Legal Principles of a New World Governance
The Democratic Legitimacy of Public-Private Rule Making: What Can We Learn from the World Comission of Dams?
The Extraterritorial Scope of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR)
Another System of International Relations
Giving Africa Voice within Global Governance: Oral History, Human Rights and the United Nations Human Rights Council
Hearing on Neo-liberal Politics and European Transnational Corporations in Latin America and the Caribbean
The Great Together
The Emergence of Global Administrative Law
Universal Declaration of Emerging Human Rights
Global Governance and the Achievement of a Universal Civil Society
The Future of Democratic Sovereignty and Transnational Law
Global Environmental Governance: Elements of a Reform Agenda
Contesting Global Governance. Multilateral Economic Institutions and Global Social Movements
Alterglobalization, a Long-term Process Leading to Alternatives
The New Republic Will be Democratic and Socially Oriented
Small-scale Sustainable Farmers Are Cooling Down the Earth
Post-2015: Global Action for an Inclusive and Sustainable Future
Could the COP 21 be our next Westphalian Moment?
Moving Toward a New World Governance
After Copenhagen, Some Light on the Horizon
Henceforth, the Keys to the Future are Responsibility, Solidarity, and Courage
Migrants spearhead an unprecedented political-cultural battle: to open new routes to the world
Beyond 2015: Media as Democracy and Development
Marrakech Process for the Protection and Promotion of All Human Rights of Migrants and Persons in Transnational Mobility
Human rights are the foundation of modern international law. in our days international and transnational economic and political decisions deeply affect the wellbeing of people far away from the respective decision makers. over the past 20 years some areas of international law have developed – often against broad protests of civil society activists - that are in conflict with human rights. For states – and the human rights community - to address these legal and political concerns, some legal and doctrinal misunderstandings have to be tackled that otherwise curtail the powers of human rights – one of them the attempted reduction of states’ obligations to territory.
The following fourteen misconceptions are sometimes encountered when discussing extraterritorial obligations in the area of economic, social and cultural rights (ETOs). they are not the only ones. nevertheless they are perhaps the most frequent questions coming up in the context of etos. There is also considerable urgency to strengthen etos and implement the primacy of human rights – in the middle of multiple crises.
The ETO consortium deals with economic, social and cultural rights and uses the maastricht principles on states’ extraterritorial obligations in this area as its key term of reference. Just as the maastricht principles carry the spirit of indivisibility of human rights, so do the responses to these fourteen misconceptions. they are applicable to extraterritorial obligations related to human rights in general and this is how they should be read.
Although published by the eto consortium, the responses to these fourteen misconceptions do not reflect a position of the consortium or any of its members. the responsibility is with the author. he tried to capture some of the discussions inside and outside the eto consortium. the maastricht principles provide the main terms of reference. the legal commentary to these principles is recommended reading for all those who seek legal detail going beyond the responses provided in this little publication.
These are the misconceptions:
1. Human rights obligations are limited to a State’s own territory
2. There is no need for ETOs: if every state meets its territorial obligations, this will ensure human rights globally
3. ETOs undermine the principle of State sovereignty
4. There is not need for States to regulate TNCs or supervise IGOs, as these already have their own internal mechanisms
5. ETOs are new
6. International human rights instruments do not recognize ETOs
7. With ETOs States are responsible for the acts of third parties
8. ETOs would require States to act outside of their jurisdictions
9. ETOs put obligations on another state
10. ETOs have to be balances with other State’s obligations under international law
11. ETOs lead globally to chaos in governance
12. It is not possible to hold a State accountable with regard to its ETOs, as these are not clearly defined (especially with regard to fulfil-obligations)
13. ETOs are unwieldly and expensive
14. ETOs allow States to escape their territorial obligations
Source> ETO Consortium