Mapping corporate obligations towards the Rule of Law under international law

This article maps corporate obligations towards the Rule of Law under international law. It finds that despite numerous instruments produced at the UN-level, no binding norm of international law creates any enforceable legal obligations towards the Rule of Law as a whole. Although some elements of the Rule of Law are legally binding by virtue of the ICCPR, it is unclear if it can be imposed on NSAs as, historically, only states were considered subjects of international law. Regardless, corporations appear to be lacking the necessary standing for the status of defendants before international courts. This has resulted in the reliance on the US legislation to challenge an overseas conduct of corporations, a practice which was eventually restricted by the SCOTUS. As such, international law, as it currently stands, fails to place corporations under any binding legal obligation towards the Rule of Law. This is partly compensated by European law through the concept extraterritorial application where various elements of the Rule of Law are protected by the ECHR. The ECHR also recognises the concept of positive obligations which allow for the horizontal application of human rights. Nevertheless, despite the ECHR, the overall lack of enforceable corporate obligations towards the Rule of Law under international law is problematic as any corporation domiciled outside Europe simply escapes the ECHR’s impact and the accountability gap continues

Comparative law · Customary international law · Human rights · International law · Legislation · Municipal law · Obligation · Public law · Rule of law · Comparative and International Law Studies · Corporate Law and Human Rights · Global Financial Regulation and Crises