Articles for category: Focus

Dividing the Indivisible

The absence of a number of important human rights instruments from the EU’s Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive, notably for indigenous peoples’ and migrants’ rights, are serious omissions and must be rectified at the EU level during the first review of the directive. Given the status of the CSDDD as a directive, Member States also have the freedom to add these missing instruments during national transposition and should do so in order to further honour their commitments under the UNGPs.

1. Juni 2024

, ,

National Human Rights Institutions – Critical but, Overlooked Actors

National Human Rights Institutions are a critical but often overlooked actor in the context of the European Union’s Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive. As we enter the transposition and implementation phases, National Human Rights Institutions can leverage their unique mandate as human rights experts in their jurisdictions to act collectively and individually to ensure that transposition laws meet human rights standards for an effective implementation.

31. Mai 2024

, ,

A Comparative Analysis between the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive and the French and German Legislation

This blog post offers an initial comparative glimpse of the most important changes that the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) will bring for the respective mandatory human rights and environmental (HREDD) legislation in Germany and France. While both the French Duty of Vigilance Law and the German Supply Chain Act already require effective HREDD, the CSDDD goes a long way in strengthening the requirements and bringing them more in line with international standards.

30. Mai 2024

, , ,

ITLOS and the importance of (getting) external rules (right) in interpreting UNCLOS

The Advisory Opinion handed down by the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) on 21 May 2024 is truly remarkable. However, while ITLOS succeeded in noting the relevance of many other treaties and customary norms in international law, it fell short of a comprehensive and consistent approach to determining which other treaty norms would be relevant to the interpretation of UNCLOS and how. Establishing coherence by “taking into account external rules” means more than a general reference or a pick-and-choose approach to some relevant norms in an external treaty, while not to others.

29. Mai 2024

, , ,

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?

28. Mai 2024

,

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.

27. Mai 2024

, ,

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.

27. Mai 2024

, , , , ,

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.

25. Mai 2024

,

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.

25. Mai 2024

, , , , , ,