** Bitte arbeite die Kritik an den 3 Säulen des Ruggie Frameworks aus nachfolgendem Text als Bullet Points für jede Säule einzeln heraus.  Hier der Text: ** The three pillars[12]
State duty to protect human rights
The first pillar of the Guiding Principles is the state’s duty to protect against human rights abuses through regulation, policymaking, investigation, and enforcement. This pillar reaffirms states’ existing obligations under international human rights law, as put forth in the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights.[6]

Issues in Conflict-affected areas
An area which has been the subject of much scrutiny under the first pillar is in regards to support business respect of human rights in conflict-affected areas under guiding principle 7. The first apparent issue with this principle is the interpretation of the term "conflict-affected areas". This terminology was employed by the SRSG to reflect the intention to expand the principles coverage beyond definitions of armed conflict in international humanitarian law. When defining the application of principle 7, consideration must be given to the flexible definition boundaries that the UNGP, as a soft law instrument, employs and also guidance based nature of the principle.[13] Where the issue with interpretation of principle 7 arises is to what types of conflict are to be left out of the principle.

Another area of uncertainty which exists is in the relation between 'gross abuses' and 'conflict-affected areas' which impact directly on the applicability of principle 7 to serious violations within conflict zones that require home states action to influence companies operating within the area. Gross violations of human rights occurs both in conflict areas, and areas absent of a conflict, such as in repressive States and dictatorships. The question recognised here is whether principle 7 applies to gross abuses in non conflict-affected areas. Additionally, does principle 7 have equal application across democratic, authoritarian, and oppressive States where gross abuses that have arisen in conflicts or is the principles application dependent on the State losing control over its territory.[13]

Corporate responsibility to respect
Businesses must act with due diligence to avoid infringing on the rights of others and to address any negative impacts. The UNGPs hold that companies have the power to affect virtually all of the internationally recognized rights. Therefore, there is a responsibility of both the state and the private sector to acknowledge their role in upholding and protecting human rights. In conducting due diligence, the UNGP encourage companies to conduct a Human Rights Impact Assessment through which they assess their actual and potential human rights impacts.[2]

Access to remedy if these rights are not respected
The third pillar addresses both the state's responsibility to provide access to remedy through judicial, administrative, and legislative means, and the corporate responsibility to prevent and remediate any infringement of rights that they contribute to. Having effective grievance mechanisms in place is crucial in upholding the state's duty to protect and the corporate responsibility to respect. The UNGPs dictate that non-judicial mechanisms, whether state-based or independent, should be legitimate, accessible, predictable, rights-compatible, equitable, and transparent. Similarly, Company-level mechanisms are encouraged to operate through dialogue and engagement, rather than with the company acting as the adjudicator of its own actions.[3]

Issues with access to home state remedies
An issue raised with the third pillar of the Guiding Principles is the challenge of providing effective remedies for victims, particularly with judicial remedy to victims of transnational corporations that operate in more than one state. Ruggie notes that the Guiding Principles are more effective at identifying inadequate access to judicial remedy than fixing it.[14] He conveys that where the guiding principles fall short is that they set out to identify obstacles and encourage States to overcome them, but fail to ensure it occurs in practice. The Guiding Principles failed to recognise the power imbalance in terms of resources and information between victims of corporate abuse and the businesses themselves.[15] Another issue relates to the Commentary to Guiding Principle 2 which provides that home states "are permitted" to take measures ensuring access to remedies. This language has been heavily criticised for being timid and unambiguous where victims of abuse by multinational corporations routinely face insurmountable obstacles to remedy in the host state and have no other place to turn for help. Here the Guiding Principles have failed to specifically provide clear guidance on how to navigate the procedural and substantive barriers to home state remedies and failed to elaborate on 'governance gaps' to assist home states to implement mechanisms ensuring their corporations do not violate human rights abroad.[16] Additionally, commentators have also raised concerns regarding the over-emphasis on non-judicial mechanisms and voluntary mechanisms which do not guarantee victims sufficient protection against business-related human rights abuses. What is suggested is that the Guiding Principles should have established comprehensive remedies that are legally binding and consistent with human rights obligations of states and businesses both in the host state and home state. Effective local capacity is the preferred option to guarantee general access to civil judicial remedies in the long run.