The Human Right to Water and Sanitation: Going Beyond Corporate Social Responsibility

Traditionally, it has been understood that private corporations cannot be held responsible for human rights violations at the international level. Only States, main subjects of public international law, can be held legally responsible for human rights violations. Today, this classical argument is being increasingly challenged by the force of reality. States remain the entity that is principally responsible for human rights violations, but there is no epistemological reason for denying such responsibility in the case of private corporations at the international level. The increasing number of standards and mechanisms at the regional and international level addressed to enterprises, that enshrine environmental and human rights standards contribute to build this argument. There is a tangible trend that goes beyond corporate social responsibility towards the initial steps of the emergence of international corporate human rights responsibility. Author Affiliations Professor of Public International Law and Human Rights, Universidad de Valparaiso (Valparaiso, Chile) and Universidad Andrés Bello (Santiago, Chile). Doctor in Law, MA in International Relations, LLM in Human Rights and Humanitarian Law. This article is part of a postdoctoral research project at the Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law (Heidelberg, Germany) (2009-2010). The author thanks the support given by DAAD and CONICYT and all help provided by the Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law. The author would also like to thank the Merkourios Editorial Board. A rt ic le 39 Merkourios International and European Law: General Issue 2013 Vol. 29/76


Article
corporations have replaced the State in the provision of water. By doing so, water has been propelled into the logic of the market and often considered a pure economic good.
There are two main sectors -water and sanitation services and the extractive industries (oil, gas and mining)-which are increasingly related to the effective enjoyment of the human right to water and sanitation. 13 On the one hand, private corporations participate in water and sanitation services provision. 14 There is a growing interest in the global water and sanitation market that represents several billions of dollars. 15 The participation of private corporations in water and sanitation supply may imply a rise in the price of water or a discriminatory distribution of water provision that could mean a human rights abuse. 16 On the other hand, the activities of extractive industries have a great influence on water depletion and therefore water availability. 17 The Ecuadorian Tribunal's judgment against Texaco-Chevron for, inter alia, oil pollution of freshwater in the Amazon (2011) and the Hungary toxic sludge spill from the Ajkai alumina plant severely polluting Marcal river and putting in danger the Danube river (2010) illustrate this harsh reality. 18 As it can be observed worldwide, the extractive activities can be involved in human rights abuses and/or violations. 19 To sum up, the right to have access to adequate and safe water and sanitation that is conducive to the protection of public health and the environment can be jeopardised by both private water and sanitation suppliers and the extractive industry. 20 In this context, it is noteworthy that water is increasingly accepted as a human right by the international community, both at domestic and international levels. 21 The present article seeks to analyse from a theoretical perspective the legal possibility of international corporate responsibility for right to water and sanitation abuses and/or violations. Under public international law, is it legally possible to hold private enterprises responsible for water and sanitation rights abuses and/or violations? To what extent do international and regional human rights instruments create legal obligations that enterprises and companies must respect? The possible legal basis, including the so-called soft law, of the emergence of an corporate human rights responsibility will be discussed here. In this article, the right to water is used as a specific human right in order to try to develop a legal analysis on corporate responsibility at the international level. Corporate human rights responsibility might be considered a responsibility derived from a breach of a direct human rights obligation.
Throughout this article, the concepts of private corporations, enterprises, companies and businesses are considered exchangeable. I intend not to make a strict separation between multinational and national enterprises. In this article, any reference to multinational enterprises should mutatis mutandis be understood as made in respect to national enterprises. Further, I am aware of the differences in common law between the concept of responsibility and liability, though they are interrelated. Both terms are also meaningful in public international law, as the International Law Commission reserved the first concept for international wrongful acts and the second concept for injurious consequences arising out of acts not prohibited by international law. 22 However, we will use in this study only the term responsibility concerning human rights violations since this is the term used by the International Law Commission in its Project of Articles on State responsibility for international wrongful acts (2001). 23 Moreover, I do not focus on companies' and businesses' responsibility for human rights violations and/or abuses at the national level, which corresponds to the doctrine of horizontal application of human rights. 24 I rather focus on international responsibility for human rights violations and/or abuses of private companies according to public international law. There can be either direct or indirect international corporate human rights responsibility. Direct international corporate responsibility would mean responsibility which would stem directly from international norms or standards belonging to both hard and soft law. These norms and standards would address to corporations directly by trying to regulate at international level corporate conduct concerning human and environmental rights. Instead, indirect international corporate responsibility could be considered those infringements coming from corporations but the international standards make States directly responsible for the infringements. 25 In this situation, States must control corporations' conduct, demanding that they respect international human and environmental rights. 26 Then corporations would be indirectly said '[t]his is a historic day. I think every now and then, the human species advances somewhat in our evolution, and today was one of those advances.' D Moss, 'At Last, a Human Right to Water' (Yes! Magazine, 30 July 2010) <http://www.yesmagazine.org/planet/at-last-a-human-right-to-water> accessed 1 May 2010. The General Assembly Resolution 64/292 was endorsed by the Human Rights Council which affirmed that 'the human right to safe drinking water and sanitation is derived from the right to an adequate standard of living and inextricably related to the right to the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, as well as the right to life and human dignity. '   '41. In determining which actions or omissions amount to a violation of the right to water, it is important to distinguish the inability from the unwillingness of a State party to comply with its obligations in relation to the right to water. Case Note Article responsible before the State for human and environmental rights violations; for instance, the right to access to safe water. As clarified in 2002 by the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights the obligation to protect the right to water and sanitation requires 'State parties to prevent third parties from interfering in any way with the enjoyment of the right to water. Third parties include individuals, groups, corporations and other entities as well as agents acting under their authority. The obligation includes, inter alia, adopting the necessary and effective legislative and other measures to restrain, for example, third parties from denying equal access to adequate water; and polluting and inequitably extracting from water resources, including natural sources, wells and other water distribution systems.' 27 In this hypothesis, it is the corporate activities that have undermined human rights and the State does not take any effective measures according to the due diligence principle to prevent corporations from causing injury to human rights. This international responsibility is indirect because it would reach the corporation by 'ricochet'. This work only discusses direct international corporate human rights responsibility.
As international law has been developing, international corporate responsibility has increasingly come up as a crucial matter in human rights and environmental protection. Several international attempts to outline a direct regime of corporate human rights responsibility may be observed. Before analysing this emerging issue, I will briefly refer to the debate on what a private corporations might do concerning environmental and human rights: violate or abuse? (Part II) This debate should be understood within the broader context of the well-known and often criticised concept of corporate social responsibility (Part III). As far as human rights and environmental issues are concerned, the concept of corporate social responsibility seems to be deficient and useless to solve current tensions and abuses. Therefore, I will analyse the different initiatives regarding, in one way or another, direct international corporate human rights responsibility (Part IV).

