Global and Comprehensive Regimes: The un System
The scope of multinational economic policy regimes must be defined in at least two different dimensions: 1) geographic or political scope, referring to spatial and/or other jurisdictional dimensions of the regime; and 2) functional scope, referring to the kinds of activities over which the regime is intended to have some influence. The geographic/political scope of the European Union (EU), for example, is limited to certain countries in Europe that have opted and been accepted for membership. The functional scope of most multinational regimes is also typically limited; they deal only with the specific set of concerns (e.g., trade, air travel, environmental issues) agreed upon among their participants. A regime that is (at least in principle) open to all participants that might have an interest in its activities, or that takes actions intended to affect all parts of the world, may be termed global. A regime that may (again, at least in principle) address any and all concerns that might arise among its participants, without regard to specific prior agreement as to the appropriateness of the inquiry, may be termed comprehensive. (National political regimes, i.e., governments, are functionally comprehensive within their individual borders.)
Implementing international codes of conduct for multinational enterprises
tary character and not legally binding. This comment will deal only with one specific aspect, perhaps the most difficult of all: the manner of implementation. Before going into the subject I shall first give a bird's eye view of the Codes and an analysis of its legal character. Then the implementation provisions contained in the OECD Guidelines, the ILO Principles and the draft of the UN Code will be given closer consideration, followed by some provisional conclusions which might be drawn from that comparison. In reviewing the present situation, three Codes can be mentioned which are already, or nearly, in effect:
Product safety and product liability — An analysis of the EEC Council Directive of 25 July 1985 on the approximation of the laws, regulations, and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning liability for defective products
After more than ten years of fierce European product liability debate, the Council has finally promulgated the Directive 85/374 in an attempt to harmonize Member State law about the responsibility for defective products. The directive starts out from the principle of strict liability, but allows certain exceptions mostly concerning the so-called “state of the art” which, however, according to the author should be narrowly interpreted. Compensation due to the consumer because of damage suffered from a defective product includes both personal injury and property damage, but does not expressly allow for pain and suffering. The directive gives Member States power to have (global) ceilings for personal injury compensation, and contains rigid limitations for property damages. Implementation of the directive must be undertaken by the Member States by August 1, 1988, but leaves it to their discretion to have different rules concerning liability for agricultural products and for development risks, thus putting law approximation in danger. In his conclusion, the author is of the opinion that the directive is less a means to protect the consumer in the event of damage than a means of regulating safety aspects of products freely circulating in the Common Market. It is the task of the judges — of the Member States and the European Court of Justice — to determine the safety standards of products and to harmonize these within the EEC.ZusammenfassungDie nach über zehnjähriger heftiger Diskussion erlassene Produkthaftungsrichtlinie der Europäischen Gemeinschaft führt eine verschuldensunabhängige Fehlerhaftung des Herstellers und ihm gleichgestellter Personen für gefährliche Produkte ein. Der Fehlerbegriff knüpft dabei an die “erwartbare Sicherheit” an, ist also aus Abnehmersicht zu definieren. Im Zuge eines Kompromisses ist die strikte Fehlerhaftung allerdings von Ausnahmen “durchlöchert” worden, die vom Autor kritisch analysiert and angesichts des Zweckes der Richtlinie einschränkend ausgelegt werden. Die Ersatzansprüche des geschädigten Verbrauchers umfassen sowohl Personenwie auch Sachschaden, weisen jedoch empfindliche Einschränkungen auf, etwa die nicht ausdrückliche Gewährleistung von Schmerzensgeld, die Möglichkeit, globale Haftungshöchstgrenzen für Personenschäden vorzusehen, und die Selbstbeteiligung bei Sachschäden.Die Richtlinie ist bis zum 1. August 1988 von den Mitgliedstaaten umzusetzen, erlaubt jedoch Sonderregeln im Bereich der Haftung für landwirtschaftliche Produkte und Entwicklungsrisiken, die dem Vereinheitlichungszweck im Wege stehen. Angesichts der geringen praktischen Relevanz des Kompensationsgedankens in der Richtlinie kommt der Autor zu dem Schluß, daß sie primär als Sicherheitsregelung für gefährliche Produkte in der EG anzusehen ist. Die Bestimmung der Standards obliegt dabei letztendlich den nationalen wie europäischen Gerichten, die gleichzeitig auf eine Optimierung des Sicherheitszieles und auf eine Vereinheitlichung des Haftpflichtrechts im Interesse des freien, ungestörten Warenverkehrs zu achten haben.