Střety zájmů při ochraně biodiverzity a klimatu

it has developed, and what its fundamental elements are, which should be part of any high-quality legal framework for due diligence. The aim of this paper is to examine these fundamental questions of sustainability due diligence from a legal perspective. The paper therefore first places due diligence in its historical context and examines how it gradually made its way into various areas of law and human activity, from private law to international law to due diligence in commercial transactions and finally to the field of human rights and sustainability. It reflects on what due diligence has in common in these different areas and how it dif fers in each area. The paper then focuses on the fundamental elements of due diligence which characterize it and shape its place in the legal system. The paper points out that some conceptual features of due diligence carry risks as to how effective due diligence will actually be and whether it will be able to deliver what we expect of it. Due dili gence cannot therefore be seen as the only possible means of protecting human rights and promoting sustainability, but as one of various, albeit important and difficult to replace, strategies of sustainability. 2. Emergence and Essence of the Concept of Sustainability Due Diligence At this point, I do not wish to cover all the nuances of the development of the concept of due diligence in law. 6 The aim is merely to highlight the main trends in its development in order to understand the essence of due diligence. The roots of due diligence in law can generally be traced back to private law. Roman law, in particular, established the basis for the legal concept of standards of care, al though the term “due diligence” was not specifically used back (e.g. the standard of diligentia boni patris familias ). 7 These various standards of care were key institutions in both contractual and noncontractual obligation law. In the former, it was primar ily a tool for risk allocation. For example, in a purchase contract, the question was whether the duty to prevent unjustified damage should primarily lie with the buyer ( caveat emptor , e.g. by properly inspecting the purchased item before and after the purchase) or the seller ( caveat venditor , e.g. by providing warranties and guarantees). 8 In non-contractual law, the standard of care is intended to encourage everyone to act prudently and avoid causing unjustified harm. In a similar sense, the standard of care also has its place today in criminal law, for example. 9 6 In more detail, see e.g. BACKER, Larry Catá – METHVEN O’BRIEN, Claire. Introduction: the Current State and Future Trajectories of Human Rights Due Diligence Laws . Online. 18. 8. 2024. Available at http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4929209 [citováno 2025-08-31]. 7 IBBETSON, David. How the Romans Did for Us: Ancient Roots of the Tort of Negligence. University of New South Wales Law Journal . 2003, Vol. 26, No. 2, pp. 475-514. 8 LEVINESS, Charles T. Caveat Emptor Versus Caveat Venditor. Maryland Law Review . 1943, Vol. 7, pp. 177200. 9 See also ALBUQUERQUE, Beatriz. The interplay between environmental crime and corporate sustai-

56