The Unbearable Lightness of Interfering with the Right to Privacy

The European Court of Justice has once again ruled on national data retention laws. In La Quadrature du Net II, the full court allowed the indiscriminate retention of IP addresses for the purpose of fighting copyright infringement. It seems that the Court is slowly but surely abandoning its role as guardian of the right to privacy, as it now allows member states to collect vast amounts of data on their citizens in order to solve even the most minor of crimes.

Conditions of Corporate Civil Liability in the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive

The civil liability provision of the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) in Article 29 has been highly debated during the entire drafting and negotiation process of the Directive, but it held on. Where harm occurs, will Article 29 CSDDD fulfill its function to provide a right to remedy for the affected individuals and legal clarity for the companies at the same time?

Parteiverbotsverfahren zum Schutz vor Rassismus

Die Urteile des Oberverwaltungsgerichts Münster vom 13. Mai sind ein Meilenstein in der aktuellen Debatte über den Umgang mit der AfD und wurden häufig als Vorbedingung für ein Parteiverbotsverfahren gesehen. Über die antirassistische Seite der Debatte liest man allerdings wenig. Zum Schutz von Personen, die von Rassismus betroffen sind, scheint ein Verbotsverfahren bei entsprechender Beweislage damit mehr als geboten.

Access to Supply Chain Justice?

One of the novel features of the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive is a private law liability for damages caused upstream in the supply chain. However, liability under substantive law is worthless without procedural rules that allow for its enforcement. Within the context of supply chain liability there are at least two major procedural problems. First, victims affected by supply chain mishandlings might be unable to afford proceedings in Europe. Second, proving that a company has not exercised a sufficient level of diligence can be difficult. Art. 29 para. 3 CSDDD seeks to address those issues.

Von frommen Wünschen und dicken Knüppeln

Die Politik einer autoritären Landesregierung wird nicht an den Grenzen des von ihr regierten Bundeslandes haltmachen. Dafür ist das föderale Gefüge der Bundesrepublik viel zu sehr auf Kooperation und Koordination ausgelegt. Wie für einzelne Bürger*innen stellt sich auch für die Bundesländer die Frage, wie sie auf autoritäre Regierungen jenseits der eigenen Landesgrenzen reagieren können.

A Small But Important Step

While no advisory opinion can solve the climate crisis, the ITLOS decision does provide an important push for action, both globally and at the national level. It cleared the way for the ICJ’s forthcoming opinion on climate change, demonstrating how a clear and solid line of arguments can be developed. Although the ICJ may decide differently due to variations in the questions posed and treaties interpreted, it is unlikely to diverge significantly from the ITLOS narrative or reject its findings on related topics.

Consensus, at what Cost?

After four applications for provisional measures, three sets of formal orders and two rounds of oral hearings, on Friday night, the International Court of Justice in South Africa v. Israel delivered a long-awaited Order. It is, to be frank, most unsatisfactory. While the Court is known for its “Solomonic” decisions, which try to give each party a little of what they asked for at times to no one’s satisfaction, this is not a maritime boundary delimitation where equidistance can be imposed in pursuit of impartiality.

Harmonization Pains but Stakeholders‹ Gain

The Article 13 EU Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive is home of the meaningful engagement provision. It is significantly more robust than similar provisions in national due diligence legislation in France, Germany and Norway. Despite the fact that a number of differences between EU CSDDD and these national laws is likely to give rise to some “harmonization pains”, one silver lining exists: stakeholders gain some leverage.

The ITLOS Advisory Opinion and Marine Geoengineering

The ITLOS advisory opinion does little to resolve the long-standing uncertainty regarding the legal status of marine geoengineering activities. On the contrary, the opinion raises more questions than it answers. ITLOS seems content to leave those questions to others. Indeed, in the advisory opinion, ITLOS noted that “marine geoengineering has been the subject of discussions and regulations in various fora,” including the London Convention and Protocol. But after nearly twenty years, the regulatory framework for marine geoengineering adopted by the parties to the London Convention and Protocol is still not, strictly speaking, legally binding. Perhaps the advisory opinion will spur the parties into action.

Unboxing the New EU Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive

There is a lot to unpack in the now final text of the Directive. The German Institute for Human Rights offers initial analysis in this blog symposium, which starts with this contribution. The contributions engage with the final text of the Directive and give some initial guidance for interpretation and transposition requirements. Topics covered include a critical reflection on the neo-colonial context of the the law-making process, access to justice and administrative supervision measures for rightsholders, the scope of human and environmental rights that are covered by the Directive as well as the transposition phase with comparative analysis in the context of existing national due diligence legislation, its extraterritorial reach and the involvement of National Human Rights Institutions.