Kari Otteburn
Dr. Kari Irwin Otteburn is a postdoctoral researcher at the Leuven Centre for Global Governance Studies. Her research focuses on the global governance of transnational economic activities, and particularly on different regulatory measures intended to mitigate the negative effects of globalization. Her research interests include business and human rights, including corporate accountability and access to remedy, and global sustainability governance, particularly via trade and investment policy.
She is currently a lead researcher for the FWO SBO project ‘Moderating due diligence through intermediary engagement’ (MEDIATE) and co-manages EU-RENEW, a Jean Monnet project funded by the EU's Erasmus Programme. She previously carried out research for two Horizon 2020 projects: Global Governance and the European Union: Future Trends and Scenarios (GLOBE) and Reconciling Europe with its Citizens through Democracy and Rule of Law (RECONNECT).
Fall semester 2025, she is teaching Global Environmental Politics. She regularly lectures on business and human rights, trade policy, sustainability policy, international organizations, and qualitative social science research methods.
She joined the centre in 2018 as a doctoral research fellow under the supervision of Dr. Axel Marx and Prof. Dr. Kolja Raube. Her doctoral thesis (publicly defended in September 2024) focused on access to remedy for extraterritorial business-related human rights abuses. The thesis advances a new conceptualization of 'effective remedy' for the business and human rights context that demands attention to substantive remedy outcomes. Otteburn employs this concept to critically assess the potential and limitations of nonjudicial mechanisms within the remedial architecture, providing new empirical research on remedy outcomes through the OECD National Contact Points using a mixed-methods approach that includes qualitative comparative analysis, process tracing, and the analysis of a novel database of 81 human rights Specific Instances. Ultimately, Otteburn argues that nonjudicial mechanisms present a means-ends paradox for violations beyond a certain degree of gravity, but identifies several features of institutional design that can improve their capacity as remedy institutions.
Kari holds a master's degree (magna cum laude) from KU Leuven in European Studies (Asia-Europe Interactions), and a bachelor's degree (magna cum laude) from Illinois Wesleyan University. In 2019, she was awarded the BICC&I Scriptum Award for her Master's thesis. Previously she has received the Critical Language Scholarship in Hindi from the US State Department and CAORC and the American Institute of Indian Studies Hindi Language Fellowship. Additionally, she was awarded the Donald R. Koehn Memorial Award for Excellence in the Humanities, the Illinois Wesleyan University Council of Women’s Woman of the Year Award, the University Immersion Program Scholarship at Sichuan University in Chengdu, China and the Technos International Scholarship at Technos College in Tokyo, Japan.
query=user:U0119513 year:[2014 TO 2026] &institution=lirias&from=1&step=20&sort=scdate
showing 1 to 20 of 21
Type
all | articles | presentations | conferences | chapters | other | reports | phd theses | book reviews | books | outreach | edited books | invited lectures
-
journal-articleOtteburn, Kari; 2025. Pathways to remedy for corporate human rights abuse: a qualitative comparative analysis of the institutional design of the OECD national contact points. International Journal of Human Rights; 2025; Vol. 29; iss. 8; pp. 1410 - 1435LIRIAS4220365
description
Publisher: Taylor & Francis (Routledge)
Published -
chapterOtteburn, Kari Irwin;Marx, Axel; 2025. The International Labour Organization. The International Law of Economic Integration; 2025; pp. 212 - 229 Publisher: Oxford University Press; Oxford keyboard_arrow_downLIRIAS4243564
description
The International Labour Organization (ILO) contributes to the law of international economic integration by ensuring that economic integration does not lead to a race to the bottom in terms of labour standards—thereby protecting both states’ competitiveness and workers’ rights. This chapter begins by tracing the history of the ILO, highlighting its unique tripartite structure. We then discuss how the ILO is governed and how it carries out its primary activities of setting and enforcing international labour standards. The chapter concludes by discussing the significant reach and global leadership of the ILO as well as some of the challenges facing the ILO, such as uneven ratification and implementation of ILO conventions and protocols, tensions related to its tripartite structure and enforcement limitations.
