This case study aims to investigate whether and in what ways the relations between the EU and its Member States and South Korea can be used to strengthen opportunities to appropriately regulate and remedy human rights violations in the Korean electronics industry. This study first determines the relevant social forces and historical factors in Korea. This is an essential key to a contextualised understanding of how so-called electronics chaebols are structured. Afterwards, the relevant legal commitments in the Framework and free trade agreements between the EU and Korea are discussed. These agreements lay a foundation for deeper transnational social network relations. A landmark dispute about the freedom of association and the right to collective bargaining in Korea under the Free Trade Agreement is analysed. Finally, this case study determines to which extent people in Korea can use justice institutions when they allege that their rights have been infringed by electronics corporations. All relevant mechanisms are evaluated. An arbitration case between the Korean NGO Sharps and Samsung is discussed. Ten Korean experts have been interviewed to write this case study.

The main contribution of this book lies in narrowing the existing research gap on the accountability of transnational corporations from emerging and developing states. In addition, it provides a new perspective on the widely documented poor track record of EU Member States in terms of holding ‘their’ corporate nationals, which are directly competing with these corporations for the same ‘share of wallet’ in the globalised marketplace, accountable. Any legal study of a level playing field requires the study of mandatory requirements as a matter of regulatory compliance. This book thus needs to study ‘hard law obligations’ in business and human rights. It assesses how regulation (in laws and trade agreements) and civil judicial remediation in the EU and its Member States function in relation to corporations from emerging and developing states in our globalised world. This book relies on two models of international law-making: constructivism and rationalism.

This case study aims to investigate whether and in what ways the EU and its Member States can support Kenya to strengthen opportunities to appropriately regulate and remedy human rights violations in the floriculture industry. This industry is almost exclusively occupied by corporations with Kenyan, European and Indian owners. Most of the flowers grown on Kenyan farms are sold in Europe. After discussing the Kenyan floriculture industrys history, this chapter considers the relevant legal commitments in the post-Cotonou agreement and the Economic Partnership Agreement between the East African Community and the EU. According to the constructivist literature, these agreements could serve as a platform through which Kenyan and transnational civil society can help to contribute to the creation of a ‘thick’ stakeholder consensus regarding human rights. Finally, this case study analyses whether people in Kenya can use justice institutions when their rights are violated by flower farms. All relevant mechanisms are evaluated, but it is concluded that capacity development of civil judicial remediation has the most potential. Fourteen Kenyan experts have been interviewed to write this case study.

This book studied under which conditions the EU and its Member States influence the accountability of transnational corporations that are based in developing and emerging states for their involvement in human rights violations. Five conclusions are drawn. First, there are identifiable corporate concerns about the competitive threat of such corporations. They form a barrier to strengthening the accountability of EU-based corporations. Second, regulation has been adopted only when the ‘perceived interests’ in the EU and its Member States outweigh these concerns. Such interests are vastly different at the EU level and Member State level. Third, regulators have tried to minimise the impact on the competitiveness of their corporations by ‘extending’ their human rights regulations internationally. Fourth, bilateral agreements contain obligations relating to human rights and can serve to contribute to the creation of a ‘thick’ transnational stakeholder consensus. Local litigation is an important element in this process. Finally, there are valuable options to bring cases against corporations from developing and emerging states in EU Member States courts.

This chapter aims to investigate the extent to which France has attempted to rein in transnational corporations from developing and emerging states by imposing requirements as a matter of regulatory compliance, either directly as an obligation formulated in a rule, or indirectly by offering corporations the opportunity to defend against civil violations. In 2017, France became the first state in the world to adopt a value chain responsibility law for all corporate risks, including human rights-related ones. Section 1 of this chapter analyses the parliamentary debates preceding this Law in order to increase our understanding of the impact that competition in the global marketplace – and, in particular, transnational corporations from developing and emerging states – had on the genesis and the stringency of the Law. Section 2 discusses the avenues available to bring claims against transnational corporations from developing and emerging states in France. Interestingly, several civil liability claims have been brought against the South Korean corporation Samsung and its French subsidiary in criminal proceedings.

This chapter introduces ideas and controversies in international law scholarship on business and human rights. Furthermore, it determines the legal limitations for the EU and its Member States when regulating and remedying rights violations committed by corporations from emerging and developing states. To begin, domestic measures with extraterritorial implications are discussed. Import-restrictive measures also appear an attractive solution for states that are increasingly expected (or obliged) to rein in ‘their’ corporate nationals when they violate rights in third states. Such measures allow states to create an artificial level playing field that enforces the same standards across all corporations that operate in its market. Linking rights to trade concessions is, however, contested. The International Labour Organization and World Trade Organization regimes are discussed. Finally, it is explained that each state has acted unilaterally in developing the rules governing the use of civil adjudicative jurisdiction. Support for local remedies by the extraterritorial state does not distinguish between local and foreign corporations. A cost-benefit critique of extraterritorial remediation over foreign corporations is also presented.

The EU has been reluctant to engage in the negotiations for a UN treaty on business and human rights because such a treaty would have an impact on the competitiveness of EU-based corporations in the global marketplace, in particular, vis-à-vis competitors from developing and emerging states. Bearing in mind these observations relating to the EU’s position in the ongoing treaty process, this chapter aims to assess whether the EU has been able to mitigate the effects on the competitiveness of EU-based corporations in its unilateral ‘business and human rights’ legislative initiatives. After assessing which initiatives have been prioritised by the European Commission, this chapter investigates to what extent competition from non-EU corporations – and, in particular, corporations from developing and emerging states – has been taken into account during the drafting process of these initiatives, and to what extent they have a regulatory impact on such corporations. This chapter also discusses private international law issues.

This chapter aims to investigate the extent to which the Netherlands has attempted to rein in transnational corporations from developing and emerging states by imposing requirements as a matter of regulatory compliance, either directly as an obligation formulated in a rule, or indirectly by offering corporations the opportunity to defend against civil violations. Section 1 of this chapter examines the Dutch Child Labour Duty of Care Law (2019). An evaluation of the parliamentary debates increases our understanding as to whether and to what extent competition from non-Dutch corporations – and, in particular, transnational corporations from developing and emerging states – in the global marketplace has had an impact on the stringency and reach of this legislative initiative. Section 2 discusses the (largely hypothetical) avenues available to bring claims against transnational corporations from developing and emerging states in Dutch courts.