II. Human Rights Violations or Human Rights Abuses?
International law scholars use the expression 'human rights abuses' to refer to those human rights interferences coming from corporations and other private actors. Traditionally, the theory of international human rights considers States as the unique duty-bearers in such a way that only States can violate human rights. At the national level, this restriction has been partially solved with the theory of horizontal effect (the German 'unmittelbare drittwirkung' doctrine). Yet, at the international level, this crucial question remains. Can private corporations commit human rights abuses and/or violations under international law? Could there be an international responsibility derived from these abuses? What are the theoretical and practical differences between human rights abuses and human rights violations? Any answer to these questions goes hand-in-hand with the issue of international legal subjectivity of private corporations.
From a practical perspective, this issue is pertinent because in the field of water and sanitation services provisions, there has been an increasing participation of transnational private corporations in every region of the world. Moreover, there are a number of situations where private corporations' activities have led to human rights abuses, specifically in the context of water and sanitation services supply. There are also a number of cases of water pollution as a consequence of the extractive activities (oil, gas and mining) that affect also the full fulfilment of the right to water and sanitation. In this context, are there only international obligations and consequently responsibilities upon States or might there be international obligations and responsibilities for private corporations concerning water and sanitation? The question arises because of the increasing participation of private corporations, both at national and global levels, in water and sanitation services provisions.
Generally speaking, as any other legal order, public international law should provide a solution to new international legal problems, including those linked to globalisation. The main traditional legal argument in international human rights law is that only States can violate human rights, since only States are obliged by international and regional human rights instruments.  40 There are also no binding international human rights instruments that confirm the possibility of human rights violations in the private sphere. 41 For instance, according to General Comment N° 15 on the right to water, 'steps should be taken by States parties to prevent their own citizens and companies from violating the right to water of individuals and communities in other countries.' 42 However, both types of human rights instruments do not impose direct human rights obligations upon NSAs. They only reflect the theory of indirect human rights obligations upon NSAs.
Concerning the ethical argument, in their daily life, individuals, communities and peoples are indeed exposed to human rights abuses coming from private entities and corporations. In these cases, the international legal system should provide a response to individuals' needs for protection, especially of those most vulnerable. Corporations cannot look for international legal immunity as they cause human suffering and impair individuals and communities' human rights. To seek protection in an incomplete and deficient international legal theory in order to be released from international responsibility in the case of human rights abuses is not an ethical behaviour.
In a logical perspective, there is no theoretical reason for private corporations who interfere with the enjoyment of human rights to stay outside of the international rule of law and thus to fail the principle of primacy of law. 43 The aforementioned arguments certainly apply to the human right to safe and clean drinking water and sanitation. If corporations can interfere with human rights such as the right to clean drinking water and then cause an injury to individuals and communities, from an individual-oriented international law perspective, corporations are to be supervised and controlled and held accountable in order to establish a credible global rule of law. 44 In this line, Carbone pointed out that it 'is increasingly necessary that the multinational enterprise be directly subjected to some principles of international law concerning human rights protection.' 45 From a practical view, apart from being a euphemism, the expression 'human right abuse' is not necessarily accurate. In practical terms, a human right to clean drinking water violation or abuse brings about the same practical consequences on individuals and communities.
Additionally, in practice, private corporations are sometimes economically and politically even more powerful than sovereign States. 46 In that case, their economic and political power could sometimes be equated with sovereign power. 47  'It is today acknowledged that investment is capable of generating economic growth, reducing poverty, increasing demand for the rule of law and contributing to economic, social and cultural human rights. 49 Moreover, multinational enterprises often sign agreements not only with other private entities, but also with States and international organisations. Often legal controversies are solved through international arbitrage. 50 Secondly, private corporations 'wield a vast power and often do so in a fashion that violates international human rights standards'. 51 They are capable of doing great harm to individuals, population and activities of the host or determined State. 52 In a nutshell, the controversy between human rights abuses and human rights violations should not be overstated, as well as the issue of determining how to qualify private companies' actions and omissions that have a negative impact on the enjoyment of human rights. I rather seek to examine the outcome of the action or omission of private companies in the light of international and regional human rights standards. The outcome of both abuses and violations is the same; namely, the infringements in the enjoyment of human rights. In practice there are many examples where private corporations have been involved in cases of interferences concerning the human right to water.

B. Private Corporations before International Mechanisms: Water at Stake
Originally designed to settle disputes between private companies and States concerning international investments, arbitral tribunals have increasingly addressed public interest objectives such as human rights and environmental protection, particularly related to the right to access to drinking water and sanitation. 53 In recent years, the system of international settlement of investment disputes has been analysed from the other side of the coin, ie as a means of addressing the investors' behaviours regarding the host State's population and environment. 54 The latter would introduce an equity principle in the system of international investments since the tribunal would judge equally on the basis of full access to justice for both parties in the investment controversy. 55 By the same token, both investors' and population's interests would receive the equal protection of the law. 56 There are different investment cases where water and sanitation provision services have been involved.

