and Protocol of Signature (Hague Rules), 1924

THE UN CONVENTION ON THE L AW OF THE SEA HAS FIXED THE GENER AL PROVISIONS AND DIRECTIONS OF STATE BORDERS AT SEA, THEIR LEGAL STATUS. THE CONVENTION ADDRESSES THE PROBLEMS OF PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL L AW: RIGHT OF PEACEFUL PASSAGE, NATIONALIT Y OF SHIPS AND OTHERS.

IMO’S ACTIVIT Y IS AIMED TO ELIMINATE DISCRIMINATORY ACTS AFFECTING INTERNATIONAL TR ADE SHIPPING, AS WELL AS ADOPTING NORMS (STANDARDS) ON ENSURING MARITIME SAFET Y AND PREVENTING POLLUTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT FROM SHIPS

in shipping are applicable here. All disputes are subject to consideration in court at the location of the carrier’s main company. If an arbitration clause is made to the bill of lading, it is valid, but it is not possible to appeal to a state court. The Visby Rules constitute an additional protocol to the Brussels Convention; they were adopted in 1968. The scope of the Hague Rules was expanded, their application to any bill of lading was envisaged, norms that increase the carrier’s liability were strengthened, its limits the bill of lading turnover were increased. The Hamburg Rules were adopted in 1978 and operate on a wider spectrum than the Hague Rules. This includes the transport of animals, deck and dangerous goods. The Rules establish 13 mandatory forms of bill of lading4. The Rules are peremptory, with the established principle of the presumption of fault of the carrier, the boundaries of his responsibility are expanded.

  The Hamburg Rules apply carriage agreements between states are concluded in cases where:

  • the port of loading under the contract is located in one of the states;

  • the port of discharge under the contract is located in one of the states;

  • a bill of lading or other document issued in one of the states;

  • a bill of lading or other document stipulates that the carriage of goods is governed by the rules and laws of the state that brings them into effect.

  If there is an error in navigation, the carrier is not liable. The statute of limitations for claims on the carrier increased. The Hamburg Rules contain rules on arbitration and jurisdiction

4. United Nations Convention on the carriage of goods by sea (Hamburg Rules), 1978

• the occurrence of a fire on board a ship;

• the presence of hidden defects;

• action or inaction of the consignor;

• loading, handling, stacking, unloading;

• the presence of a decrease in volume or weight indicators due to cargo defects;

• poor quality of packaging, in connection with which the onset of damage;

• rescue operations at sea;

• attempts to save property at sea in the event of unforeseen circumstances;

• attempts to avoid harming the environment5 .

  The carrier cannot limit his liability if the consignor proves that the damage was caused with the personal assistance or inaction of the carrier. For example, due to negligence, gross negligence. The carrier, in turn, can prove that losses or damage occurred due to the fault of the sender of the cargo and the carrier suffered losses related to health, damage to the vessel, etc. Carriage of passengers is a subject to the Brussels Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules Relating to the   Carriage of Passengers by Sea. It contains merits and conflict norms. All norms of a conflict nature are based on the principle of the law of the court.

  Passenger traffic is also regulated by the Athens Convention of 1974. The definition of international passenger transportation is given there: international carriage of passengers is any carriage in accordance with an agreement where the place of departure and place of arrival are in different states, or in one state with an intermediate port belonging to another country6. The Athens Convention incorporates many of the rules of the Brussels Convention. The Athens Convention provides for the possibility of increasing the limits of liability of the carrier in agreement between the passenger and the carrier must be in writing. The Convention introduced a new concept of “cabin luggage”, “special drawing rights”. In 1976 the London Protocol was signed, which introduced innovations in the calculation of liability limits and established a unit for calculating SDRs. In 2002, the London Protocol was called upon to edit the Athens Convention.