Published -
chapterOtteburn, Kari Irwin; 2025. Degrees of Remedy: Understanding Remedy Outcomes at the OECD National Contact Points. Exploring Corporate Human Rights Responsibilities in OECD Case Law; 2025; Vol. 14; pp. 103 - 133 Publisher: Springer keyboard_arrow_downLIRIAS4211573
description
Nonjudicial mechanisms such as the National Contact Points (NCPs) for the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises on Responsible Business Conduct play a prominent role in access to remedy for victims of extraterritorial human rights abuses resulting from business activities. Yet, a body of research has cast doubt on their effectiveness, highlighting numerous challenges of procedure and design. Considerably less attention, however, has been paid to remedy outcomes through nonjudicial mechanisms. In particular, the appropriateness of outcomes has not been evaluated vis-à-vis the alleged violations. This chapter presents and analyzes a new dataset of remedy outcomes for transnational business-related human rights abuses at the NCPs. The findings demonstrate that NCPs are fairly effective at providing access to minor forms of remedy but are unable to provide appropriate remedy for severe violations. As the remedial landscape evolves alongside new mandatory rules for corporate conduct, these findings may help better situate nonjudicial mechanisms within the remedial architecture.
Published -
bookreviewOtteburn, Kari Irwin; 2025. Vigilantes Beyond Borders: NGOs as Enforcers of International Law, by Mette Eilstrup-Sangiovanni and J.C. Sharman, Princeton University Press, 2022, 229 pages. Revue Critique de Droit International Privé; 2025; iss. 1; pp. 199 - 203LIRIAS4248933
description
Published -
thesis-dissertationOtteburn, Kari Irwin; 2024. To the Whetstone or the Drawing Board? Access to Remedy for Extraterritorial Business-Related Human Rights Violations. keyboard_arrow_downLIRIAS4167093
description
While debates surrounding economic globalization have persisted for decades, it is not necessary to take a side to appreciate that any potentially positive effects - for instance, economic growth or development - have been accompanied by numerous and varied adverse impacts on the planet and its inhabitants[1], including on human health, dignity, and quality of life. In pursuit of profit maximization and economic growth, business enterprises regularly exploit limited natural resources, spoil the environment, create unsafe and inequitable labour conditions, and engage in other activities that impinge on human rights. Many extraterritorial violations of human rights have been household news, especially industrial disasters resulting in significant loss of life such as the 1984 Bhopal disaster in India or the 2013 Rana Plaza factory collapse in Bangladesh. But a great many more have managed to avoid the news cycles. Indeed many impacts fail to garner attention or spark international outrage or concern[2], including those with effects that are not immediately felt, such as workers developing illnesses from exposure to toxic chemicals due to inadequate safety precautions in the work environment; those that take place in already marginalized communities, such as mass displacement of indigenous communities due to land seizure for resource extraction or commercial agriculture; or those that are seen as 'minor' violations or an inevitable consequence of global inequality, such as low or inadequate remuneration for work as depicted in the above verse from Bob Dylan's Union Sundown. Due in part to the transnational nature of global supply chains but also due to businesses' attempts to locate activities in jurisdictions with weaker regulations or regulatory capacity, many instances of human rights abuses by business enterprises are committed - usually through a corporate subsidiary, sub-contractor, or business partner - in a state other than the one in which they are headquartered[3]. The extraterritorial nature of these abuses and the intricacies of the corporate structure make these abuses uniquely difficult to address. Nevertheless, in the past few decades, there has been growing attention to the negative effects of extraterritorial business activities on human rights and a concomitant call for businesses to bear (at least some) responsibility for the harm they cause[4]. This new focus has moved from the margins to the mainstream, inspiring a variety of regulatory efforts to prevent, mitigate, and redress the negative impacts of business activities[5]. In general, however, these regulatory efforts have aimed to function alongside and within the existing liberal economic structures designed to promote economic advancement by minimizing business regulation and trade barriers. As such, these instruments and policies have upheld the division between public (state duties) and private responsibilities and have not sought to impose international legal obligations on businesses[6]. While states impose direct obligations on businesses operating within their territories, these obligations typically do not extend beyond state borders[7], with limited utility in today's transnational economic context. Multilateral instruments that directly apply to business activities have fallen into voluntary, or 'soft law', categories - taking the form of guidelines or (guiding) principles[8] - and have limited enforcement capacity. To supplement or supplant[9] initiatives at the state and multilateral levels, a surfeit of private initiatives and public-private hybrid initiatives have risen to prominence, but these are also voluntary, market-based and have had an overall limited impact on corporate behavior[10]. As a result, when extraterritorial violations do occur, the reliance on voluntarism and the limited obligations of businesses with respect to human rights have made ensuring victims have access to remedy - in terms of access to both an appropriate forum and an appropriate form of reparation - challenging. The legal systems of host states are often poorly equipped to handle human rights abuses resulting from transnational business activities. In the absence of an international legal framework and in light of limited extraterritorial human rights obligations of businesses[12], rightsholders are forced to rely on less conventional routes to remedy, such as filing claims through