Case Note Article
expansion of water services. 58 And the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes ('ICSID') 59 cases regarding provision of water and sanitation in Argentina raise the challenge to protect the human right to water for local populations. 60 All of them are international arbitration cases concerning water services related to international investment agreements. 61 Examples of arbitral proceedings before the ICSID related to the issue of water and sanitation include, for instance, the case between Aguas Argentinas, SA, Suez, Sociedad General de Aguas de Barcelona, SA and Vivendi Universal, SA 62 as claimants and the Argentine Republic as respondent as well as the case between Aguas Provinciales de Santa Fe SA, Suez, Sociedad General de Aguas de Barcelona SA and InterAguas Servicios Integrales del Agua SA 63 as claimants and the Argentine Republic as respondent. In both cases, a group of NGOs and consumer associations lodged a petition to be authorised to act as amicus curiae and submit amicus curiae briefs, since the case involved matters of significant public interest, namely, water provision and sewage systems serving millions of people. 64 In 2005, in the case Aguas Argentinas, SA, Suez, Sociedad General de Aguas de Barcelona, SA and Vivendi Universal, SA, the arbitral tribunal finally accepted the petition of NGOs concerning the submission of amicus curiae by concluding that 'the present case is an appropriate one in which suitable nonparties may usefully make amicus curiae submissions'. 65 The members of the Arbitral Tribunal held with remarkable clarity that [t]he factor that gives this case particular public interest is that the investment dispute centers around the water distribution and sewage systems of a large metropolitan area, the city of Buenos Aires and surrounding municipalities. Those systems provide basic public services to millions of people and as a result may raise a variety of complex public and international law questions, including human rights considerations. Any decision rendered in this case, whether in favor of the Claimants or the Respondent, has the potential to affect the operation of those systems and thereby the public they serve. 66 Along that line, it is important to bear in mind what Cançado Trindade, former President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights , rightly asserted in the Castro Castro Prison case: 'we are before an humanized "ordre public" (or truly humanist) in which the public interest or common interest fully coincides with the prevalence of human rights -which entails the recognition that human rights consist in the basic fundament, they themselves, of the legal order at either the international or national level.' 67 Then, in the case of Suez, Sociedad General de Aguas de Barcelona, SA, and Vivendi Universal SA, in 2007, the Arbitral Tribunal took a decision on a petition of the same group of NGOs in order to be authorised to submit an amicus curiae. In this case, facing the opposition of the private investors' claimant, the tribunal confirmed that 58 'Biwater has thus allowed for joint amici to be submitted to the tribunal to "address broad policy issues concerning sustainable development, environment, human rights and governmental policy".' Schreiber (n 57) 468. The Biwater Gauff case refers to a dispute over the provision of water and sewage services -arguably a basic public good to be provided in the last instance by the State -in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania [e]ven if its decision is limited to ruling on a monetary claim, to make such a ruling the Tribunal will have to assess the international responsibility of Argentina. In this respect, it will have to consider matters involving the provision of 'basic public services to millions of people'. To do so, it may have to resolve 'complex public and international law questions, including human rights considerations'. 68 The latter shows that there are increasing connections and interactions between international investments, sustainable development, the effective realisation of the human right to water, and private sector operations. 69 In my view, it should be borne in mind that public international law is one of the most dynamic bodies of norms and that human rights have strongly influenced the current development of international law in the last two decades. 70 The proceedings of investment settlement disputes could be seen also as a means of adjudicating on private investors' involvement in the human right to water and sanitation and environmental abuses. Investors could and should be called into question before the dispute settlement body, as their activities and operations infringe, for instance, the right to drinking water and sanitation or polluted freshwater. In that case, the State obligation to protect its population and environment must prevail. Today, in the world of international law as the law of mankind, it is not possible to consider fields of human activity, such as investment, development, private sector, environment, political and social participation and human rights, as disconnected and non-interrelated fields. 71 The argument of public interest could constitute a first step that allows States to hold private investors responsible before a dispute settlement body. 72 This argument might allow the international dispute settlement mechanism to dismiss the investor claim in favour of higher public interests, that are recognised by international norms, principles and standards. By protecting the public interest, the arbitral tribunal can increase the access to justice at a substantive level. 73 Investment agreements between private investors and States should not mean 'carte blanche' for investors; they must take into consideration the general interest of the collectivity and respect basic fundamental principles. 74 Indeed, States keep their legal duty to comply with their human rights obligations. 75 When States entrust investors with the duty to provide accessible and affordable drinking water and sanitation without discrimination, and the investors do not fulfil this obligation, States can pursue legitimate public policy objectives. 76 Rosemann highlighted '[t]he duty of non-state actors, such as companies or individual persons, to respect the human right to water and to support its implementation within their own scope of action.' 77 A legitimate public policy objective is, therefore, the fulfilment of the human right to water, by providing for access to drinking water and sanitation in an acceptable and affordable way. 78  'The increasing reliance on these non-state actors for the investment needed to advance state development goals risks compromising the ability of states to carry out their obligations to fulfil the right to water through the international protection that is afforded to the non-state actors under investment treaties.' Schreiber (n 57) 446. 'Only governments could decide whether water services were to be operated by third parties, but states must regulate the private sector to ensure the right to water for the entire population.' Riedel, (n 26) 600. 76 Filmer-Wilson also highlighted the importance of having a right based approach related to water because it 'emphasises the accountability of all actors whose actions impact the development process; The public aim of services of public interest such as the provision of safe and clean water and sanitation should allow States to reverse prior decisions on water services in order to ensure universal access of the population to basic human needs. 80 By accepting in trial the State legitimacy of public policy decisions, it constitutes a real opportunity for the realisation of human rights. 81 Individuals and peoples affected with defective or nonexistent water provision could have a voice through the State before the dispute settlement body. States do have a right and at the same time an international obligation to adopt legislation and practical measures in order to fulfil the human right to water and sanitation. In this context, Ruggie affirmed that 'values are becoming a value proposition.' 82 One of the biggest challenges of public international law remains to strike an adequate balance between international investment treaties and international human rights and environmental obligations, bearing always in mind that investors' rights are conditional rights. 83 In this context, States, international tribunals and companies cannot see water just as a commercial commodity. 84 The General Agreement on Trade in Services ('GATS') requires the progressive liberalisation of service markets. 85 In the field of water and sanitation services, liberalisation should be carefully handled. 86 The human right to water does not preclude water provision privatisation as far as minimum water standards vis-à-vis the whole population are guaranteed, as clarified by the CESCR. 87 However, there is currently 'serious concern over whether privatisation can address the social and environmental aspects of water.' 88 Along with this ongoing doctrinal debate about corporate human rights violations and/or abuses, a number of governmental and multi-stakeholders initiatives have been raised in order to regulate corporate activities. Moreover, as it will be seen below, the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises' Guidelines adopted a clear position on this point.
complice. Il peut devenir, au moins partiellement, le garant du respect du droit et des valeurs fondamentales que celui-ci est chargé de faire prévaloir.' Fouchard (n 72) 395. 'If the management of drinking and sanitation is entrusted to a private company whose main objective is profit, the State has an obligation to ensure that the poor receive a minimum supply of drinking water and sanitation. States must, in all cases, monitor, and if necessary take action to check the financing of works, the quality and quantity of water, the way shortages are managed, pricing, specifications, the degree of sanitation and participation by users.' UNCHR (Sub-Commission), 'Relationship between the enjoyment of economic, social and cultural rights and the promotion of the realization of the right to drinking water supply and sanitation; Preliminary report submitted by Mr 'Unless right-holders can claim and exercise their rights effectively and the corresponding duty-bearers fulfil their obligations, human rights will not be realised.' Filmer-Wilson (n 54) 223. 82 'Governments adopting policies that induce greater corporate responsibility, and companies adopting strategies reflecting the now inescapable fact that their own long-term prospects are tightly coupled with the well-being of society as a whole. Strengthening the international human rights regime against corporate-related abuse thereby contributes to, and gains from, the universally desired transition toward a more inclusive and sustainable world economy. Values are becoming a value proposition.' UNHRC, 'Towards operationalizing the "protect, respect and remedy" framework; Report of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General John Ruggie on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises' (22 April 2009) UN Doc A/HRC/11/13, para 119. 83 'In fulfilling the right to water, tribunals should examine the relevant treaties and the interpretive guidance provided by the CESCR to determine whether or not measures taken constitute the existing "public purpose" requirements that are proportional to their human rights obligations in the fulfilment of the right to water.' Schreiber (n 57) 474. 'In calling for a renewed commitment to respect economic, social and cultural rights, the Committee wishes to emphasize that international organizations, as well as the governments that have created and manage them, have a strong and continuous responsibility to take whatever measures they can to assist governments to act in ways which are compatible with their human rights obligations and to seek to devise policies and programmes which promote respect for those rights. It is particularly important to emphasize that the realms of trade, finance and investment are in no way exempt from these general principles and that the international organizations with specific responsibilities in those areas should play a positive and constructive role in relation to human rights. '  'The right to water requires that certain steps be taken by states to achieve the full realization of the right, including regulation, and investors are aware that their actions in such an industry means that there are certain performance standards they must comply with.' Schreiber (n 57) 467. 88 Filmer-Wilson (n 54) 229.