5. UN Convention on Contracts for the International Carriage of Goods Wholly or Partly by Sea (Rotterdam Rules), 2009

6. Athens Convention relating to the carriage of passengers and their luggage by Sea, 1974

7. Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims, 1976

transportation. He may apply for exemption from liability if he proves that the failure to comply was caused by one of the force majeure circumstances prescribed by law (force-majeure). The burden of proof of this kind of fact lies solely with the carrier. In addition to international agreements in the process of regulating international traffic, a large role belongs to domestic acts. In the Russian Federation, these are the Civil Code, the Air Code, the Merchant Shipping Code, the Charter of Railways of the Russian Federation, and the Code of Inland Water Transport of the Russian Federation. The amount of liability of the carrier for damage, full or partial loss of cargo is calculated on the basis of the rules of article 796 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. It is worth paying attention to the fact that the size of this liability is limited only by the value of the lost or damaged cargo: profit not received in connection with the loss of cargo is not reimbursed, losses incurred in connection with this are not reimbursed. This rule was further reflected in article 169 of the Code of Merchant Shipping of the Russian Federation. For example, if the cargo is completely lost, it is necessary to reimburse its full value. If the cargo is damaged or partially lost,the amount is reimbursed by which its value has decreased. In addition, the carrier must return the freight received by him as a reward related to the transportation of lost cargo or part thereof. These provisions are fully consistent with the rules of the Hague-Visby Rules, with the exception of the rule on the return of freight (there is no mention of the return of freight in relation to lost (damaged) cargo or its part in the Hague or in the Hague-Visby Rules). Moreover, the provisions contained in clause 2 of Article 169 of the Code of Merchant Shipping of the Russian Federation on the procedure for calculating the value of cargo subject to reimbursement fully repeat the relevant provisions of the Hague-Visby Rules (subparagraph (b) of paragraph 5 of Article 4)8. Compensation is subject only to the market value of the goods at the date and place of unloading in accordance with the contract of carriage. The rules for determining the value of lost cargo, given in article 169 of the Code of Merchant Shipping of the Russian Federation, do not coincide with the corresponding rules recorded in article 796 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation9. In accordance with the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the

REFERENCES:

1) Gureev S. A. International Maritime Law // Norma Infra-M, 2011. – 396 p.

2) Treaty | international relations. Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved 2019-07-26

3) Scaridov A.S. Maritime law // Uwrite, 2016. – 12 p

1

The food chain company filed a lawsuit in response alleging that the group of workers committed defamation related crime. Fortunately, the workers pleaded not guilty and the corporation was ordered to pay a massive compensation. The affairs concerned in the case fall under the provisions of ICESCR, namely, article 7 which entitles all workers to “fair wages and equal remuneration for work of equal value without distinction of any kind” and “rest, leisure and reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay, as well as remuneration for public holidays”8. This example is one of the multiple cases related to labor human rights violations conducted by major companies that, unlike this one, get ruled not in favor of workers. Last but not least, the tendency of business entities acting against human rights has been reviewed by multiple international economic law scholars. Prasadi Wijesinghe discusses the issue of business and human rights in “Human Rights Violations by Multinational Corporations: Nestle as the culprit” and comes to an important conclusion – nowadays business entities massively get away with human rights crimes. As the introduction to the article goes, “Even though the national parliaments and the international law making authorities such as UN, EU…etc. have accepted the importance of the human rights and the necessity to protect those rights, multinational corporations have been able to shamelessly violate the human rights of the people who are attached to their business operations at any level, under many circumstances”9. Considering all of the above, the crucial aspect of the problem is the lack of diligent mechanism of legal protection for the victims of human rights violations conducted by businesses.

