Conclusion: Patterns and Dynamics of Self-Regulatory Impact

Abstract

Aware of the empirical observation that international law, so far, rarely extends to regulating corporate behaviour (Clapham 2006; Haufler 2006), and scholarly allegations that industry se If-regulation is responsible for or at least reinforces this regulatory gap (Fuchs 2005; Hanlon 2008), this book sought to investigate the impact of self-regulation on — strictly intergovernmental — legalization. Legalization as a concept is not to be confused with Public International Law in its formal definition. Instead, legalization is to be understood as a processual phenomenon involving gradual change towards more law-like forms of international governance. Law-likeness can increase in any one of three distinct legalization components: substantive, institutional and procedural legalization. Substantive legalization describes how far new international rules impose more intensive onus on actors, and in the case of the present study, on corporations, while institutional legalization measures the formal legal character of these rules. Lastly, procedural legalization describes the extent to which international processes that precede or follow the emergence of the law itself are governed by due process principles and thereby control the exercise of power.