Corporate Social Responsibility versus Human Rights
At the very base of corporate social responsibility is the main idea of doing good for society. Historically, a good source of inspiration was 'early notions of responsibility revolved largely around philanthropy, initially the philanthropy of individuals who had grown wealthy as industrialists.' 89 There are two basic situations that propel corporations to identify and then develop a business responsibility policy. First of all, corporations realise that they develop their industry activities for, within and in connection with society. Second, corporations realise that contemporarily the main assets they have are human capital, public trust, reputation and favourable public opinion. A.

An Evolving Concept
The concept of corporate social responsibility ('CSR') was developed at the end of the 60s and beginning of the 70s. Other concepts that express the same idea as CSR are corporate conscience, corporate citizenship, corporate social performance, corporate self-regulation to encourage positive social impact, corporate responsible business, corporate governance, business ethics, ethical concerns, social ethics and social responsibility of business. Wood considered that corporate social responsibility makes part of corporate social performance which is defined as 'a business organization's configuration of principles of social responsibility, processes of social responsiveness, and policies, programs, and observable outcomes as they relate to the firm's societal relationships.' 90 There are several stages in the evolution of the CSR. First, around the 1950s corporations started to undertake philanthropic activities that directly benefit society. Second, in 1960-1970, corporations adopt a social responsibility orientation, linking business success with business ethics, particularly focused on product and consumer safety. Third, in the 1980s, corporations tried to become more responsive to stakeholders and social needs. Thus, corporations established numerous functions internally such as public affairs, community employee relations, etc. Fourth, in 1980-1990, corporate social responsibility focused on business ethics linked to bribery or anticorruption codes which tried to face industry scandals. Fifth, in the 1990s, social responsibility concentrates on how corporate business models, strategies and practices affect stakeholders and the natural environment. At this time it started a virtual search for self-regulations, mainly under the category of corporations' codes of conduct. Sixth, in 2000, corporations have totally acknowledged that crucial assets for business success are public trust and reputation and recognise the weight public opinion has in the success of their strategies and business models. 91 However, corporations still consider social responsibility within the make up of their business strategies and models. That is not the view that a human rights approach should provide corporations while they perform their industry activities.
In the 1980s, Freeman developed the concept of the stakeholder approach, which disregards the idea of social responsibility for business. He affirmed that the distinction between 'social responsibility' and 'business issues' is not useful and proposed to integrate both of these concerns into a notion of 'effective management'. 92 Notwithstanding, the concept of corporate social responsibility developed itself especially at the international level.
There are a couple of objections I have against the corporate social responsibility approach. All these initiatives are based on corporations' own understanding of issues concerning social and human rights sustainability and responsibility. Moreover, they are all still philanthropy, not fulfilment of legal obligations, even though they try to cover this under the label of 'code of conduct'. As a consequence, corporative codes of conduct are all voluntary; not mandatory. 93 The main problem with the term corporate social responsibility is that it tends to undermine the legal enforceability and overstates their voluntary aspect. Today, corporate social responsibility is not a legal concept, and it is more about charity and social awareness than legal obligations.

Case Note Article
Human rights are not philanthropy; they are legally binding norms, therefore we can indeed properly talk about corporate human rights responsibility. Corporate human rights responsibility is not voluntary, is not philanthropy, is not just 'to do good' for society, is not corporation's own understanding of sustainability. It is to comply with existent human rights frameworks which have agreed on commonly and generally accepted human rights norms and standards. Such standards come from, inter alia, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the fundamental International Labour Organization ('ILO') Conventions, and the environmental treaties.
Generally speaking, corporations believe that by doing good these new rules (codes of conduct) help them to sustain their legitimacy and be accepted as valid social actors. 94 However, the most important social expectation from multinationals or businesses is that they respect and comply with human rights and doing so they will contribute to build a healthier and more equal society. In any case, corporate human rights responsibility is not about social expectations -as Ruggie's reports try to make us think-, 95 instead it is about legal standards which must be complied with by every person, group or organ within the community.

