Apart from depleting global marine resources, illegal fishing affects the economies and societies of many developing coastal states. They are often not in a position to police the maritime zones that are under their jurisdiction, such as their exclusive economic zone, and to enforce their fisheries regulations adequately. The persons who organise these illegal fishing operations, such as the operators and owners of vessels, often use flags of convenience and take advantage of the weak legal systems of flag States and coastal States. In this chapter it is argued that, in addition to coastal, port and flag States, the States of which such owners and operators are nationals also have a role to fulfil in the fight against illegal fishing.

In this chapter, the most common narratives relating to the function and purpose of investment treaties are analysed that emerged from our data. The overarching discursive framework of the narratives about IIAs’ purpose was marked by the faith in their important role in economic development of the studied countries (IIAs as articles of faith). This broader view was undergirded by the idea of a linear and progressive march of history, in which earlier state and economic formations are eventually transformed into the universally superior social order of capitalist legality, rule of law, and good governance (IIAs as progressive economic development). This broader progressive narrative about IIAs was translated in more specific narratives about IIAs in specific temporal and spatial contexts. International investment agreements were, thus, viewed either as a natural necessity, as a necessary (lesser) evil in the march towards economic progress, or simply as benign instruments that merely reflect the progress already undertaken. Finally, IIAs were also signed to express cultural affinity and played a symbolic role in showing political like-mindedness (IIAs as symbolic tokens of political affinity). In some cases, IIAs helped to project countries’ self-perception of their position in the stylised international relation hierarchy as ‘developed states’.

The sixth chapter applies the analytical framework for due diligence obligations to the field of human rights protection. The individual components of due diligence obligations are analyzed with regard to the specific risks and problems of human rights law. It addresses how knowledge of human rights risks can be established, how resource constraints alter human rights obligations in times of conflict and economic recession, and what reasonable measures of protection are required. Conclusions from the previous chapter are consulted in order to decide whether due diligence concepts and methods developed in other fields of international law might be fruitfully applied to the area of human rights protection. When analyzing the application of human rights due diligence obligations though, the chapter will also reveal that the implementation of such obligations is often hampered where states lack sufficient capacities to effectively regulate and control harmful non-state conduct.

Embedded in this analytical framework, the fifth chapter is dedicated to an analysis of how due diligence obligations are applied and implemented in different areas of international law. Since the standard of due diligence is highly context-specific, problems and prospects related to its application are best illustrated by taking a closer look at the standard’s implementation in concreto. To this end, three fields of international law are singled out in which due diligence obligations have already been prominently discussed and which show certain similarities to the area of human rights law: the protection of the environment, the fight against terrorist activities, and rather recently the combat against harmful cyber activities. Based on the analytical framework introduced in the previous chapter, the application of due diligence obligations is discussed for each field taking into account the relevant state practice, international jurisprudence, and scholarly writings.

The fourth chapter develops an abstract analytical framework of the different components of an international due diligence standard. It seeks to deduce those elements which due diligence obligations contain generally and irrespective of their application to specific fields of international law. With knowledge, capacities, and reasonableness three major components are identified: If a state knows of potential violations of international law, it is obliged to employ the reasonably available means at its disposal to prevent such violations or to sanction them should they occur nonetheless. The chapter then discusses common problems inherent in the application and implementation of due diligence obligations. Most notably, it elaborates on how the foreseeability threshold might be overcome; how the problem of diverging capacities could be addressed and whether all states have to adhere to the same standards of diligence; and finally how the vague and broad notion of reasonableness can be given substantial meaning.