@article{DawsonThielboerger, author = {Dawson, Mark and Thielb{\"o}rger, Pierre}, title = {Should there be a 5\% entry threshold for elections to the European Parliament? : The view of the German Constitutional Court}, series = {MJ - Maastricht Journal of European \& Comparative Law}, volume = {18}, journal = {MJ - Maastricht Journal of European \& Comparative Law}, number = {4}, publisher = {Intersentia}, address = {Cambridge [u.a.]}, issn = {1023-263X}, pages = {603 -- 604}, language = {en} } @article{DawsonAugensteinThielboerger, author = {Dawson, Mark and Augenstein, Daniel and Thielb{\"o}rger, Pierre}, title = {The UNGPs in the European Union: The Open Coordination of Business and Human Rights?}, series = {Business and Human Rights Journal}, volume = {3}, journal = {Business and Human Rights Journal}, number = {1}, doi = {10.1017/bhj.2017.30}, pages = {1 -- 22}, abstract = {The article examines the implementation of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs) in the European Union via National Action Plans (NAPs). We argue that some of the shortcomings currently observed in the implementation process could effectively be addressed through the Open Method of Coordination (OMC) - a governance instrument already used by the European Union (EU) in other policy domains. The article sketches out the polycentric global governance approach envisaged by the UNGPs and discusses the institutional and policy background of their implementation in the EU. It provides an assessment of EU member states' NAPs on business and human rights, as benchmarked against international NAP guidance, before relating experiences with the existing NAP process to the policy background and rationale of the OMC and considering the conditions for employing the OMC in the business and human rights domain. Building on a recent opinion of the EU Fundamental Rights Agency, the article concludes with a concrete proposal for developing an OMC on business and human rights in the EU.}, language = {en} }