The Business of Human Rights

A recent court decision in Colorado highlights what may be just the beginning of a new set of hurdles for energy companies.

A family in Colorado filed suit after a hydraulic fracturing system was installed on their neighbor’s property. The family claims that, since the system was installed, their property value has decreased, their water has been contaminated, and they’ve incurred skin rashes and headaches. Recently, Colorado’s Court of Appeals overturned a dismissal by a lower court, allowing the family’s case to move forward in the litigation process. You can read the full opinion here.

Although the ruling establishes no binding precedent outside of Colorado, given how widespread hydraulic fracturing has become across the country, it will be something that plaintiffs’ attorneys will keep an eye on in the event that they are handed similar issues.

I am pleased to announce that we have secured a keynote speaker for our upcoming business and human rights conference. Bill Richardson will be speaking the evening of September 23rd as part of the David C. Hardesty Jr. Festival of Ideas Speaker Series. His talk will be at 7:30 p.m. at the Erickson Alumni Center in Morgantown, WV. Bill Richardson has served as a governor of New Mexico, the head of the Department of Energy and as the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. Given the depth and breadth of his experience, we believe he is perfectly suited to close our first night of the conference. 
For more information about the conference please visit our website here.
For more information on Bill Richardson, please visit his website here.

Photo taken from billrichardson.com

I promised a follow up post a while back about how I might distinguish between what is a “business and human rights issue” and what is a “human rights issue that happens to intersect with the business world.” At this point, I want to add again my disclaimer that my research is linked to business law, and not human rights law, so to the extent I am using loose language or am otherwise off in my descriptions, I beg patience and forgiveness at the outset.

In my prior post, I explained that

I would draw a distinction between a “business and human rights” issue and human rights issues that happen to intersect with the business world. These latter issues are not less significant than business and human rights issues. Instead, they are broader human rights issues that are not unique to businesses or how they operate on a global stage. 

I recognize the risk that narrowing the scope can marginalize, or at least minimize, concerns about the issue raised. On the flip side, though, one can go in the other direction by being over inclusive and convert business and human rights issues into what amounts to issues related to the human condition. A holistic view has its merits, but I am of the view that narrowing the field to more business-specific concerns is more likely to lead to significant improvements in the nearer term.

Perhaps more to the point, I believe that an overly broad definition of what constitutes business and human rights issues runs the risk of asking businesses to solve problems that they cannot. That is, that the solutions necessary to solve the problem raised are not reasonably linked to businesses or regulations related to businesses (as businesses).

Unfortunately, there is no blog post today. We’ve been busy working on WVU’s upcoming business and human rights conference. Stay tuned in the coming week for some incredible news about a keynote speaker and future plans.

In the meantime, enjoy your week-end …

Quick, we’re going to do a random (and completely unscientific) experiment. Ready?

What did your mind flash on? Was it the issue of torture? Discrimination? The right to vote?

How many of you thought about the right to justice?

(Looks around at the silent room).