B. Codes of Conduct: Beyond Traditional Corporate Social Responsibility
Codes of Conduct usually are a corporate response to social and political pressure, both at the domestic and international level, and therefore they correspond to a kind of self-regulation and thus are essentially voluntary. They attempt to formalise 'the policies and practices that business itself adopts voluntarily, triggered by its assessment of human rights-related risk and opportunities, often under pressure from civil society and local communities.' 96 There are codes of conduct issued directly by corporations -multinational or national -ie individual private initiatives, as well as by groups of stakeholders or multi-stakeholders initiatives, ie collective private initiatives. 97 These codes of conduct are guidelines governing the major elements of the domestic and international conduct of private business organisations, often containing references to human rights and environmental standards. These self-regulatory regimes belong to the category of 'social responsibility'. The content tends to reflect human rights and environmental concerns.
Most of these initiatives respond to the increasing worldwide concerns related to harmful consequences of private companies' activities on population and environment, particularly in developing countries. 98 107 All of them uphold and support human rights norms and the protection of human dignity and the environment. The problem is that this label can sometimes be used as a shield for businesses in order to hide environmental and human rights abuses. These instruments allegedly appear to benefit brand image more than the community interests, as periodically recalled by civil society organisations. 108 As for a multi-stakeholder initiative directly referring to environment and water scarcity, the Ceres Principles are notable. In 1989, after the Exxon Valdez oil spill near the Alaskan coast, a group of investors organised a coalition of investors, environmental organisations and other public interest organisations working with companies to address sustainability challenges and set up a new organisation called Ceres. In 1989, they also launched the Ceres Principles. 109 The Ceres Principles is a ten-point commitment for investors in the field of sustainability, climate change and water scarcity. 110 For instance, the first principle labelled 'Protection of the Biosphere' points out that 'We will reduce and make continual progress toward eliminating the release of any substance that may cause environmental damage to the air, water, or the earth or its inhabitants. We will safeguard all habitats affected by our operations and will protect open spaces and wilderness, while preserving biodiversity. 'We aim to ensure that human and civil rights, as set out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, are respected throughout our business activities. We will establish a framework based on this declaration to include criteria for workers' rights embracing a safe, healthy working environment, fair wages, no discrimination on the basis of race, creed, gender or sexual orientation, or physical coercion of any kind.' See 'The Body Shop, Inc.: Trading Charter' (1994) < http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/links/bodycode.html> accessed 31 January 2013. 105 'The Corporate Social Responsibility Committee (the "Committee") is appointed by the Board of Directors (the "Board") to promote a culture that emphasizes and sets high standards for corporate citizenship and reviews corporate performance against those standards. The Committee will consider matters relating to community development and involvement, philanthropy, sound environmental sustainability practices, government affairs and social responsibility relative to employees. '  'CSR, including consideration of environmental sustainability, has evolved in recent years as a coherent way of thinking about a company' impact and interaction with society. It covers subject that affect all companies, such employment standards, equal opportunities, diversity and carbon emissions; as well as those that are specific to a particular industry, such as advertising to children, drug pricing, nanotechnology or sustainable use of water' FitzGerald and Cormack (n 100) 9. 'P1.3: Water Management: Companies will assess water-related impacts and risks and will set targets to improve water use and wastewater discharge, with priority given to operations in water-stressed regions; P1.5: Human Rights: Companies will regularly assess key risks related to human rights throughout their entire operations, and will employ management systems that are aligned with internal policies and support the implementation of universal standards. '  Yet, they still correspond to a self-regulatory norm and the breaches of the rules remain without legal sanction. In consequence, they can be framed as 'règles de juste conduite'. 112 They reflect a voluntary and strong legal commitment to respect and comply with human rights and environmental norms. That raises the interesting question whether codes of conduct can be considered enough to comply with international human right standards.
Rules of corporate social responsibility have been also issued because of the companies' concern about their reputation at the national and international levels. Civil society organisations play a critical role to ring the alarm bell about social, environmental and human consequences of companies operations. 113 Private commercial institutions that finance business projects and activities worldwide have also developed self-regulations based on human rights and environmental concerns. The Equator Principles (2003) constitute a major example of private social and environmental regulation. 114 Some of the instruments that set out direct corporate obligations in the field of human rights, such as codes of conduct, are self-regulatory regimes and therefore self-imposed obligations. 115 They are not mandatory, but rather voluntary rules. Consequently, there are no enforceable legal obligations arising from those codes of conducts, but they strengthen social and political expectations and might constitute a sign of legal trends. Moreover, it might express a certain level of awareness of the relevance of human rights standards. 116 In this sense, they can be representative of a certain legal conscience that private corporations must legally act in a certain way, under penalty of breaching international human rights and environmental standards and rules.

Initially, voluntary codes and self-regulatory measures are positively viewed but '[t]
here is a growing sense that voluntary codes alone are ineffective and that their proliferation is leading to contradictory or incoherent efforts.' 117 They strengthen current human rights instruments and international human rights obligations, since they incorporate international human rights standards. I argue that these codes of conduct confirm the relevance and legitimacy of international human rights standards for the private sector. 118 Therefore, when the time arrives, private corporations and businesses could not refuse a legal instrument which contains at least the same human rights obligations that they have for years committed to respect through their voluntary codes of conducts or self-regulations.
Codes of conduct belong to the field of environmental standards, sustainable development and human rights concerning corporations. However, codes of conduct better correspond to the notion of corporate social responsibility as they are selfregulatory initiatives.

C. International Voluntary Regulations: On the Way to Human Rights and Environmental Standards
In 1974, the UN Commission on Transnational Corporations 119 was established, 'whose purpose would be to draft a United Nations Code of Conduct on Transnational Corporations.' 120 In 1992, after consultations and meetings, it was concluded that 'no consensus was possible on the draft Code.' 121 Major disagreements between industrialised and developing countries explain the failure of this first initiative and up until now it has not been taken up again. 122 In 1999, the former Secretary-General Kofi Annan launched the Global Compact as a United Nations-corporate initiative. 123 The Global Compact Initiative encompasses ten core principles in the field of human rights, labour rights, environmental rights and corruption, which allegedly enjoy universal consensus. 124 Participant private enterprises should embrace, support and enact these core principles and standards. These principles are derived from the main existing international human rights and environmental instruments such as the  The Principles for Responsible Investment are as follows: 1) We will incorporate ESG issues into investment analysis and decision-making processes; 2) We will be active owners and incorporate ESG issues into our ownership policies and practices; 3) We will seek appropriate disclosure on ESG issues by the entities in which we invest; 4) We will promote acceptance and implementation of the Principles within the investment industry; 5) We will work together to enhance our effectiveness in implementing the Principles; 6) We will each report on our activities and progress towards implementing the Principles. See  Concerning water, EHS Guidelines include the principle of water quality 130 and availability without explicitly mentioning the right to water. 131 EHS Guidelines endorse international standards of the human right to water. Thus, '[d]rinking water sources, whether public or private, should at all times be protected so that they meet or exceed applicable national acceptability standards or in their absence the current edition of WHO Drinking Water Guidelines.' 132 The EHS Guidelines for Mining emphasises that '[m]anagement of water use and quality, in and around mine sites, can be a significant issue. Potential contamination of water sources may occur early in the mine cycle during the exploration stage and many factors, including indirect impacts (eg migration), can result in negative impacts to water quality. Reduction of surface and groundwater availability is also a concern at the local level and for communities in the vicinity of mining sites, particularly, in arid regions, or in regions of high agricultural potential.' 133 Guidelines put forward as '[r]ecommended practices for water management in mining activities […] Consultation with key stakeholders (eg government, civil society and potentially affected communities) to understand any conflicting water use demands and the communities' dependency on water resources and/or conservation requirements that may exist in the area.'

