Reports and Essays

What’s available?

As part of her Master of Laws at the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia, our CEO Sonja Duncan wrotea number of essays and research reports on business and human rights. We thought we’d share some of them here for your interest.

Feedback is always welcome.

For universities driven by integrity and corporate social responsibility, the Modern Slavery Act 2018 Act provides an opportunity to demonstrate leadership in reducing and over time, eliminating, modern slavery. However, individual universities cannot achieve this alone.

COLLABORATIVE UNIVERSITY PROCUREMENT: BEST-PRACTICE OPPORTUNITIES FOR ADRESSING MODERN SLAVERY RISKS IN UNIVERSITY SUPPLY CHAINS (SEPTEMBER 2019)

The introduction of the Modern Slavery Act 2018 (Cth) has brought businesses into the efforts to address modern slavery.

For the first time, Australian businesses are required to not only understand their supply chains, but identify, manage and mitigate potential modern slavery risks. The Act requires organisations operating in Australia with annual consolidated revenue of $100 million or more, including businesses, charitable institutions, universities, Australian government and corporate entities to publish a Modern Slavery Statement.

For universities driven by integrity and corporate social responsibility, the Act provides an opportunity to demonstrate leadership in reducing and over time, eliminating, modern slavery. However, individual universities cannot achieve this alone.

A collaborative, multi-stakeholder approach will be needed to ensure that university operational procedures as well as procurement systems and processes can effectively assess and address the risks of modern slavery across the Australian university sector and throughout its complex global supply chains.

While the vast majority of countries have ratified nearly all of the major human rights treaties, globally rights violations remain common. The question of whether we need more human rights instruments and mechanisms to strengthen international human rights law, or whether we need a consolidation of 'the existing cacophony', does not in itself address the issue of continued human rights violations.

WE DO NOT NEED MORE HUMAN RIGHTS INSTRUMENTS AND MECHANISMS; RATHER ALL WE NEED IS A CONSOLIDATION OF THE EXISTING CACOPHONY. (APRIL 2019)

While the vast majority of countries have ratified nearly all of the major human rights treaties, globally rights violations remain common. The question of whether we need more human rights instruments and mechanisms to strengthen international human rights law, or whether we need a consolidation of ‘the existing cacophony’, does not in itself address the issue of continued human rights violations.

A broader discussion on the effectiveness of management frameworks for human rights treaties and their application and enforcement at the domestic level is required.

This essay argues that international human rights law is not a new form of cultural imperialism on the basis of three points: the doctrine of national sovereignty; the lack of obligation on states to abide by and enforce human rights laws; and the power of cultural and religious customs to override the rights of the individual on the grounds of cultural relativism.

IS INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAW A NEW FORM OF CULTURAL IMPERIALISM? (NOVEMBER 2018)

This essay argues that international human rights law is not a new form of cultural imperialism on the basis of three points :

the doctrine of national sovereignty
the lack of obligation on states to abide by and enforce human rights laws, and
the power of cultural and religious customs to override the rights of the individual on the grounds of cultural relativism.

Issuu is a digital publishing platform that makes it simple to publish magazines, catalogs, newspapers, books, and more online. Easily share your publications and get them in front of Issuu's millions of monthly readers.

THEY CALLED FOR LABOUR BUT PEOPLE CAME: ARE AUSTRALIA’S INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITMENTS SUFFICIENT TO PROTECT TEMPORARY MIGRANT WORKERS? (MAY 2019)

While there is no doubt that Australia’s domestic laws protect the rights of workers as stipulated in international human rights and labour rights conventions, this essay argues that Australia’s legal framework does not effectively consider the inherent vulnerabilities of temporary migrant workers.

Simply granting temporary migrant workers the same rights as local workers does not protect them from discrimination and exploitation.

This essay analyses two of Australia’s migrant labour schemes through the lens of worker exploitation. It argues that these schemes do not adequately address the requirements of international labour laws and human rights conventions. Rather, they provide low cost labour to Australian employers unable to recruit locals to jobs filled by temporary migrant workers.