Articles for category: Focus

The Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive beyond Europe

The CSDDD is a game changer that forces a large number of European States to level the legislative landscape with regard to corporate responsibility for human rights and environmental impacts, as well as in relation to liability and access to justice. And yet, its reach throughout global “chains of activities” will most likely bring important hurdles for implementation including in relation to the scope of human rights covered in practice; the need for effective capacity-building in transnational chains of activities; the need for a more proactive dialogue and cooperation between the EU and other States; and last but not least, in ensuring consistency between the national implementation of the CSDDD and international and regional human rights obligations.

14. Juni 2024

, , ,

The Unintended Consequences of Mandatory Due Diligence

The EU Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) seeks improvements in companies’ societal impacts but carries risks of negative impacts, including on the developing countries where some supposed beneficiaries are located. Does the CSDDD recognise and mitigate such risks? The blog identifies provisions in the CSDDD that address the unintended consequences that mandatory human rights and environmental due diligence requirements might have in developing countries.

13. Juni 2024

, ,

More of the same or true evolution?

While rights holders are not expressly mentioned as a group of stakeholders in CSDDD, the adoption of this important legislation creates a significant opportunity to involve rights holders to define how the content of the stand-alone article on stakeholder engagement can be filled with legal meaning by soliciting them directly.

12. Juni 2024

From Paper to Practice

The CSDDD requires companies to carry out due diligence on actual and potential human rights and environmental adverse impacts. This means companies have to identify harmful impacts in their value chains and take appropriate measures to prevent, mitigate, or bring them to an end. In this two-part blog post, we will look at which environmental impacts are covered by the CSDDD and how they are addressed. In this second part, we will discuss how the CSDDD negotiations influenced the design of its environmental provisions and identify missed opportunities. We will conclude by analysing what factors are important to ensure that transposition and implementation remain true to the CSDDD’s objectives.

10. Juni 2024

, , ,

Waiting for Kinsa

On 18 June 2024, the Court of Justice of the European Union will sit as a Grand Chamber in a hearing addressing the compatibility of the so-called Facilitators Package with the principle of proportionality set out in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (CFR). The Kinsa case (previously named Kinshasa) provides an opportunity for the CJEU to counteract the trend towards overcriminalisation of humanitarian action that has taken hold across the EU. This blog highlights the ways in which the Facilitator Package fails to take account of important fundamental rights and why the criminalization of solidarity that it has facilitated is not an inevitability but a political choice.

10. Juni 2024

, ,

Towards Planetary Boundaries for Business?

While the material scope of the EU’s Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) fell behind civil society demands, it does mandate a degree of environmental due diligence that constitutes a tentative shift towards real corporate environmental accountability. Despite its conceptual restrictions, which are the result of a somewhat polarised legislative process, the CSDDD’s environmental annex provides a provision with potential for the protection of biological diversity: the reference to the Convention on Biological Diversity.

7. Juni 2024

, ,

More than a Sink

The difference between treating the oceans as a mere sink versus protecting them as a vital part of the environment has important implications under international law. These implications come to the fore when considering the relationship between the UNCLOS on the one hand and the UNFCCC and its Paris Agreement on the other. While the latter treaties in no way legitimize pollution of the marine environment, their focus on oceans as sinks could be misinterpreted to deprive UNCLOS and the customary rules it codifies of a meaningful role in addressing climate change.

7. Juni 2024

, , , , , ,

Why Climate Science Matters for International Law

The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) issued an advisory opinion on May 21, 2024 in response to a request submitted by the Commission of Small Island States on Climate Change and International Law (COSIS). While various aspects of the advisory opinion have already been discussed in this joint blog symposium, this post focuses on a feature of the opinion that has so far received little emphasis: the strong role of science. The scientific evidence presented by the tribunal provides a solid basis for its conclusions on State obligations to prevent, reduce, and control climate pollution.

6. Juni 2024

, , , ,

From Strasbourg to Luxembourg?

KlimaSeniorinnen has established a remedy which, in EU law, is not easy to locate and may actually be unavailable in light of restrictive CJEU case law.  Whatever one’s views on this restrictive case law, it is a fact that the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights now obliges the CJEU to do as much as it can to accommodate the KlimaSeniorinnen remedy and to interpret the relevant TFEU provisions flexibly.  One may assume that, sooner or later, the CJEU will be confronted with a KlimaSeniorinnen claim.  If the CJEU were to declare such a claim inadmissible, it will put itself in the corner of courts refusing to engage with climate change policies.  That would be unfortunate for a court that has long been at the forefront of legal progress.

5. Juni 2024

, , , , ,

Finding Light in Dark Places

Can the new advisory opinion interpreting the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) move us beyond the lethargy of unmet climate change policy needs? The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea established the gravity of this question by stating that “climate change represents an existential threat and raises human rights concerns”. The Tribunal acted both boldly and conservatively by interpreting UNCLOS as an independent source of international legally binding obligations to address climate change and ocean acidification.

4. Juni 2024

, , , , ,