Suchergebnisse

AbstractSince 2008, most bilateral and regional EU trade agreements contain so‐called Trade and Sustainable Development chapters. Such sustainability chapters typically include commitments to core ILO labour rights and provide specific monitoring mechanisms to ensure compliance. Several observers however, have voiced concern about the enforcement potential of these provisions in practice, beyond legal and institutional reforms. As a means to overcome this compliance gap, this article explores how the inclusion of existing Voluntary Sustainability Standards (VSS) in trade agreements could potentially enhance the monitoring and enforcement of labour provisions in EU trade agreements. Based on experiences captured in a case‐study on the functioning of the 2013 EU‐Colombia Trade Agreement, we argue that linking VSS to labour provisions in trade agreements could significantly contribute to rendering these provisions more effective. Linking labour provisions to the monitoring and auditing mechanisms of accredited but independent VSS, we argue, could help close a regulatory gap, add credibility to the provisions and help overcome capacity challenges in the implementing countries. In turn, the integration of VSS in trade agreements offers public regulators the opportunity to demand a strengthening of the quality of VSS in terms of their design and procedures.

While labour provisions have been inserted in a number of EU free trade agreements (FTAs), extant clauses are widely perceived as ineffective. This article argues that there is a need to rethink the dispute settlement mechanisms related to labour provisions if their effectiveness is to be increased. It proceeds in three steps. First, we look at the current state of the art of labour provisions in EU FTAs in terms of legal design and practice and argue that the current arrangements are ill-equipped to foster compliance with labour standards. Second, we explore avenues to enhance the design of FTA labour provisions by reconsidering basic elements of the dispute settlement structure. Examining US FTA labour provisions, we highlight the importance of a formal complaint mechanism, on the one hand, and the availability of economic sanctions, on the other. Based on a review of existing practice, we contend, however, that these elements alone are not sufficient to effectively enforce FTA labour provisions. We argue that for FTA labour provisions to be effective, the current state-to-state model of dispute settlement needs to be complemented by a third-party-state dimension and that, additionally, there are good reasons to consider a third party–third party dispute settlement component. We ground these reflections in experiences with already existing instruments in other areas, namely investor-state dispute settlement and voluntary sustainability standards. Thirdly, we discuss options to better connect the dispute settlement mechanisms of FTA labour provisions to other international instruments for labour standards protection with a view to creating synergies and avoiding fragmentation between the different regimes. The focus here is on the International Labour Organization's supervisory mechanism and the framework of the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises.

A quarter century ago, in 1987, Charles C. Ragin published The Comparative Method, introducing a new method to the social sciences called Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA). QCA is a comparative case-oriented research approach and collection of techniques based on set theory and Boolean algebra, which aims to combine some of the strengths of qualitative and quantitative research methods. Since its launch in 1987, QCA has been applied extensively in the social sciences. This review essay first sketches the origins of the ideas behind QCA. Next, the main features of the method, as presented in The Comparative Method, are introduced. A third part focuses on the early applications. A fourth part presents early criticisms and subsequent innovations. A fifth part then focuses on an era of further expansion in political science and presents some of the main applications in the discipline. In doing so, this paper seeks to provide insights and references into the origin and development of QCA, a non-technical introduction to its main features, the path travelled so far, and the diversification of applications.

Some 20 years after the emergence of configurational theory as a key perspective in organization studies in the 1990s, this approach has yet to deliver on its promise. While we know that configurations the relative arrangement of parts and elements - matters, empirical research on configurations is just beginning to deliver on its promise. The starting point of the edited volume is the revival and evolution of a configurational perspective on organizations, both in terms of the use of configurational set-theoretic methods such as Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) and in terms of configurational theorizing that has emerged from the use of such methods. The volume brings together a variety of scholars working with set theoretic configurational methods to apply these methods to a range of prominent fields in organization studies, ranging from organizational design, international business, and human resource practices to networks and the management of information systems. Each author or group of authors pays specific attention to assessing the potential of set-theoretical configurational methods for organization studies. Two extensive introductory chapters discuss the state of the art with regard to different set-theoretic (fuzzy set and crisp set) methods. In three response pieces leading scholars offer a reflection on the potential of set-theoretic methods for organizational analysis. The volume aims to provide both inspiration and practical advice on how to conduct configurational analysis. The chapters illustrate the breadth of organizational fields and the growing range of topics for which the configurational perspective can provides insights. This volume vividly illustrates that the configurational approach is maturing. It aims to inspire organizational scholars to develop theories and methods that truly consider organizations as clusters of interconnected structures and practices that have to be studied as configurations.

Cover -- Half Title -- Series Page -- Title -- Copyright -- Contents -- List of figures -- List of tables -- Notes on contributors -- Acknowledgements -- 1 States, sovereignty, borders and self-determination in Europe -- PART I Blurring of EU borders across member states -- 2 Differentiation and self-determination in European integration -- 3 The European multilevel party system: moving towards unity or diversity? -- 4 Stability in political unions: inequality, borders and welfare -- 5 Secessionism revisited: unequal market insertion and its relevance for the analysis of Brexit -- 6 Self-determination constellations: sub-state regions and citizenship in Europe -- 7 Identity, territory and self-determination in transborder regions of Eastern and Central Europe -- PART II National self-determination with EU member states -- 8 EU and the recognition of states -- 9 Democracy and borders: external and internal secession in the European Union -- 10 Teleological and reflexive nationalism in the new Europe -- 11 National state foreign policy and regional external action: an uneasy relationship -- 12 Secession and the limits of democratic decision making -- 13 Undermining Federal projects? Referendums in the United Kingdom and the European Union -- 14 Territory, boundaries and collective self-determination -- PART III Conclusions -- 15 Self-determination and the reconfiguration of the nation-state in Europe -- Index

pt. 1. Global governance through private standards : the cases of natural resources, food and labour conditions -- pt. 2. Private food standards and global governance : economic perspectives -- pt. 3. Private food standards and global governance : legal perspectives.

AbstractThe corporate responsibility to respect human rights was formally introduced in 2011 with the unanimous endorsement of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs) by the UN Human Rights Council. It is grounded in social expectations and forms part of the companies' "social license to operate." This paper argues that this responsibility is progressively turning into a legal duty for lead companies to respect human rights in those types of value chains which are characterized by a high level of control by a lead company over its business partners. Our argument rests on two recent legal developments. Firstly, the article analyzes the judicialization of the corporate responsibility to respect in the case law on parent company liability in various jurisdictions, which, we argue, is highly likely to have some implications in relation to certain types of value chains so as to trigger the liability of lead companies for the human rights harms arising out of the activities of entities over which they exercise sufficient control. Secondly, the article delves into the legislative developments which increasingly require lead companies to exercise due diligence so as to prevent and address adverse human rights impacts in their own activities and global value chains.