Industrial accidents like the Deepwater Horizon blowout have shown a need for regulatory responses to prevent them. They include outside governmental regulation as well as rules on the internal functioning of industrial enterprises, that is, corporate governance. Flaws in corporate governance have been a cause of major industry disasters. Relevant rules should reflect the social responsibility of enterprises and be the basis for, or expression of, a culture of risk preparedness. Rules of corporate governance for reducing the risk of environmental disasters are necessary to ensure compliance with legislative or industrial standards. They include a comprehensive approach to risk definition, an adequate procedural framework for dealing with risk ranging from early risk awareness to provisions on dealing with the consequences of disasters, as well as appropriate stakeholder participation and transparency.
One of the conflict lines which characterize the current international order still is that between what, for the sake of abbreviation or simplification, is called the Global South and the Global North. The question is whether and to what extent different historic positions of economic development and society determine the participation of the states belonging to the Global South in shaping the international legal order. To demonstrate the attitude of the Global South towards IHL law-making, this comment elaborates on three issues: did these countries have an autonomous development of IHL and human rights before their entry in the club and/or after that entry? What is the position of the states of the Global South, after their entry into the club, in respect of global or universal law-making? Have the autonomous concepts and specific interests of the Global South had an impact on the global development of IHL?