Fixing Meanings in Global Governance?
Abstract This article uses snapshots, rather than the ongoing flows of diffusion/contestation typically emphasized by constructivists, to explore the exercise of power through normative change. Its case is a high-profile Human Rights Council initiative: the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Huma...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Global governance 2020-11, Vol.26 (4), p.628-649 |
---|---|
1. Verfasser: | |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 649 |
---|---|
container_issue | 4 |
container_start_page | 628 |
container_title | Global governance |
container_volume | 26 |
creator | Karp, David Jason |
description | Abstract
This article uses snapshots, rather than the ongoing flows of diffusion/contestation typically emphasized by constructivists, to explore the exercise of power through normative change. Its case is a high-profile Human Rights Council initiative: the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGP s). These UNGP s have successfully presented meanings as fixed while actually stretching those meanings' boundaries. They reconceptualize what it means to "respect" and "protect" human rights. This is surprising given that the principles were framed as a conservative exercise at clarification, and under-noticed due to the legal rather than conceptual focus of the existing critical literature. To respect human rights, according to the UNGP s, agents need to take costly positive action. Furthermore, protect obligations come before respect. These are significant innovations. On the other hand, two missed opportunities of the UNGP s are their thin harm-based foundation for respect obligations, and their state centrism about who has duties to protect. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1163/19426720-02604002 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>brill</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_brill_journals_10_1163_19426720_02604002</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>10_1163_19426720_02604002</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-b1312-a903f8143a5110dd84e90bfe0635558a8693c9dec2034ea9bb6775878796d67b3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNo1j0tLxDAUhYMoOI7-AHfduIxzb26eK5HBqcKIG12HpE2lQ0hhguLPt0VndR6Lw_kYu0W4R9S0QSeFNgI4CA0SQJyx1dLxpTyfPRjFhZX6kl3VegCYM5kVu9uNP2P5bF5TKLPWZixNm6cYctNO3-lYQunSwzW7GEKu6eZf1-xj9_S-feb7t_Zl-7jnEQkFDw5osCgpKEToeyuTgzgk0KSUssFqR53rUyeAZAouRm2MssYap3ttIq3Z5m83Hsec_WH6mg_k6hH8QulPlP5ESb907kGp</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Publisher</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype></control><display><type>article</type><title>Fixing Meanings in Global Governance?</title><source>Jstor Complete Legacy</source><source>EBSCOhost Political Science Complete</source><source>HeinOnline Law Journal Library</source><creator>Karp, David Jason</creator><creatorcontrib>Karp, David Jason</creatorcontrib><description>Abstract
This article uses snapshots, rather than the ongoing flows of diffusion/contestation typically emphasized by constructivists, to explore the exercise of power through normative change. Its case is a high-profile Human Rights Council initiative: the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGP s). These UNGP s have successfully presented meanings as fixed while actually stretching those meanings' boundaries. They reconceptualize what it means to "respect" and "protect" human rights. This is surprising given that the principles were framed as a conservative exercise at clarification, and under-noticed due to the legal rather than conceptual focus of the existing critical literature. To respect human rights, according to the UNGP s, agents need to take costly positive action. Furthermore, protect obligations come before respect. These are significant innovations. On the other hand, two missed opportunities of the UNGP s are their thin harm-based foundation for respect obligations, and their state centrism about who has duties to protect.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1075-2846</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1942-6720</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1163/19426720-02604002</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Leiden | Boston: Brill | Nijhoff</publisher><ispartof>Global governance, 2020-11, Vol.26 (4), p.628-649</ispartof><rights>Copyright 2020 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-b1312-a903f8143a5110dd84e90bfe0635558a8693c9dec2034ea9bb6775878796d67b3</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27901,27902</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Karp, David Jason</creatorcontrib><title>Fixing Meanings in Global Governance?</title><title>Global governance</title><description>Abstract