IV. Towards Corporate Human Rights Responsibility
There is no epistemological reason for denying responsibility in the case of private corporations at the international level. The increasing number of standards and mechanisms at the regional and international level addressed to enterprises, that enshrine environmental and human rights standards contribute to build this argument. There is a tangible trend that goes beyond corporate social responsibility towards the initial steps of the emergence of international corporate human rights responsibility

A.
Internationally-Agreed Initiatives from 70s to 90s Due to its geographical scope, the ILO Tripartite Declaration of Principles concerning Multinational Enterprises and Social Policy may appear to be even more important than OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises, though OECD Guidelines cover enterprises belonging to the most powerful economies in the world. 134  'Air emissions, wastewater effluents, oil and hazardous materials, and wastes should be managed according to the guidance provided in the respective sections of the General EHS Guidelines with the objective of protecting soil and water resources.' ibid 77. 131 'Project activities should not compromise the availability of water for personal hygiene needs and should take account of potential future increases in demand. The overall target should be the availability of 100 liters per person per day although lower levels may be used to meet basic health requirements. Water volume requirements for well-being-related demands such as water use in health care facilities may need to be higher. '  interpreted by the Sub-committee on Multinational Enterprises. 135 Indeed, the ILO established a Sub-committee which is an organ of the Committee on Legal Issues and International Labour Standards of the ILO Governing body to oversee the Declaration and to discuss ILO policy concerning corporate social responsibility issues, and also the ILO Declaration of Principles includes procedures for the examination of disputes concerning its application. 136 The Sub-committee on Multinational Enterprises has a tripartite composition, consisting of governmental, employers and workers' representatives. 137 On the other hand, the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises partly addresses the relationship between enterprises' operations, human rights and the environment. 138 The OECD Guidelines are government-backed recommendations to enterprises regarding responsible business conduct in their worldwide operations (human rights, employment, environment, disclosure, corruption and taxation). 139 Peter Costello, Chair of the 2000 OECD Ministerial Meeting pointed out that '[t]he basic premise of the Guidelines is that principles agreed internationally can help prevent conflict and to build an atmosphere of confidence between multinational enterprises and the societies in which they operate.' 140 One of the most outstanding features of these Guidelines is that they emphasise the due diligence of the enterprise with respect to the environment and health in its decision-making process. 141 The Guidelines reinforce the link between corporate responsibility and good governance, which helps to strengthen human rights and enhance environmental protection. 142 In this context, OECD has developed Principles on Corporate Governance that was updated in 2004. 143 In their operations, enterprises should take into account foreseeable environmental health consequences; consult with competent authorities; take measures in order to minimise the risk of accident, and damage to health and the environment. 144 The rationale is that enterprises must respect environmental standards and basic human rights of those affected by their activities. 145 The OECD Guidelines are addressed to businesses and expected them to increase their labour, environmental and human rights accountability. OECD Guidelines has a monitoring mechanism (the OECD Committee on International Investment and Multinational Enterprises ('CIIME')) and a complaints mechanism that is implemented through the OECD National Contact Point ('NCP'). 146 The role of the NCPs is to ensure the effectiveness of the Guidelines. 147 The 'Governance, at all levels, establishes the conditions whereby individuals singly and collectively seek to meet their aspirations in society. Good, effective public governance helps to strengthen democracy and human rights, promote economic prosperity and social cohesion, reduce poverty, enhance environmental protection and the sustainable use of natural resources, and deepen confidence in government and public administration.' ibid para 4. 143 'The corporate governance framework should promote transparent and efficient markets, be consistent with the rule of law and clearly articulate the division of responsibilities among different supervisory, regulatory and enforcement authorities. mechanism showed some flaws. 149 The NCP model was considered as inadequate and deficient. 150 Those problems are being solved with monitoring and good practices.
The OECD Guidelines were last updated on 25 May 2011. The 34 OECD countries plus 8 other countries reinforced the Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises by adopting new and stronger rules, which aim to protect human rights and social development. The updating introduced substantial new provisions in areas such as due diligence, supply chain responsibility and human rights. 151 These rules should be observed by OECD countries' corporations in every country in which they operate and they must observe the due diligence principle in their processes. 152 The OECD Secretary-General Angel Gurría pointed out that '[t]hese guidelines will help the private sector grow their businesses responsibly by promoting human rights and boosting social development around the world.' 153 According to the 2011 revised Guidelines, enterprises should 'respect human rights' and 'take due account of the need to protect the environment, public health and safety'. 154 Furthermore, a significant attempt to establish a global balanced framework between human rights and environmental protection and enterprises activities was achieved in 2003 by the United Nations. 155 It is noteworthy that this attempt was carried out by the former UN Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights. It should be recalled here that the former Sub-Commission was made up of a group of highly qualified independent experts. The UN Norms on the responsibilities of transnational corporations and other business enterprises with regard to human rights address both transnational and national enterprises. Other business enterprise means any business entity, regardless of the international or domestic nature of activities or legal form used to establish the entity. 156 They are norms elaborated within an interstate organisation especially mandated, inter alia, to create international norms. States have participated in the law-making process of these norms that reflect the view of States.
It should also be recalled that States possess under international law the so-called full normative power. Hence, the United Nations Norms on the responsibilities of transnational corporations and other business enterprises with regard to human rights might become compulsory if they are incorporated into a formal treaty or most probably if they become the evidence of a general practice accepted as law. In this case, there is no such code of conduct from which a weak and vague social duty could arise. The UN Norms seem to reflect an emergent human rights responsibility upon private corporations, transnational companies and other businesses. Consequently, the UN Norms might contribute to clarify the distinction between corporate social responsibility and corporate human rights responsibility. Weissbrodt emphasised that the Norms on the Responsibility of Transnational Corporations and other business enterprises have at least five special features. Firstly, the main human rights duty-bearer is the State; secondly, the norms apply to all kinds of private business corporations. Indeed, 'the Norms apply not only to TNCs, but also to national companies and local businesses, in that each will be responsible according to its respective sphere of activity and influence. This approach balances the need to address the power and responsibilities of TNCs, and to level the playing field of competition for all businesses, while not being too burdensome on very small companies.' 157 Thirdly, the Norms enclose a very broad and comprehensive approach to human rights. Fourthly, the Norms are not legally binding but entail a special value. Indeed, the Norms are similar to many other UN declarations, principles, guidelines, and standards that interpret existing law and summarise international practice.
In fact, the Norms have more legitimacy as mere corporate code of conducts since they are the result of a UN-authorized, public, participatory and consultative process. This is why one could qualify them as 'authoritative recommendations' to underline their normative power. 158 Eventually, of course, the Norms might be considered what international legal scholars call 'soft law' and might also provide the basis for drafting a treaty on corporate human rights responsibility. 159 The Norms might even be the reflection of existing customary law or engender new rules of customary character. Even 'the Norms and their explanatory commentaries can be regarded as an authoritative interpretation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948). Though the Universal Declaration addresses primarily nation-States as the main bearer of human rights obligations, it specifically mentions that 'every individual and every organ of society…shall strive…to promote respect for these rights and freedoms'. Accordingly, this postulate is valid for private businesses likewise.' 160 And fifthly, the Norms include a basic procedure of implementation and references to monitoring mechanisms.
The UN Norms law-making process was opened to discussion and many sectors could actively participate. 161 In this context, the private sector took part in this process. Apparently, the UN Norms faced heavy opposition from international employers' institutions. 162 For instance, the UN Norms had to resist strong lobbying from the International Chamber of Commerce and the International Organization of Employers. 163 It has been affirmed that '[t]he Norms shall be seen as a first attempt to establish an international framework for mandatory standards on Corporate Social Responsibility'. 164 The 'Norms on Responsibilities of Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises with Regard to Human Rights' were adopted by the former Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights through a resolution in August 2003. 165 This regulation might well be seen as a form of 'strengthened soft law'. 166 Moreover, this sort of international regulation might have an impact on other classical sources of international law. 167 The decision 2004/116 of the former Commission on Human Rights confirmed the importance of the question of the responsibilities of transnational corporations and related business enterprises with regard to human rights and it expressed that the UN Norms contain useful elements and ideas for consideration by the Commission but at the same time pointed out that the aforementioned Norms, as a draft proposal, has no legal standing. 168 And, eventually, the Commission did not approve the Norms and did not take further actions on them. After the 2005 report of the United Nations High Commissioner on Human Rights on Responsibilities of transnational corporations and related business enterprises with regard to human rights, the Commission adopted resolution 2005/69 which requested the Secretary-General to appoint a special representative on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises.
It may be argued that these Norms constituted a new regulatory form of holding enterprises responsible for the potentially devastating social and environmental effects of their activities and operations, based on existing international standards. 169 According to some authors, these Norms contribute to shaping a new international economic order and a new international legal order. 170  United Nations Norms differ from voluntary initiatives and codes of conduct that have been analysed above, because they were a real attempt at international level to reach international legally binding standards. However, it was not a successful attempt due to the lack of political will and the powerful influence of multinational enterprises and other relevant business actors. Nevertheless, both voluntary codes of conduct and the United Nations Norms share a common goal: the international regulation of corporate activities under human rights lens. The 2003 UN Norms contain a direct imposition of obligations and a direct attribution of responsibility to private corporations such as transnational companies and other businesses. The current growing interest from corporations in voluntary codes of conduct or other voluntary international multi-stakeholder initiatives might be explained because some governments and corporations see as a threat any attempt to create enforceable international environmental and human rights standards concerning transnational enterprises and other businesses. 174 These international organisations' initiatives are characterised by some main features. Firstly, they are supposed to apply to all sorts of business, either multinational or national enterprises. It has been argued that it is better if an international code of conduct addressed only to big enterprises, ie TNCs/MNCs, by the fact that 'the host country -also if it is a developing country -is always in a stronger position vis-à-vis small and medium-sized enterprises than vis-à-vis multinational groups Secondly, such initiatives of international organisations establish direct corporate obligations. As Weissbrodt stressed, 'they speak directly to business'. 176 Thirdly, most of them set up mechanisms for interpreting their guidelines. 177 However, even though they are not binding instruments, they 'can be implemented and recognized if backed by adequate follow-up procedure.' 178 Fourthly, they use the expression 'human rights' and they at least partially refer to international human rights and environmental standards. Indeed, although they are not per se legally binding international instruments, they refer to existing legal obligations. 179 In fact, they might be interpreted as complementary to the legally binding international human rights instruments. The legally binding human rights instruments are a source of inspiration for international guidelines or declaration of principles. 180 Fifthly, companies should comply -as States must-with the principle of due diligence in respect of human rights and environmental norms. As it will be analysed below, the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises clarified this principle. 181 The Special Representative underlined that there is a 'baseline norm for all companies in all situations' with which businesses must comply, which 'is the corporate responsibility to respect human rights, or, put simply, to not infringe on the rights of others.' 182 This very minimal obligation arises from codes of conduct and guidelines, and from a comparative perspective, it 'has acquired near-universal recognition by all stakeholders.' 183