non-legal complaint processes or dispute mechanisms (often referred to as nonjudicial grievance mechanisms, discussed at length in Section 2) or seeking new, but risky, routes to home state courts through transnational tort litigation. However, neither of these pathways to remedy has proven reliable, often perpetuating existing or erecting new barriers to remedy. What follows is a question of global governance that forms the overarching research question guiding this doctoral thesis: How can business enterprises be held accountable for extraterritorial violations of human rights and how can those affected obtain remedy? While this question is not novel and has inspired a rich and growing interdisciplinary scholarly field referred to as 'business and human rights', an answer to it has remained elusive since most studies take a 'judicial' approach towards answering this question. These studies focus on the possibilities and limitations of home and host state courts to hold companies to account for transnational human rights violations. As a result, whereas the barriers to access to remedy through judicial fora have been meticulously catalogued, we know less about the opportunities and limitations presented by other nonjudicial mechanisms. Moreover, research has tended to prioritize questions concerning access to justice and to neglect the question of what constitutes an effective remedy outcome in the business and human rights context. As a result, when human rights abuses result from transnational business activities, it is unclear what victims are 'owed' or how harms should be repaired. This ambiguity has implications for how access to remedy at different remedial fora, including the outcomes for victims of business-related human rights violations, can be measured and evaluated. Within this context, this research project sets out to address three primary research gaps. First, existing scholarship on access to remedy is constrained by a degree of confusion surrounding what constitutes effective remedy for transnational business-related human rights violations, particularly regarding substantive outcomes. Second, while the suitability of nonjudicial mechanisms is debated in the business and human rights scholarship, often with reference to ex ante analysis of procedure and mandate, empirical research into the actual functioning and remedial outcomes of nonjudicial mechanisms is largely missing. As a result, despite the prominence of these mechanisms within the remedial architecture for extraterritorial human rights violations resulting from business activities, little is known about their actual potential or limitations and what role (if any) they should play in access to remedy. Third, despite business and human rights scholarship's significant emphasis on breaking down jurisdictional barriers to make transnational claims concerning business-related human rights violations actionable in home state courts, we know little about what happens once cases are successfully heard in home state courts. Because non-legal barriers to access to remedy through courts go far beyond jurisdictional constraints, an understanding of how such claims play out before a judge is still needed. To address these gaps, I first seek to determine how effective remedy outcomes for such harms can be conceptualized and evaluated. Secondly, I investigate the role of nonjudicial mechanisms in providing accountability and access to remedy for these abuses, with attention to both the types of cases handled by nonjudicial mechanisms and the observable remedy outcomes, as well as the impact of institutional design on the facilitation of remedy outcomes through these mechanisms. Finally, the dissertation refocuses on judicial fora, exploring the different explanatory conditions - beyond admissibility - that must come together for a successful remedy outcome through transnational tort litigation. In doing so, this dissertation attempts to better situate nonjudicial and judicial mechanisms within the overall remedial architecture for human rights abuses resulting from transnational business activities. [1] Skinner (2020); Ehrenfeld (2005); Palpacuer (2008); Grabs (2023); United Nations Human Rights Council, Business, planetary boundaries, and the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment: Report of the Special Rapporteur on the issue of human rights obligations relating to the enjoyment of a safe, clean, healthy and sustainable environment, David R. Boyd, A/HRC/55/43, 2 January 2024. [2] Amengual et al. (2022). [3] In this dissertation, following both conventions of international investment law and business and human rights scholarship, I will refer to the state in which an enterprise is domiciled as the 'home state' and the state in which a particular business activity is carried out as the 'host state'. [4] Ratner (2001). [5] Marx et al. (2022b). [6] Ratner (2001); Scott (2001); Clapham (2006); Krajewski (2023). [7] Backer (2015). [8] Such as the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises on Responsible Business Conduct, Paris: OECD Publishing, (1976) 2023 edition (hereafter, OECD Guidelines (2023)); International Labour Organization, Tripartite Declaration of Principles concerning Multinational Enterprises and Social Policy, (1977) 2022 edition (hereafter, ILO MNE Declaration (2022)); United Nations Human Rights Council, Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights: Implementing the United Nations 'Protect, Respect and Remedy' Framework, A/HRC/17/31 21, March 2011 (hereafter, UN Guiding Principles (2011); UN Global Compact, https://unglobalcompact.org/what-is-gc/mission/principles (accessed 14 May 2024). [9] Kolcava et al. (2021); Malhotra et al. (2019). [10] Frishling (2024); Rasche (2022); MSI Integrity, Not Fit-for-Purpose: The Grand Experiment of Multi-Stakeholder Initiatives in Corporate Accountability, Human Rights and Global Governance, July 2020; Pekdemir et al. (2015). [11] For a recent overview, see Gamze Erdem (2021); A lack of such a framework underpins the current efforts at the United Nations to develop a binding instrument (Human Rights Council, Elaboration of an international legally binding instrument on transnational corporations and other business enterprises with respect to human rights, A/HRC/RES/26/9, 14 July 2014).
