International Court of Justice

Due diligence can be required under both legal and extra-legal understandings. It has had a long presence in international law, under different regimes, offering a flexible approach that demands reasonable responses in light of the concrete circumstances. However, because of its actual demands depending on primary law, how it is and will be made operative in business and human rights law cases will depend much on its understanding, negotiations and law-making. Thus, it is important to identify risks of a “weak” multi-level adoption due to potential “corporate or economic capture” and other dynamics.

TNSC Regulation may also be at odds with values and domestic policies in third States that are affected by it, which raises the question whether at a certain point the laudable fight against corporate impunity risks becoming an interference in those third States’ regulatory sovereignty. This question, of course, presupposes a broad approach to the notion (and analysis) of regulatory sovereignty. This is because “regulatory sovereignty” is usually referred to in the realm of international investment law, with discussions centering on legal obstacles for host States to freely implement policies in light of obligations on the State vis-à-vis the investor, and its home State, respectively.

Although practically difficult to achieve, a World Trade Court or this sort may also remove the feeling of guilt from African officials when dragging their fellows to a regional trade dispute settlement forum. Understandably, the political tensions among the AMU states concerning the Western Sahara, which has paralyzed the organization for decades now, may have prevented them from attempting to solve the matter intra-regionally.