Please read the following and attachments:
https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/publications/GuidingprinciplesBusinesshr_eN.pdf
https://www.enbridge.com/~/media/Enb/Documents/CSR/Reports/Enbridge_Discussion_Paper_Indigenous_Rights_Relationships.pdf
https://foleyhoag.com/news-and-insights/publications/ebooks-and-white-papers/2017/may/good_practices_social_impacts_oil_pipelines_united_states/
https://web.archive.org/web/20161117042218/https:/www.calvert.com/perspective/climate-and-environment/calvert-releases-statement-in-support-of-standing-rock-sioux-nation
https://guides.lib.berkeley.edu/ld.php?content_id=29730795
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/11/23/us/dakota-access-pipeline-protest-map.html?mtrref=undefined
Answer the following:
The requirements of U.S. law regarding the pipeline case fall significantly short of the standards that international norms would suggest. In a short essay (about 250 words), reflect on the potential impact of applying either the UN Guiding Principles or the international industry good practices (IIGP), as discussed by Foley Hoag, to the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL) case.
Consider: Which specific principles are likely to appeal to the groups in favor of the pipeline and those opposing it?
Then, imagine you’re a neutral third party called in to negotiate a solution between the groups supporting and opposing the pipeline. Which principles would you use to guide the conversation and encourage constructive dialogue?
Bonus question: Do you think common ground exists between these opposing sides? Why or why not? If you believe it does, what shared values or goals might help bring both sides closer? If not, what are the main reasons that make a compromise difficult?