Published -
internet-publicationOtteburn, Kari Irwin;Marx, Axel; 2023. Seeking Corporate Accountability: Progress and Pitfalls of Mandatory Due Diligence. Publisher: EU-RENEWLIRIAS4118798
description
Published -
journal-articleOtteburn, Kari Irwin; 2023. All in favour? Indian business interests and the India-EU FTA. Asia Europe Journal; 2023; Vol. 21; iss. 3LIRIAS4087263
description
Publisher: Springer (part of Springer Nature)
Published online -
reportJordana, Jacint;Saz, Angel;Marx, Axel;Holesch, Adam;Vandendriessche, Marie;Coen, David;Levi-Faur, David;Roger, Charles;Zürn, Michael;Tokhi, Alexandros;Otteburn, Kari Irwin;Schmitt, Lewin;Moreno Villar, Carlota; 2023. Trends in Global Governance and Future Scenarios 2030. GLOBE Report; 2023 Publisher: Institut Barcelona d’Estudis InternacionalsLIRIAS4108609
description
Published online -
journal-articleOtteburn, Kari Irwin; 2023. Reaching the limit: access to remedy through nonjudicial mechanisms for victims of business-related human rights abuses. International Journal of Human Rights; 2023; Vol. 28; iss. 2; pp. 220 - 244 keyboard_arrow_downLIRIAS4103372
description
Due to barriers to remedy through national and international legal fora, nonjudicial mechanisms (NJMs) are very often the only options for victims of transnational business-related human rights abuses (TBHRA) to seek remedy, even for serious and gross violations. Yet, it has been well-established that NJMs have been largely ineffective in providing access to remedy. Based on an assumption that improving the effectiveness of NJMs will result in better remedy outcomes for rightsholders, a variety of prescriptions have been put forth to make NJMs more effective. However, through a two-step empirical analysis of cases involving serious instances of TBHRA handled by the National Contact Points for the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, this article demonstrates that, even when operating effectively, NJMs are unequipped to provide certain forms of remedy and are particularly ill-suited to provide remedy proportional to serious instances of TBHRA. This article therefore advocates for a more nuanced understanding of the degrees of various forms of remedy and what NJMs are truly capable of providing, in order to better situate NJMs within the overall remedial architecture and to aid selection of the appropriate forum.
Publisher: Taylor & Francis (Routledge)
Published -
journal-articleOtteburn, Kari Irwin;Marx, Axel; 2022. A Glass Half-Empty or Half-Full? An Assessment of the Labour Provisions in the CAI from Chinese and European Perspectives. Journal of World Investment and Trade; 2022; Vol. 23; iss. 4; pp. 601 - 627 keyboard_arrow_downLIRIAS3779708
description
The EU- China Comprehensive Agreement on Investment (CAI) presents a balancing act in labour rights protection. For the EU, labour rights protection constitutes an integral part of every trade and investment agreement it negotiates. China rarely includes labour provisions in trade and investment agreements. This article discusses current EU and Chinese approaches to integrating labour rights in trade and investment agreements, then introduces the provisions included in the proposed text of the CAI, and finally compares the proposed provisions in the CAI to the current approaches of the parties, focusing on five issues: international commitments, domestic labour regu-lation, dispute settlement, cooperation and stakeholder engagement. The article finds that from a European perspective, the CAI might represent a step back, while from a Chinese perspective, it might represent a step forward.
Publisher: Brill Academic Publishers
Published online -
chapterOtteburn, Kari Irwin;Marx, Axel; 2022. Seeking remedies for corporate human rights abuses: What is the contribution of OECD National Contact Points?. Research Handbook on Global Governance, Business and Human Rights; 2022; pp. 229 - 253 Publisher: Edward Elgar; Cheltenham, UK keyboard_arrow_downLIRIAS3718440
description
Because existing legal frameworks have proven inadequate for the transnational regulation of business, various voluntary forms of governance are relied upon to fill the gaps. Of these, the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises ('the Guidelines') is unique. Though not legally binding on MNEs, it is one of the only government-backed multilateral instruments that applies directly to firms and which is enforced by a unique complaint mechanism referred to as 'National Contact Points' (NCPs). Though this complaint mechanism has been subject to considerable criticism, the fact remains that the NCPs are one of very few mechanisms for holding MNEs accountable for negative externalities – including human rights abuses – that arise through their business activities. However, the Guidelines and NCPs suffer from a lack of visibility, including in academic research. This chapter provides an overview of the history and functioning of the Guidelines and NCPs, before outlining the main discussions in the literature.
Published -
chapterMarx, Axel;Otteburn, Kari;Lica, Diana;Van Calster, Geert;Wouters, Jan; 2022. Global Governance of Business and Human Rights: An Introduction. Research Handbook on Global Governance, Business and Human Rights; 2022; pp. 1 - 21 Publisher: Edward Elgar Publishing; Cheltenham, UK keyboard_arrow_downLIRIAS3655486
description
This chapter introduces the approach to the handbook which comprehensively discusses key global governance initiatives in the realm of business and human rights in two parts. The first part describes and assesses several specific governance initiatives in the realm of business and human rights. The chapters of this part are organized according to three components of regulatory global governance: norm-setting, implementation and enforcement through complaint or grievance mechanisms. The second part focuses on a number of economic sectors covering primary, secondary and tertiary sectors. The final part of this introductory chapter assesses what the different contributions tell us about the current global governance of business and human rights and focusses on two main trends. First, we discuss the emergence of a business and human rights global governance regime. Next, the chapter focuses on the 'legalization' of the business and human rights regime.
Published -
chapterMarx, Axel;Otteburn, Kari Irwin; 2022. The global governance of development. Handbook on the Politics of International Development; 2022; pp. 91 - 106 Publisher: Edward Elgar; CheltenhamLIRIAS3752319
description
Published -
journal-articleMarx, Axel;Pertiwi, Sukmawani Bela;Depoorter, Charline;Hoornick, Michiel;Mursitama, Tirta Nugraha;Otteburn, Kari;Arnakim, Lili Yulyadi; 2021. What role for regional organizations in goal-setting global governance? An analysis of the role of the European Union and ASEAN in the Sustainable Development Goals. Global Public Policy and Governance; 2021; Vol. 1; iss. 4; pp. 421 - 445 keyboard_arrow_downLIRIAS3666236
description
This paper analyzes the current role of regional organizations in the implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and its 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). We construct a conceptual model and distinguish four potential roles that regional organizations can play in the implementation of the SDGs: the translating role, supporting role, coordinating role and monitoring role. We apply this framework to the European Union and ASEAN. The case studies are analyzed on the basis of document analysis from primary and secondary sources, voluntary national reviews and interviews. We show that regional organizations play different roles in the implementation of the SDGs.
Publisher: Springer
Published -
internet-publicationOtteburn, Kari Irwin; 2021. The OECD National Contact Points: A Promising External Regulator for Voluntary Sustainability Standards?. Publisher: Nova Centre on Business, Human Rights and the EnvironmentLIRIAS3718455
description
Published online -
journal-articleOtteburn, Kari Irwin; 2021. Surprising Reversal: Workers Obtain Remedy at the Belgian National Contact Point for the OECD Guidelines in Rare Agreement. International Labor Rights Case Law; 2021; Vol. 7; iss. 2; pp. 136 - 138LIRIAS3486767
description
Publisher: Brill - Nijhoff
Published -
presentationMarx, Axel;Pertiwi, Sukmawani Bela;Depoorter, Charline;Hoornick, Michiel;Mursitama, Tirta Nugraha;Otteburn, Kari;Arnakim, Lili Yulyadi; 2021. The Missing Link? The Role of Regional Organizations in the UN Sustainable Development Goals.LIRIAS4150967
description
Published -
reportDepoorter, Charline;Marx, Axel;Otteburn, Kari; 2021. Multistakeholder Governance. Publisher: Horizon 2020 Framework Programme of the European UnionLIRIAS3666224
description
Published online -
journal-articleOtteburn, Kari Irwin; 2021. No Guidance at the Belgian oecd National Contact Point: Can Mediation Alone “Further the Effectiveness of the Guidelines”?. International Labor Rights Case Law; 2021; Vol. 7; iss. 1; pp. 33 - 38LIRIAS3420681
description
Publisher: Brill - Nijhoff
Published -
reportOtteburn, Kari Irwin;Marx, Axel; 2020. Shortcomings of the current governance and institutional models. Shortcomings of the current governance and institutional models; 2020LIRIAS4181128
description
Published