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?
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
Reflecting on guiding principles and content, history and practice.
On 16 May, four Dutch parties presented a new governing agreement (Agreement). The four parties PVV, VVD, NSC, and BBB will form one of the most right-wing governments in Dutch history. They vow to impose the strictest migration policy to date. The proposed migration measures under the Agreement endanger the fundamental rights of migrants and people applying for international protection. The plan also put the Netherlands on a collision course with the EU as many of the measures are contrary to the provisions in the EU Migration Pact, which was adopted last week.
The KlimaSeniorinnen judgment of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has been the subject of intense debate for several weeks. One focus was on the question of standing, i.e., who can bring a lawsuit connected to climate change and human rights before the ECtHR. However, less attention has been paid to the question of the impact of the judgment on currently pending climate change cases before the ECtHR. This blog post sheds light on “climate change case number four”, a case against Austria primarily challenging the shortcomings of the Austrian Climate Protection Act.
13. September 2025
Giovanni Capoccia
12. September 2025
Anne Peters
12. September 2025
Anne Peters