In this contribution EU soft governance in the broader field of social security is addressed. Central is EU governance by the Open Method of Coordination and to what extent this method interacts with other governance instruments, including recommendations, resolutions and EU funds. After mapping the involved governance instruments, the chapter assesses the legal integration capacity of the main instruments involved and to what extent these instruments interact with each other. The conclusion is that although the integration capacity of the individual instruments is relatively weak, their interaction shows a coordination of governance mechanisms, creating a more coherent and consistent policy, which results in a potentially stronger integration capacity of the whole. At the same time, when this is positioned back within the Europe 2020 Strategy and the European Semester, the authors come to the conclusion that EU governance of social security remains considerably weak and therefore remains subordinated to economic and financial governance.
Paul Copeland and Beryl ter Haar
Beryl ter Haar and Attila Kun
A study of the EU’s CSR policies is interesting for various reasons, among which its unique approach on businesses as ‘a legal institution designed to resolve collective action problems between stakeholders and to serve as a repository of collectively held rights’ (Carse and Njoya, 2017). While the EU incorporates global developments, such as the ILO’s tripartite declaration on MNEs, the OECD Guidelines, and the UN’s Guiding Principles, it has also created its own dynamic of CSR policy. Furthermore, we explore developments on CSR within some new and some old Member States. More generally, we analyse how the EU interacts with global initiatives as well as national CSR initiatives (vertical CSR governance) and we reflect on the level of norms promoted by the various governance levels and initiatives (horizontal CSR issues) with the argument that there is a need for increased consistency among various levels of the complex network of CSR – Business and Human Rights governance.
Janice R. Bellace and Beryl ter Haar
Virginia Leary once observed a curious phenomenon: that labour law and human rights law are on parallel tracks that rarely cross. This phenomenon is unexpected because some of the most obvious violations of individuals’ human rights, for instance, slave labour or child labour, occur when they are working. But until recently many human rights scholars veered off and focused on civil and political rights, all but ignoring rights that are violated when people are working. It is as if individuals, when they are viewed as workers, are compartmentalized, sealed off and cast to the side in human rights scholarship. This may result from the fact that some see labour law as governing work relationships and fail to consider the human rights dimensions of the employment or work arrangement. It may also result from the fact that those human rights scholars who focus on civil and political rights tend to see the State as the actor who violates the human rights of individuals, either directly or by failing to enforce the law or remedy violations. This is a very public law focus, and most employment and work relations are the subject of private law. Except when considering the most blatant situations (such as slavery), human rights scholars typically overlook how human rights guarantees affect people at work. This lack of consideration may be related to the fact that most employment and work relationships flow from an agreement by the worker to perform work in return for compensation.