Giesela Rühl is a professor of civil law, civil procedure law, European and international private law, and comparative law at Humboldt-Universität (HU). Her research focuses on the challenges that globalisation and Europeanisation pose for the enforcement of rights. This summer, she will offer a summer course on the protection of human rights in global supply chains at the renowned Hague Academy of International Law. In this interview, she talks about human rights compliance in global supply chains, responsibilities and obstacles.
Prof. Dr. Rühl, this summer you will be offering a summer course for young academics at The Hague Academy of International Law in the Department of Private International Law. How does one earn this honour?
The lecturers at The Hague Academy are selected five years in advance by the Academy's Board of Trustees, which is made up of 18 scholars from around the world. The invitation is considered a great honour because The Hague Academy is one of the world's leading teaching and research institutions in the field of international law. Its summer courses, which have been held since 1923, attract several hundred young scholars from all over the world every year. Many of them now hold senior positions in international politics or international courts or organisations. Only those who have made a name for themselves in international law are therefore allowed to teach in The Hague.
To date, around 30 academics from Germany have taught a course in the Private International Law Department in The Hague. You are the first female academic teaching at a German university to receive an invitation. How do you view this first – and what does it say about the visibility of women in your field?
Personally, I am of course very pleased about the invitation. At the same time, I am shocked that I am the first woman teaching at a German university in 100 years to offer a course on private international law: women are well represented in my field in general, and also in Germany. Nevertheless, at least women from Germany do not seem to be well recognised internationally. I have no idea why that is. I hope that my invitation is a sign that this is changing. In any case, there are plenty of female colleagues.
Your course is dedicated to the protection of human rights in global supply chains. What exactly is it about?
Essentially, it addresses the question of how human rights violations – in particular forced labour, child labour or other undignified working conditions, but also environmental destruction – can be more effectively prevented in globally diversified supply chains and how compliance with minimum human rights standards can be ensured. In my course, I will discuss with the doctoral students in particular what role private companies can play in this regard: Should private companies be obliged to ensure that human rights are respected in their supply chains? Should victims of human rights violations be able to claim damages in European courts in the event of a violation? Specifically, the course will trace how the legal systems of various countries and the European Union deal with these issues. In addition, developments will be critically analysed and questioned.
"Ideally, international supply chains should be beneficial for all parties involved."
Why is this topic particularly relevant at the moment?
International supply chains are an integral part of a globally networked economy based on the division of labour and specialisation. Ideally, they are beneficial for all parties involved: in the Global North, companies and consumers benefit from low prices, while in the Global South, jobs are created that can be a driver of economic development and prosperity. However, the reality is often different, because forced labour, child labour and poor working conditions are prevalent in many places. In recent years, social pressure has therefore grown, particularly in Europe, to make companies take greater responsibility. In Germany, this led to the adoption of the Supply Chain Act in 2021. At European level, the Supply Chain Directive will be added in 2024.
However, the new regulations also pose problems. In some cases, companies have to shoulder enormous bureaucratic burdens, which many believe undermines their competitiveness and may result in companies withdrawing from particularly high-risk countries. Added to this are doubts about the effectiveness and legitimacy of the relevant regulations: can European regulations that place obligations on European companies actually improve human rights standards in countries of the Global South? And should they? Or are the relevant regulations neo-imperial and neo-colonial instruments of power that exploit and reinforce traditional power structures and impose our values on other countries? All these questions make the topic of my course particularly relevant, but also particularly difficult. At the same time, they show how important academic exchange is.
What opportunities do the new regulations offer for victims of human rights violations? Where are the challenges?
Above all, the new regulations raise awareness of the problems of international supply chains – and the dangers they pose to people and the environment. This increases the likelihood that these problems will be recognised and actually solved in the interests of people in the Global South. In addition, the new regulations give people from the Global South a voice – and in some cases even rights that they can assert themselves.
Nevertheless, there are of course also challenges: I have already mentioned the burdens on companies. In addition, the regulation of international supply chains is encountering a fragmented regulatory landscape. In fact, private law in particular is characterised by the coexistence of different legal systems. When human rights are violated in the Global South, the question therefore arises as to whether European law applies and whether any claims can be enforced in European courts. Finally, there are also very practical problems: victims living in the Global South are often unaware that they have rights under European law and are often unwilling (or unable) to make the long journey to Europe. In addition, costs, language barriers and problems of evidence make it very difficult to enforce the law.
Contributing to a more objective political debate through science
What ideas do you want to bring to The Hague? What do you want to critically examine?
On the one hand, I would like to raise awareness that the law is an important instrument for shaping social conditions, but that it has its limits in a legally fragmented world. On the other hand, I would like to make it clear that if lawyers want to achieve social change, they must consider the reactions of those affected by the regulations and the overall social impact of the relevant regulations. Only through a holistic, scientifically sound approach can regulations ultimately be developed that actually solve problems.
How can private international law and international law work together to strengthen corporate accountability for human rights violations?
International law sets human rights standards; private international law determines how and where specific claims can be enforced. If both subjects are considered together and interlinked, they can ideally contribute to more effective protection of human rights. In particular, duties of protection based on international law can be translated into genuine liability through the law of obligations, namely tort law.
When you think of the young lawyers who will be attending your course, what message would you like to give them – beyond the law itself?
I would like to encourage them to engage academically with politically controversial topics and in this way contribute to a more objective political debate. Science is particularly important when emotions are running high and the atmosphere is heated. Scientific work provides orientation. It forces us to examine issues carefully instead of jumping to conclusions. It enables discourse based on comprehensible assumptions and arguments rather than feelings, opinions or moods. In short, those who work scientifically not only improve legal decisions, but also strengthen political discourse as a whole.
Interview: Ljiljana Nikolic
About
Giesela Rühl studied in Bonn, Lausanne (Switzerland) and Berkeley (USA) and received her doctorate from the University of Hamburg. After working at the Max Planck Institute for Comparative and International Private Law, Harvard Law School (USA) and the European University Institute (Italy), she also received her habilitation there. Since October 2020, she has been Professor of Civil Law, European and International Private Law and Comparative Law at the Faculty of Law of Humboldt University in Berlin. In recent years, teaching and research stays have taken her to the USA (Columbia Law School, Duke Law School, Stanford Law School), Australia (University of Sydney), Japan (Kyushu University) and the United Kingdom (University of Oxford, London School of Economics and Political Science). She is co-founder and Secretary General of the European Association of Private International Law (EAPIL), a member of the International Academy of Comparative Law (IACL) and the European Academy of Sciences and Arts (EASA). Her research has been recognised by the Max Planck Society, the German National Academy of Sciences Leopoldina and the American Society of International Law.