This article uses snapshots, rather than the ongoing flows of diffusion/contestation typically emphasized by constructivists, to explore the exercise of power through normative change. Its case is a high-profile Human Rights Council initiative: the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGP s). These UNGP s have successfully presented meanings as fixed while actually stretching those meanings' boundaries. They reconceptualize what it means to "respect" and "protect" human rights. This is surprising given that the principles were framed as a conservative exercise at clarification, and under-noticed due to the legal rather than conceptual focus of the existing critical literature. To respect human rights, according to the UNGP s, agents need to take costly positive action. Furthermore, protect obligations come before respect. These are significant innovations. On the other hand, two missed opportunities of the UNGP s are their thin harm-based foundation for respect obligations, and their state centrism about who has duties to protect.</description><issn>1075-2846</issn><issn>1942-6720</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2020</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid/><recordid>eNo1j0tLxDAUhYMoOI7-AHfduIxzb26eK5HBqcKIG12HpE2lQ0hhguLPt0VndR6Lw_kYu0W4R9S0QSeFNgI4CA0SQJyx1dLxpTyfPRjFhZX6kl3VegCYM5kVu9uNP2P5bF5TKLPWZixNm6cYctNO3-lYQunSwzW7GEKu6eZf1-xj9_S-feb7t_Zl-7jnEQkFDw5osCgpKEToeyuTgzgk0KSUssFqR53rUyeAZAouRm2MssYap3ttIq3Z5m83Hsec_WH6mg_k6hH8QulPlP5ESb907kGp</recordid><startdate>202011</startdate><enddate>202011</enddate><creator>Karp, David Jason</creator><general>Brill | Nijhoff</general><scope/></search><sort><creationdate>202011</creationdate><title>Fixing Meanings in Global Governance?</title><author>Karp, David Jason</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-b1312-a903f8143a5110dd84e90bfe0635558a8693c9dec2034ea9bb6775878796d67b3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2020</creationdate><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Karp, David Jason</creatorcontrib><jtitle>Global governance</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Karp, David Jason</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Fixing Meanings in Global Governance?</atitle><jtitle>Global governance</jtitle><date>2020-11</date><risdate>2020</risdate><volume>26</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>628</spage><epage>649</epage><pages>628-649</pages><issn>1075-2846</issn><eissn>1942-6720</eissn><abstract>Abstract
This article uses snapshots, rather than the ongoing flows of diffusion/contestation typically emphasized by constructivists, to explore the exercise of power through normative change. Its case is a high-profile Human Rights Council initiative: the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGP s). These UNGP s have successfully presented meanings as fixed while actually stretching those meanings' boundaries. They reconceptualize what it means to "respect" and "protect" human rights. This is surprising given that the principles were framed as a conservative exercise at clarification, and under-noticed due to the legal rather than conceptual focus of the existing critical literature. To respect human rights, according to the UNGP s, agents need to take costly positive action. Furthermore, protect obligations come before respect. These are significant innovations. On the other hand, two missed opportunities of the UNGP s are their thin harm-based foundation for respect obligations, and their state centrism about who has duties to protect.</abstract><cop>Leiden | Boston</cop><pub>Brill | Nijhoff</pub><doi>10.1163/19426720-02604002</doi><tpages>22</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1075-2846 |
ispartof | Global governance, 2020-11, Vol.26 (4), p.628-649 |
issn | 1075-2846 1942-6720 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_brill_journals_10_1163_19426720_02604002 |
source | Jstor Complete Legacy; EBSCOhost Political Science Complete; HeinOnline Law Journal Library |
title | Fixing Meanings in Global Governance? |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-30T12%3A33%3A44IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-brill&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Fixing%20Meanings%20in%20Global%20Governance?&rft.jtitle=Global%20governance&rft.au=Karp,%20David%20Jason&rft.date=2020-11&rft.volume=26&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=628&rft.epage=649&rft.pages=628-649&rft.issn=1075-2846&rft.eissn=1942-6720&rft_id=info:doi/10.1163/19426720-02604002&rft_dat=%3Cbrill%3E10_1163_19426720_02604002%3C/brill%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |