Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
The article examines the relationship between State responsibility and corporate accountability for environmental harm under international law, with particular emphasis on the evolving standard of due diligence. It addresses the accountability gap that arises when environmental harm is caused by corporate actors but cannot be directly attributed to State organs under the traditional doctrine of State responsibility. This issue is particularly significant in the Asian context, where many developing countries face the challenge of balancing economic development and investment attraction with sustainable environmental protection. The article aims to analyse how international legal frameworks on State responsibility conceptualise States’ obligations to regulate, prevent, and respond to environmental damage caused by private corporate activities. From this perspective, the paper begins by examining State responsibility for corporate-related environmental harm under international law, focusing on State obligations to prevent, regulate, and remedy environmental harm, as well as State responsibility for environmental harm caused by corporate and other non-State actors. It then analyses due diligence as a bridge between state responsibility and corporate accountability. Finally, it considers the implications of due diligence for corporate accountability in the Asian context. T The article concludes that due diligence may help reduce accountability gaps in cases where environmental harm is generated by corporate activity but facilitated by weak regulation, inadequate supervision, or ineffective enforcement.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Nguyen et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: