This thesis of Gustavo Becker examines how private dispute resolution (PDR), namely negotiation, mediation, and arbitration, con­tributes to and/or impairs the realisation of the right to an effective remedy in cases of transnational business-relat­­ed human rights abuses. Rightsholders frequently face substantial barriers to accessing judicial remedies across borders, including jurisdictional hurdles, evidentiary obstacles, and economic constraints. In response, PDR has increasingly been promoted, including under the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs), as a complementary route to remedy in business and human rights contexts. However, the diffusion of PDR has outpaced sustained legal analysis of its effects in relation to international human rights law (IHRL) standards governing the right to an effective remedy. Using a legal doctrinal methodology ­grounded in IHRL, the thesis analyses 20 grievance mechanisms that em­­ploy PDR as a means of remedy, and develops three in-depth case studies: the Porgera Individual Claims Programme (Papua New Guinea), the Renova Foundation’s Mediation Programme established after the Fundão Dam disaster (Brazil), and the Bangladesh Accord arbitrations. Across these mechanisms, the thesis assesses both procedural design and remedial outcomes against the content of the right to an effective remedy as articulated in key IHRL sources. The analysis shows that PDR has a dual character. It can contribute to the realisation of the right when it is independently administered, accessible, participatory, protective against retaliation, and capable of delivering diverse forms of reparation responsive to the nature of the harm. In practice, however, PDR more commonly impairs the right’s realisation through restrictive eligibility criteria, burdensome proof requirements, company-influenced administration, standardised compensation packages that limit individual participation, and legal waivers that constrain access to courts or other independent adjudicatory bodies. The thesis concludes that PDR should not substitute judicial remedies. Its legitimacy depends on public governance, includ­­ing oversight and regulation, that secures compatibility with IHRL and reaffirms States’ role as guarantors of remedy. In this sense, PDR can only be considered a rights-compatible complement to judicial avenues when embedded within a broader framework that protects procedural fairness and ensures that participa­tion in private processes does not foreclose access to independent and impartial adjudication.

Becker defended his dissertation on Januari 19th 2026 at the University of Amsterdam. Supervisors: prof. Ingo Venzke (UvA) and prof. Hélène Ruiz Fabri (Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne).  

Gustavo Becker 
Private Dispute Resolution and the Right to an Effective Remedy in Transnational Business and Human Rights 

Way of publishing: University of Amsterdam / University of Luxembourg Libraries - Currently under embargo until publication in 2026, with a publisher to be determined.