2

GUIDING PRINCIPLES INCLUDE A SPECIFIC FR AMEWORK OF IMPLEMENTATION ISSUED IN 2008; IT IS CONSIDERED TO BE AN INSEPAR ABLE PART OF THE PRINCIPLES. THE FR AMEWORK IS BUILD UPON THREE GROUND PRINCIPLES - PROTECT, RESPECT, REMEDY. SINCE THEN, THE FIRST TWO PRINCIPLES HAVE BEEN ACTIVELY IMPLEMENTED IN THE MECHANISM OF RESOLVING HUMAN RIGHTS AND BUSINESS CONFLICTS. HOWEVER, THE L AST PRINCIPLE SEEMS TO BE SEVERELY NEGLECTED, EVEN TEN YEARS AFTER THE ISSUING OF THE PROGRAM.

Some international law doctrine authors even insist that social rules applied to international interactions forms a specter ranging from purely moral statements to strict legal rules14. It goes without saying that the concept of soft law interferes with all areas of international law including IEL. Still, Articles have been repeatedly used in the practice of such international courts as ECHR and ICJ. At this point it is legitimate to consider them to be established as an international custom as a source of international law consisting of opinion juris and state practice15. Guiding principles, on the contrary, are a much more recent document which has been developing thus far and are yet to be implied into the practice. These two instruments simply don’t carry the same weight. Guiding principles include a specific framework of implementation issued in 2008; it is considered to be an inseparable part of the principles. The framework is build upon three ground principles - Protect, Respect, Remedy. Since then, the first two principles have been actively implemented in themechanism of resolving human rights and business conflicts. However, the last principle seems to be severely neglected, even ten years after the issuing of the program.

3

What is more, all conventions and other multilateral treaties are often influenced by national institutions’ actions. For example, Oxford Reports on International Law in Domestic Courts underline the fact that domestic courts frequently invoke different kinds of soft-law instruments in their judicial reasoning. Thus, by recognizing soft law through the aforementioned domestic judicial practices, in-state courts accelerate the opposite process of international institutions recognizing and consolidating soft law16. This explains the need to make national practice on the regulation of businesses more frequent and thus creating precedents needed to support future conventions. To make a conclusion it is important to stress that the process of spreading remedies for the victims of human rights violations conducted by businesses is slowly but consistently becoming more efficient. A significant example to that is the report of UN Officer on human rights on Improving Accountability and Access to Remedy for Victims of Business-Related Human Rights Abuse17. The report, inter alia, emphasizes the issue of implementing obligations related to human rights into business activities. Hopefully, the attention of international community to the problem of correlation of human rights and businesses in terms of IEL will furthermore increase.

4

relating to Bills of Lading, signed in Brussels on August 25, 1924, known in the world as the Visby Rules.

3. The United Nations Convention on the Carriage of Goods by Sea, adopted in Hamburg in 1978, with entry into force on 1 January 1992, formalized the third legal regime for the carriage of goods by sea. International maritime transport contracts and relations associated with the risk of navigation are groups of relations in the field of Private International Law.

  Two main forms of cargo transportation at sea are liner and tramp. Liner international sea transportation of goods is also called regular and drawn up in a bill of lading (is a document issued by a carrier (or their agent) to acknowledge receipt of cargo for shipment)2 . The international status of the bill of lading was first defined in the Brussels Convention. In 1931, the convention began to operate and was called the Hague Rules 1924. Before embarking on a voyage, the shipowner or charterer must take care of: bringing the ship into a seaworthy condition; ship equipment, manning, equipment; bringing all cargo parts of the vessel in proper condition3 . The Hague Rules interpret the contract of carriage as a contract certified by a bill of lading. The carrier, accepting the goods, issues a bill of lading to the sender, which is a document of title, which mediates the conclusion of a contract of carriage in liner sea shipping. The Hague Rules highlight crucial issues in shipping: functions of a bill of lading, compilation, issuance, details, carrier liability to the sender, claims, the order of their presentation to the carrier. The carrier’s liability for the goods is a key provision of the Hague Rules. The minimum carrier liability, exceptions to the liability rules, exemption from liability are defined. The conditions in the contract of carriage that exempt or reduce the carrier’s liability for damage to the goods due to negligence, failure to fulfill obligations are considered void. The carrier can increase its responsibility for the safety of the cargo by waiving part of the rights provided for by the Hague Rules. This condition must be fixed in the bill of lading. There are no rules on jurisdiction and arbitration in the Rules - the general rules applicable