B. Towards a New Generation of Regulation: The UN Protect, Respect and Remedy Framework for Business and Human Rights
In 2005, former Secretary-General Kofi Annan appointed John Ruggie as Special Representative of the UN Secretary General on Business and Human Rights. In 2008, Ruggie presented a threefold normative framework for business and human rights. 184 According to this UN expert, '[t]he framework rests on three pillars: the state duty to protect against human rights abuses by third parties, including business, through appropriate policies, regulation, and adjudication; the corporate responsibility to respect human rights, which means to act with due diligence to avoid infringing on the rights of others and to address adverse impacts that occur; and greater access by victims to effective remedy, judicial and non-judicial.' 185 In this context, as far as the first pillar is concerned, Ruggie affirmed that 'one important step for States in fulfilling their duty to protect against corporate-related human rights abuses is to avoid unduly and unwittingly constraining their human rights policy freedom when they pursue other policy objectives.' 186 Moreover, Catarina de Albuquerque emphasised that '[s]tates must not limit their regulatory and policy space and must safeguard the ability to protect human rights.' 187 On the other hand, regarding the second principle, the corporate responsibility to respect reflects the basic expectation of the society and means 'to do no harm'. And, 'doing no harm' is not merely a passive responsibility for firms but may entail positive steps. 188 It may be assumed that this threefold framework is inspired by the tripartite human rights obligations (to respect, protect, and fulfil) that have been constantly reiterated by United Nations treaty bodies and scholars. 189 However, one key difference is that the third pillar of the Ruggie Framework is the obligation to remedy and not the obligation to fulfil. Ruggie's idea might be to replace the obligation to fulfil with the obligation to remedy. The latter appears to be softer than the former.
Unfortunately, it seems to be that the Special Representative has been using the same language as corporations and stakeholders initiatives. It seems that Ruggie has been 'playing the game' on the corporation's field and incorporated into his framework the concept of social expectations. For instance, Ceres organisation released its 2010 Ceres Roadmap to Sustainability, where concerning human rights, it expresses that '[s]ociety increasingly expects a company's obligation to respect human rights to extend beyond direct operations and throughout the complete value chain. ' 190 In 2011, the Special Representative, launched the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights which aims to operationalise and implement the threefold framework on transnational corporations and other business enterprises with respect to human rights, environment and labour rights. 191

