BUSINESS AND HUMAN RIGHTS / Šturma, Mozetic (eds)

information upon the condition of women, in particular if accompanied by children, or, furthermore, indigenous woman, migrant woman, as well as undocumented people, asylum seeker or even a persons with disability, it will not be arduous to conclude on the unreasonable amount of violation based on discriminations practices. Although prioritizing interests of business entities over Covenant on human rights without adequate justification is assumed both by United Nations as well as by State- parties 15 as a breach or violation, it is fair to argue that such sort of inversion of priorities might also be taken as unreasonable by the business world. As for the scope of the concept of business world, it shall be taken as any business practices from mere domestic players to multinational enterprises. 16 It follows that what is meant by business world imply local practices and relevant international standards. 17 Now, crucial is to understand that human rights do not set out an absolute veto to such a kind of inversion. In this field, adequate justification is claimed, which means good reasons based on optimal protection of human rights. Providing good reasons is less than assuming an absolute obligation to put human rights in first place. As a matter of fact, human rights instruments aim at achieving a fair balance between corporations’ goals and human rights, first and foremost due to the significant value of human rights to the spread of a culture of human dignity and equal respect, but also and above all, due its importance to sustainable development as a whole. 18 This is the reason why exceptionally human rights may well be on second place in a concrete circumstance where business goals are disputing priority. Yet, given that States are not allowed to prioritize business interests without adequate justification, hence why could companies be allowed to downgrade human rights in favor of economic goals? It is non-sense. In both cases, such type of inversion is a non-compliant measure. Within this framework, strong reasons are those valid to the reasoning of human rights. Currently it must be grounded both in human rights and sustainable development agenda, while exceptional circumstances depend on facts and must be described in an understandable way. So as to avoid a non-compliant practice, business must take into account the precise significance of priority (of human rights). Accordingly, enterprises – above all multinational ones – are claimed to “make qualifications, skill and experience the basis for the recruitment, placement, training and advancement of their staff at all levels”. 19 15 ESC Committee, General Comment n. 24 (GC24), p. 4. 16 When human rights are at stake, good business practices must not depend on national borders. As mentioned by ILO, multinational and national enterprises … should be subject to the same expectations in respect of their conduct in general and their social practices in particular. In. MNE Declaration, 2017, p. 10. See also, UN Guiding principles on business and human rights, 2008, p. 6. 17 ILO, MNE Declaration, Tripartite Declaration of Principles concerning Multinational Enterprises and Social Policy, 2017. 18 The new 2030 Agenda is explicitly grounded in the UN Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, international human rights treaties, including the Declaration on the Right to Development (para 10). See, Human Rights in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, available at: http:// www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/MDGs/Post2015/HRAndPost2015.pdf. 19 ILO, MNE Declaration, Tripartite Declaration of Principles concerning Multinational Enterprises and Social Policy, 2017, p. 8.

110