Dynamic overview of sources of norms in the business and human rights normative universe

Given that dismissing soft law instruments as entirely non-binding and devoid of normative effect only exacerbates accountability gaps, Chapter Seven calls for replacing the rigid hard law/soft law divide with a more nuanced view of normativity as a continuum. Within this framework, it identifies three processes through which soft law can influence responsibility for business-related human rights abuses: domestication, judicialization, and contractualization. Domestication entails incorporating norms, principles, and standards from soft law instruments into domestic legal systems. Particular focus is placed on the spread of mandatory human rights due diligence (HRDD) legislation, especially in Europe. Judicialization refers to courts – national and international – drawing on soft law to interpret and apply hard law norms. Contractualization involves undertaking obligations, via contract, to comply with soft law standards. The chapter argues that hybrid responsibility should make substantial use of these processes, as the secondary normative effects they produce can meaningfully reduce corporate accountability gaps. It also considers whether HRDD domestication could contribute to the crystallization of new international norms, whether customary or general principles, but finds this unlikely due to the lack of sufficiently broad and consistent state practice.