C. An Attempt to Conceptualise International Corporate Human Rights Responsibility
International intergovernmental organisations have been adopting regulatory regimes addressing the business sector in order to promote relevant and recognised international human rights and environmental standards. 198 These international regulations cannot be identified with CSR. They are not issued by companies and their final aim might be to establish a set of binding human rights and environmental rules, targeting private companies and businesses, and to set up independent monitoring mechanisms.
Direct corporate human rights responsibility can be found under public international law in some non binding human rights instruments. 199 206 These treaties impose direct international obligations and responsibility on persons both natural and legal. 207 The latter without mentioning those instruments that refer to direct individual criminal responsibility under international law. 208 The United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights ('CESCR') emphasised a direct corporate responsibility in the sphere of human rights, by affirming through an authoritative interpretation that 'while only States are parties to the Covenant and are thus ultimately accountable for compliance with it, […] the private business sector have responsibilities in the realization of the right.' 209 That is particularly relevant as this statement has been issued in the sphere of economic, social and cultural rights. 210 More specifically in the field of the right to water and sanitation, according to the CESCR, the core content of this right obliges particularly States, and other actors in a position to assist, to provide international assistance and cooperation, especially economic and technical. 211 While it seems to be referring to international institutions, it might be argued that private corporations should cooperate with States to fulfil the right to water and sanitation. 212 Furthermore, from a legal perspective, it may be argued that companies and businesses are obliged to comply with human rights norms and standards, as everyone else. That seems to be a straightforward consequence of an international rule of law. The International Bill of Human Rights, namely, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) and both International Covenants on Human Rights (1966) are at the very basis of the international rule of law. The preamble of the Universal Declaration proclaims the instrument itself as a 'common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms' and article 28 of the Universal Declaration sets forth that 'Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.' Concerning precisely the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, Henkin affirmed that '[e]very individual includes juridical persons. Every individual and every organ of society excludes no one, no company, no market, no cyberspace. The Universal Declaration applies to them all.' 213 Additionally, the 1998 UN Declaration on the Right and Responsibility of Individuals, Groups and Organs of Society to Promote and Protect Universally Recognized Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms recognises in its preamble 'the responsibility of individuals, groups and associations to promote respect for and foster knowledge of human rights and fundamental freedoms at the national and international levels.' 214 In this context, Paust emphasised that companies 'have never been granted immunity under any known treaty or customary law with respect to violations of treaty-based or customary international law.' 215 Moreover, Ratner and Vazquez agreed that there is no theoretical or conceptual obstacle in international law to recognise legal duties on companies and businesses. 216 Additionally, the very existence of the mandate of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on Human Rights and Business might confirm the possibility of human rights violations by all sizes and types of private corporations. In this line, the former Commission on Human Rights, recalling its decision on the responsibilities of transnational corporations and related business enterprises with regard to human rights, requested the Secretary-General to appoint a special representative on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises, inter alia, with the mandate '[t]o identify and clarify standards of corporate responsibility and accountability for transnational corporations and other business enterprises with regard to human rights.' 217 However, John Ruggie did not extensively develop in his reports the debate on corporate international responsibility for human rights violations or abuses. The promotion of the UN Framework (respect, protect and remedy) may implicitly recognise the fact that private corporations enjoy international legal subjectivity and that their actions and omissions have an impact on the enjoyment of individuals' human rights. 218 The most relevant concept of Ruggie's framework is that corporations, either transnational or other businesses, have indeed international responsibilities concerning human rights violations, including the more precise aspect of international liability. Finally, Ruggie's Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights mainly address transnational corporations and other businesses that might be a useful tool to argue that international law creates direct international corporate responsibility concerning the infringement of human rights. 219 It may be argued that the Guidelines would facilitate more accurate discussions about corporate human rights violations rather than abuses. 220 On the other hand, legally speaking, public international law does not have a voluntary character: legal obligation means binding obligation. And if international law grants rights and remedies to private corporations, there is no legal reason to refuse imposing obligations upon them. Maybe there are political reasons that might explain this refusal.

V. Final Remarks
There is an increasing and worldwide concern on water scarcity. As a natural resource, water is commonly exploited by the private sector. At the heart of this issue is the relationship between the legitimate human and environmental public interest and the business interest. The human right to water should put a fair equilibrium between them.
States remain the main entities responsible in international human rights law but it seems to be that they are not the only ones. It might be observed a growing trend to recognise private corporations' responsibilities under international human rights law. A humanitarian legal order with the human being at the heart of it should be headed for a human rights approach complemented with the victim's approach. Corporate social responsibility has increasingly been addressed at the international level, especially within the United Nations. It can be argued that there has been an evolution of the concept of corporate social responsibility over the last two decades. Despite this evolution, there is still an ongoing debate on human rights abuses and/or violations concerning private corporations. This debate undoubtedly shows the urgent need for progress on legal thinking in order to develop a new conceptual framework on who can commit a human rights abuse and/or violation.
Parallel to the increasing promotion of corporate social responsibility by private companies, international organisations, especially the UN, have led various initiatives that directly focus on the effect of corporate activities on human rights and environment. These international initiatives are explicitly based on international environmental and human rights standards. And from a legal perspective, this evolution clearly marks a turning point. That is why some authors and an increasing number of civil society organisations have been arguing the need to address direct international corporate human rights responsibility. Direct international responsibility refers to companies' responsibility for human rights abuses and/or violations. It is commonly observed that private companies are active in infringing human rights.
Although still underdeveloped and facing businesses' opposition and to a large extent States' resistance, it may be argued that international human rights law tends to shape a certain type of direct corporate human rights responsibility. International law is dynamic and evolving like all legal order. The business commitment, through its self-regulatory regimes concerning human rights and environmental standards, is obviously a step forward, but this situation appears to be still insufficient, in the light of human rights and environmental standards.
The United Nations Norms on the Responsibilities of Transnational Corporations and other Business Enterprises with regard to Human Rights seems to disclose new trends. Yet, theoretically, there is no conceptual justification to oppose against direct corporate human rights responsibility, but perhaps political and ideological reasons may justify this opposition. States and the international community as a whole could create corporate international obligations since they have already recognised corporate rights under international investment law. In our view, that is just a matter of willingness at both the domestic and international political decision-making levels.
To advocate for direct international corporate human rights responsibility does not mean undermining the States human right responsibility under international human rights law. In the authors view both types of international responsibility are not contradictory but complementary Why should business be allowed to hide behind a corporate façade to avoid human rights legal responsibility? Yet, some internationally legally binding instruments but also jurisdictional and quasi-jurisdictional decisions have already admitted companies' obligations to respect human rights. In other words, there is no conceptual obstacle to hold enterprises internationally responsible for violations and/or abuses of the human right to water, but regulation, state practice and opinio juris are still urgently needed. Therefore, at the start of the twenty-first century, we can legitimately argue that international human rights law aims at better regulating the effects of corporate activities on human rights, by leaving behind the 'soft concept' of corporate social responsibility. The notion of direct international corporate human rights responsibility might be a useful tool in this endeavour.