5

The Rotterdam Rules. The purpose of the development of the Rules is to create a universal regime for the implementation of maritime transport agreements. The Rules are designed to replace existing documents. The Rotterdam Rules set out the basic terms for shipping. The contract may include both sea transportation and other modes of transport in addition to sea transportation. The Rotterdam Rules are applicable in cases where the place of shipment and place of delivery are in different states, when the ports of loading and unloading are also different states. The Rotterdam Rules do not affect the provisions governing air, land, rail transportation of goods. Also the Rules do not apply when the transportation of goods is within inland waters, and do not apply when passengers and baggage are being transported. The Rotterdam Rules legally enshrined the principle of multiple jurisdictions, the possibility of agreements on exclusive choice of court and arbitration agreements. According to the Rules, court or arbitration proceedings cannot be started after two years after any violation. The carrier is responsible for the goods from the moment of their acceptance to delivery. He is liable for damage, loss, delay in delivery if it is proved that damage, loss or delay were committed during the carrier’s liability. The carrier is exempted from liability if he proves that damage, loss or delay cannot be attributed to his fault, but occurred due to unforeseen circumstances beyond the control of the carrier:

  • irresistible force;

  • risks, the occurrence of a dangerous situation, an accident;

  • military action, piracy, terrorism, uprisings and popular unrest;

  • quarantine, related restrictions;

  • strikes, suspension of work;

6

 The carrier’s liability limits were increased - for the harm caused to the life and health of the passenger, an amount of SDR 250 thousand was assigned for each case7 .

  What is an international shipping agreement? The term «treaty» itself means a formal written agreement entered into by actors in international law, namely sovereign states and international organizations [2]. The contract for the carriage of goods by sea must be in writing.

  There are several types of transportation: transportation of goods, passengers and baggage, which is carried out between two states in accordance with the conditions provided for by interstate agreements. The following types of maritime transport agreement are distinguished: voyage charter, bill of lading, booking notes, berth note, fixture-note, general contract.

  A voyage charter is used in regular and tramp shipping.

  A bill of lading takes place when delivering general cargo in liner shipping. Unlike a charter, this type of contract does not provide for the carrier’s obligation to provide the cargo owner with a specific cargo room.

  A booking note is a preliminary application of the cargo owner in order to reserve a place on the ship for a certain consignment.

  Berth note is a contract for the transportation of associated bulk cargo.

  The general contract represents a long-term agreement for the carriage by regular shipments of a certain amount of cargo of this charterer.

  In almost all types of transportation (except for the transport of passengers and baggage by road and river transport), the establishment of strict liability of the carrier through peremptory norms is carried out by referring to the convention - the conclusion of international agreements. The obligation of such norms means that the parties under a civil contract are not entitled to agree on conditions incompatible with the liability regime established in an international convention. This fact is a departure from the principles of “freedom of contract,” “autonomy of the will of the parties.” The liability system for various types of contracts of carriage places a burden on the carrier. The latter, in turn, is responsible for the implementation of safe, timely

