dc.description.abstract | The norms that govern international economic law have for decades been criticised by the Third
World for favouring the interests of western Industrialised Powers to the detriment of Third
World peoples and their states. Among the contested issues is whether the very structure of
international law facilitates this skewed situation, in matters such as accountability abeyances of
business entities for human rights violations and the clash of state obligations under international
human rights and international economic law. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the
Sea (UNCLOS) regulates matters that undoubtedly affect critical economic interests of states. It
is lauded for having, through tortured negotiations (1973-82, 90-94), arrived at far more
equalising standards between established maritime powers and economically weaker Third
World states. The UNCLOS deep sea mining regime was so contested that it delayed UNCLOS’
acceptance among established economic powers for over a decade. In this paper, we interrogate
whether this regime offers a viable model that the business and human rights divide could
emulate, both in terms of the viability of the ‘treaty road’ as well as establishing reasonable
terms of assigning international responsibility among international organisations, states and
corporate entities within municipal law, especially since the 2011 ITLOS Advisory Opinion on
responsibilities and obligations of states, arose from concerns of small island states. | en_US |