In addition, some would argue that international human rights law should remain true to its origins. It should be directed at states, not private actors. Shifting the focus risks letting states off the hook, as it could deflect attention away from the failures of national institutions such as courts and government agencies which are meant to apply and enforce the law. The short answer is that international law does bring added value to the debate. Further, it could do so in a manner that complements and strengthens both voluntary efforts and national regulation.
International law provides a universal benchmark against which to judge company behaviour.
In the absence of a common minimum standard, there is no objective way to assess whether any particular code of conduct is adequate. This is particularly true where voluntary codes are meant to apply across different national jurisdictions. Of course, international human rights standards are not free of controversy. It is indisputable, nevertheless, that an overwhelming majority of governments have formally committed themselves to respect these standards. Additionally, both developed and developing countries have actively participated in drafting them.