7

cost of cargo or baggage is determined on the basis of its price indicated in the seller’s account or stipulated by the contract, and in the absence of an invoice or price in the contract based on the price, which is usually charged for similar goods under comparable circumstances, and in the Hague-Visby Rules and the Code of Merchant Shipping of the Russian Federation - the market value of the goods. Special provisions of the applicable law prevail - the Code of Merchant Shipping of the Russian Federation. It should be noted that the Hague Rules and the Hamburg Rules do not indicate in any way the procedure for determining the amount of compensation for damage full or partial loss of cargo. If the contract for the international carriage of goods by sea is based on one of these international agreements, the amount of compensation for the goods will be determined by the applicable law. Delivery time may be determined by agreement between the parties. In their absence, the goods must be delivered to the port of destination within a reasonable time, which is required from the carrier, taking into account specific circumstances. The Hague and Hague-Visby Rules do not contain such provisions. If the contract for the international seatransportation of goods is concluded according to one of these conventions, and the applicable law is Russian, then the carrier’s liability for violation of the delivery time will be calculated according to the rules of paragraph 1 of Article 169 of the Code of Merchant Shipping of the Russian Federation. The carrier shall be liable in amounts not exceeding the amount of the fee (freight) in accordance with the contract for the carriage of goods by sea. On the one hand, this is a rather impressive normative array, regulating a significant area of international relations of maritime use. On the other hand, such a significant number of regulations requires an interconnected system of their practical implementation [3]. According to the UN Secretary General: “it is necessary to rebuild the architecture of the disposal of the World Ocean, which becomes slurred and extremely intricate. The lack of knowledge sharing between national administrations prevents the orderly adoption of the necessary legislative and practical measures for the implementation of international treaties, as well as the implementation at the organizational level of the necessary follow-up actions for their implementation and enforcement”10.

1) Гуреев С.А. Международное морское право // Норма Инфра-М, 2011. – 396 с.

2) Treaty | international relations. Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved 2019-07-26

3) Скаридов А. С. Морское право // Юрайт, 2016. – 12 с

БИБЛИОГРАФИЧЕСКИЙ СПИСОК:

5Z_yFP-15tE_edited.jpg

Кононова Ирина 

Студент юридического факультет имени М. М. Сперанского Института права и национальной безопасности Российской академии народного хозяйства и государственной службы при Президенте Российской Федерации.

Автор статьи

"THE CORRELATION OF BUSINESS & HUMAN RIGHTS AS A PROBLEM OF INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC LAW"

ANNOTATION: The article focuses on the problematic of balancing the modern economic activities and the issues of human rights. The relevance of the article is subject to the accelerating growth of globalization and the increasing number of transnational corporations that affect human rights in negative ways; the key issue appears to be the lack of due legal regulation of the aforementioned problem. The text represents the currently existing means of imposing responsibility on human rights violators, analyzes their flaws and suggests general paths of development with regard to IEL mechanisms. KEYWORDS: human rights, business, international economic law, state responsibility, corporations АННОТАЦИЯ: Статья фокусируется на проблематике соотношения современной экономической деятельности и прав человека. Актуальность статьи обуславливается ускоряющимся ростом глобальных процессов и растущим числом транснациональных корпораций которые, о мнению автора, оказывают негативное влияние на права; ключевой проблемой представляется отсутствие надлежащего законодательного регулирования данной проблемы. Текст отображает существующие средства привлечения к ответственности за нарушение прав человека, анализирует их недостатки и предлагает общие направления развития в соответствии с механизмами международного экономического права. КЛЮЧЕВЫЕ СЛОВА: права человека, бизнес, международное экономическое право, ответственность государств, корпорации.

