Due Diligence Debates in International Anti-corruption and Money Laundering Law

This chapter describes and problematises the role of due diligence norms in international anti-corruption and money laundering law. It analyses the international legal framework against the abuse of trust or power for private gain—corruption—and finds that states are obliged to prevent the perpetration or facilitation of such conduct by non-state actors. The chapter demonstrates that, to this end, states must ‘responsibilise’ legal entities and require supervision by those entities of other non-state actors. Both horizontal (state-to-state) and traversal (state-to-business) anti-corruption due diligence obligations are calibrated by discretions and notions of risk. The chapter points out that the international economic crime standards seem to employ a ‘new’ approach to governance or—more problematically—to diffuse ‘new’ forms of ‘penality’ or global governmentality.

Due Diligence in International Trade Law

This chapter assesses and analyses elements of due diligence in existing international trade agreements. It highlights due diligence obligations in this field, such as obligations to cooperate, to negotiate in good faith, or to notify about measures which could be harmful to other countries. The chapter also discusses elements applicable to the negotiation and implementation of trade agreements, especially with regard to the requirements of human rights and sustainable development impact assessments. The chapter argues that, even though due diligence is not a term of art in international trade law, it could be seen as a cornerstone of the international trade regime.

Due Diligence in International Humanitarian Law

This chapter assesses due diligence in international humanitarian law. It identifies international humanitarian law rules governed by due diligence in the fields of the duty to ensure respect for international humanitarian law, the conduct of hostilities, the protection of civilians and persons hors de combat, and the administration of occupied territory. It is argued that international humanitarian law embodies both obligations of result (for instance, negative obligations) and obligations of diligent conduct. In order to identify the obligations of diligent conduct, the chapter relies on state practice and relevant case law, as well as on textual indications embodied in the relevant international humanitarian law provisions. Finally, the chapter argues that the inclusion of some due diligence obligations in international humanitarian law strengthens states’ implementation of this branch of international law.

Due Diligence in the International Legal Order

The introductory chapter sets the scene for this book and establishes an analytical framework for the sector-specific chapters. It traces the etymological roots of the notion of due diligence and discusses its scope of application, normative functions, and contents in various areas of international law. It furthermore highlights recurring issues which the sector-specific contributions of the book address, including the key question from which legal source due diligence obligations can be derived and to what extent these obligations are binding. The introductory chapter also maps the commonplace diligence requirements in international legal texts and briefly outlines the book chapters.

Member States’ Due Diligence Obligations to Supervise International Organisations

There are two reasons to consider member states’ obligations to supervise international organisations as a distinct category of due diligence obligations. First, due diligence obligations typically require states to regulate third parties in some way. But it is harder for states to regulate international organisations than other private actors because international law protects the autonomy of international organisations. Second, such due diligence obligations merit attention because they may compensate for the dearth of mechanisms to hold international organisations accountable when they cause harm. This chapter canvasses member states’ existing obligations vis-à-vis international organisations, and argues in particular that the International Law Commission (ILC) missed an opportunity to frame broader obligations when drafting the Articles on the Responsibility of International Organizations (the ARIO). The chapter closes by making the normative case for establishing a due diligence obligation on member states to ensure that international organisations do not abuse their immunities.

Due Diligence in the Use of International Watercourses

This chapter analyses the concept of due diligence in the law of international watercourses. Both conventions and the case-law give some indications on the constitutive elements of the standard of due diligence in this area. The chapter reveals that due diligence provides a legal tool to balance the principle of equitable and reasonable utilisation and the principle of no harm. It also highlights that due diligence is the basis of procedural obligations in this field, such as the duty to exchange information or the duty to conduct an environmental impact assessment. The chapter however argues that the unspecified content of these norms and the lack of uniformity in their application render it impossible to draw consistent and holistic conclusions on due diligence in the field of watercourses law.

Due Diligence and the Obligation to Prevent Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity

This chapter analyses the due diligence component of the duty to prevent genocide and crimes against humanity. It examines the International Court of Justice (ICJ) judgment in the Bosnia Genocide case of 2007 and outlines the system of differentiated obligations based on a state’s ‘capacity to influence’ events in another state set out in the judgment. Furthermore, the chapter argues that developments under customary international law, which are buttressed and specified by the International Law Commission (ILC), support the existence of an obligation to prevent crimes against humanity of an equivalent character to the obligation to prevent genocide. The chapter examines the role that due diligence plays in delimiting the nature and scope, the content, and the temporal elements of the obligations to prevent genocide and crimes against humanity. Taking a future-oriented approach, the chapter enquires how new technologies inform state’s due diligence and whether non-state actors (including social media companies) can have the necessary ‘capacity to influence’, thus extending the preventive obligation’s potential reach.

The Function of the Triad ‘Territory’, ‘Jurisdiction’, and ‘Control’ in Due Diligence Obligations

This chapter analyses the notions ‘territoryʼ, ‘jurisdictionʼ, and ‘controlʼ and their influence on the scope of due diligence obligations. It demonstrates that these notions epitomise the link between the state charged with the obligation and the risk itself and argues that the precise identification of this link is essential to understand how due diligence obligations arise and function. The chapter traces the gradual ‘widening’ of the scope of due diligence in international law, through court and arbitral decisions, treaties and non-binding instruments. It reflects on whether current international law is able to move away from the territoriality principle and conceive other forms of organising power and authority, and whether due diligence obligations might also be borne by private actors.

Due Diligence, the UN, and Peacekeeping

This chapter focuses on the application, acceptance, and implementation of human rights due diligence obligations in UN peacekeeping operations. It points to growing, but uneven, evidence of the development of standards and measures by the UN that would fit the meaning and purpose of due diligence, although there are very few instances of due diligence being used as a term within the UN. The chapter argues that due diligence obligations are applicable either through customary human rights law, or the internal law of the UN, or both due to the fact that the UN’s principles of peacekeeping are themselves based on general principles of international law. The chapter stresses that the UN should have due diligence obligations especially as there is a gap between the commissioning of peacekeeping operations by the UN and the day-to-day control of peacekeepers by the UN.

Due Diligence in the Law of the Sea

This chapter analyses due diligence obligations in law of the sea instruments, particularly in the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. It demonstrates the linkage between general principles, their application to non-state actors via the due diligence obligations of states, and their eventual transformation into binding detailed technical standards, such as the ones incorporated in maritime safety conventions. The chapter advances an integrated reading of due diligence rules in the law of the sea and argues that increased reference to technical standards would facilitate their application in practice. Following a review of two advisory opinions—one of the International Tribunal for the Law of Sea and one of its Seabed Disputes Chamber—the chapter finally contextualises its core findings within the broader debate on the legal nature of due diligence and its primary or secondary character.