The article examines the implementation of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs) in the European Union via National Action Plans (NAPs). We argue that some of the shortcomings currently observed in the implementation process could effectively be addressed through the Open Method of Coordination (OMC) -a governance instrument already used by the European Union (EU) in other policy domains. The article sketches out the polycentric global governance approach envisaged by the UNGPs and discusses the institutional and policy background of their implementation in the EU. It provides an assessment of EU member states' NAPs on business and human rights, as benchmarked against international NAP guidance, before relating experiences with the existing NAP process to the policy background and rationale of the OMC and considering the conditions for employing the OMC in the business and human rights domain. Building on a recent opinion of the EU Fundamental Rights Agency, the article concludes with a concrete proposal for developing an OMC on business and human rights in the EU.
The contribution explores the implications of disagreements about rights in the ‘multi-layered’ European polity for the autonomy of EU fundamental rights law. It argues that insomuch as the EU’s weak claim to supra-national political authority is corroborated by a strong case for economic integration, the internal market operates not simply as a constraining factor in the effective realisation of fundamental rights, but provides the very foundation of their autonomous interpretation in the EU legal order. Sections II and III elaborate upon the relationship between conflicts of authority in the European legal space and the autonomous interpretation of EU fundamental rights law under conditions of political disagreement. Section IV links the argument to the often-alleged instrumentalisation of EU fundamental rights in the service of the market. Sections V and VI substantiate the guiding contention of the contribution—that the autonomy of EU fundamental rights law is rooted in the unity of the market—with an analysis of pertinent case law. The concluding section suggests that the transformation of the EU into a ‘genuine’ human rights polity must proceed through a politicisation of the market by virtue of fundamental rights law.
The article discusses the implementation of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs) in the European Union against the backdrop of perennial debates between proponents of 'hard' versus 'soft' law approaches to preventing and redressing corporate-related human rights violations. It argues that the Open Method of Coordination (OMC)an EU governance instrument of transnational policy-makingcould contribute to negotiating the hard/soft law divide in business and human rights by ensuring a more effective implementation of the UNGPs in the European legal space. Moreover, the European experience with open coordination calls for a reappraisal of the relationship between international law and global governance in addressing today's business and human rights predicament. The first part of the article situates the debate between proponents of 'hard' and 'soft' law approaches to business and human rights in the context of two UN-driven initiatives: the development of national action plans (NAPs) to implement the UNGPs; and the negotiation of an international business and human rights treaty. The second part of the article relates experiences with the existing NAP process in the European Union to the policy background and rationale of the Open Method of Coordination and discusses the conditions for its successful employment in the business and human rights domain.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.