Ссылка на скачивание 

he term “international economic law” traditionally includes elaborate mechanism of regulation, governed by various branches of law.The main purpose of this mechanism is believed to be the provision of unobstructed economic interaction among states, international organizations and private individuals{1} . This implies, inter alia, the movement of goods, services and investments throughout the borders, currency and financial relations and international means of intellectual property protection. Nevertheless, in terms of today’s rapid economical and technological growth universal problems become more and more vivid. International economic law is deemed to be a relatively new branch of law, officially taking its start from 1944 - the year of Bretton Woods Conference and consequential formation of International Monetary Fund. Still, despite the newness, IEL has undergone multiple changes within the last decade. Nowadays the fundamental influence of international economic relations on human rights is undeniable. Human rights come into collisions with both private individuals’ lives and business activities{2}. The role of international business on the issue of human rights is primarily subject to globalization. This fact is explained by the specifics of the globalization itself: it includes, inter alia, the tendency of business to extend beyond the regional market. Such characteristic is fueled by the rapid increase of transnational corporations that often affect human rights in negative ways. Thus, the influence of international economic activities on human rights is becoming more and more obviously problematic. That is to say, a notorious example to this problem is the discussion on article 11 of International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights concerning human right to food3. Many international legal experts consider that nowadays this fundamental right is violated primarily by international corporations conducting agricultural activities4. This follows from the fact that said corporations tend to have intentions that are in conflict with ICESCR main objectives. Another exemplary case is the Ogoni case5 . Mass oil exploitation conducted by a Nigerian-European corporation led to pollution of soil, water and air resources, which consequently harmed local indigenous people. The case is often considered to be precedent-forming since for the first time African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights was able to deal in a substantive and groundbreaking way with alleged violations of economic, social and cultural rights which formed the substance of the complaint. After reviewing the case African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights detected multiple human rights violations in the company’s actions. The majority of said violations were pursuant to The African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights6 accepted in 1986. The Charter is similar to other state’s documents such as European Convention on Human Rights and American convention on Human Rights but still carries special traits; for example, as follows from the title, African Charter stresses that the rights of peoples shall be considered human rights. 

1. Matthias Herdegen, “International Economic Law”, MPEPIL, 2014

2. Oxford Scholarly Authorities on International Law, Mechlem, “Harmonizing Trade in Agriculture and Human Rights: Options for the Integration of the Right to Food into the Agreement on Agriculture”, 2006 

3. International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), art. 11

4. K. Mechlem, “Harmonizing Trade in Agriculture and Human Rights: Options for the Integration of the Right to Food into the Agreement on Agriculture”, 2006

5. The Ogoni case, ACHPR, 2001

6. African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Banjul Charter)

T

THE CRUCI A L ASPECT OF THE PROBLEM IS THE L ACK OF DILIGENT MECHANISM OF LEGAL PROTECTION FOR THE V ICTIMS OF HUM AN RIGHTS V IOL ATIONS CONDUCTED BY BUSINESSES

X3trx2zYee0.jpg

Ефимова Дарья 

Студент юридического факультет имени М. М. Сперанского Института права и национальной безопасности Российской академии народного хозяйства и государственной службы при Президенте РФ.

Автор статьи

"THE CARRIAGE OF CARGO, PASSENGERS AND BAGGAGE IN PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL MARITIME LAW WITH THE EMPHASIS ON THE RUSSIAN REALITIES"

REFERENCES:

The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982

The Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, 1992

The International Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules of Law relating to Bills of Lading, and Protocol of Signature (Hague Rules), 1924

United Nations Convention on the carriage of goods by sea (Hamburg Rules), 1978

UN Convention on Contracts for the International Carriage of Goods Wholly or Partly by Sea (Rotterdam Rules), 2009

Athens Convention relating to the carriage of passengers and their luggage by Sea, 1974

Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims, 1976

The Code of Merchant Shipping of the Russian Federation, 1999 The Civil Code of the Russian Federation, 1996

A/56/58 UN 9 March 2001

НОРМАТИВНЫЕ АКТЫ:

The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982

The Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, 1992

The International Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules of Law relating to Bills of Lading, and Protocol of Signature (Hague Rules), 1924

United Nations Convention on the carriage of goods by sea (Hamburg Rules), 1978

UN Convention on Contracts for the International Carriage of Goods Wholly or Partly by Sea (Rotterdam Rules), 2009

Athens Convention relating to the carriage of passengers and their luggage by Sea, 1974

Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims, 1976

The Code of Merchant Shipping of the Russian Federation, 1999 The Civil Code of the Russian Federation, 1996

A/56/58 UN 9 March 2001

«President Law Journal»