With the importance of non-State actors ever increasing, the traditional State-centric approach of international law is being put to the test. In particular, significant accountability lacunae have emerged in the field of human rights protection. To address these challenges, this book makes a case for extraterritorial due diligence obligations of States in international human rights law. It traces back how due diligence obligations evolved on the international plane and develops a general analytical framework making the broad and vague notion of due diligence more approachable. The framework is applied to different fields of international law which provides guidance on how due diligence obligations can be better conceptualized. Drawing inspiration from these developments, the book analyses how extraterritorial human rights due diligence obligations could operate in practice and foster global human rights protection.

An analytical framework of due diligence obligations to address the increasing prevalence of non-State human rights risks.

"There has been much debate in recent years about the role of non-state actors in international law. Whereas their presence is undisputedly acknowledged, their status and legal accountability remains unsettled. In many areas of public international law, harm is now significantly often caused by actors other than states.1 Terrorist groups threaten the territorial integrity of states; private security companies are involved in armed conflicts; individual hackers initiate cyber-attacks; and multinational corporations cause transboundary environmental harm or business-related human rights violations. Nonetheless, international treaties and customary international law still assign rights and duties almost exclusively to states. Outside of international criminal law, there are but few attempts to establish individual responsibility. On the other hand, state responsibility only arises if an international obligation is breached and that breach is attributable to a state whereas only the actions of state organs acting in their official capacity may implicate state responsibility and the conduct of private individuals usually does not. Such conduct may be attributed if private citizens act as so-called de facto organs or a state acknowledges their behavior as its own - which occurs rather rarely. The nature of state responsibility is inherently restorative with the primary objective to maintain or restore an equilibrium between equal and sovereign states"--

Due diligence obligations are typically described by scholars and practitioners as 'elusive', 'weak', and difficult to pin down in the abstract. Challenging these assumptions, this book offers a systematic reconstruction of the foundations of due diligence obligations of states and explores their nature, rationale, content and scope of operation in international law. Tackling due diligence from a general perspective, this book seeks to complement scholarly studies on public international law obligations and their theory. This book will be relevant for academics, practitioners, graduate students across international law and anyone seeking to better conceptualise due diligence under international law and understand how due diligence obligations are operationalised in practice.

This perceptive book analyzes the scope of the duty to prevent genocide of China, France, Russia, the UK, and the US in light of the due diligence standard under conventional, customary, and peremptory international law. It expounds the positive obligations of these five states to act both within and without the Security Council context to prevent or suppress an imminent or ongoing genocide.

Due Diligence in International Law identifies due diligence as the missing link between state responsibility and international liability. Acknowledged in all legal fields, it ensures international peaceful cooperation and prevents significant transboundary harm, yet it has thus far not been comprehensively discussed in literature. The present volume fills this void. Kulesza identifies due diligence as a principle of international law and traces its evolution throughout centuries. The no-harm principle, key to identifying responsibility for transboundary harm, focal to international environmental law and applicable to e.g. combating terrorism, follows states’ obligation of due diligence in preventing foreign harm. This obligation, present in various treaty-based and customary regimes is argued to be a principle of international public law applicable to all obligations of conduct.

This book provides a comprehensive analysis of the content, scope, and function of due diligence across various areas of international law. Looking at current tendancies towards proceduralisation and more proactive risk management, it reveals the promises and limits of due diligence as a concept for enhancing accountability and compliance.