Following the 2011 endorsement of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs), states have begun to implement National Action Plans (NAPs) to operationalize the UNGPs. Using a case study approach and applying a conceptual framework for polycentric governance, this article aims to provide an early assessment of the effectiveness of NAPs adopted by the United Kingdom and the United States to combat one of the worst human rights abuses in global supply chains: modern slavery. This study demonstrates that both NAPs contain elements addressing the governance gaps surrounding modern slavery, such as enacting new laws, adapting existing regulations, strengthening multi-stakeholder mechanisms for business accountability, and promoting innovation. However, it is argued that the NAPs themselves were not the catalysts for the majority of these measures. This article concludes that states should optimize the five characteristics of polycentric governance outlined in this study to improve the relevance and effectiveness of NAPs as drivers of change.

As of October 2018, 21 states have adopted National Action Plans on Business and Human Rights (NAPs), with several more in different phases of development. This is an important political step to raise awareness of the importance of intragovernmental policy coherence and of the need to move forward to prevent human rights abuses linked to business activity. However, despite the global intergovernmental support to such policy strategies, the actual effectiveness of NAPs needs to be called into question: do they represent progress, or are they a mirage to block possible avenues of development? Currently existing NAPs have done little (yet) to ensure more effective protection in key policy areas, including trade and investment, state-owned enterprises, and particularly in relation to legislative developments and access to remedy. This contribution seeks to analyse the merits of developing NAPs, the importance of ensuring they become only the very first step towards a more effective protection of human rights, and to question whether their importance needs to be adjusted to what they really are: policy tools with limited effects and with a politically linked time frame.

‘Women, peace, security’ has now firmly emerged as a distinct category for attention by international law, international policy and programming approaches for governments and activists alike. UN Security Council Resolution 1325 is the pillar of this agenda and there is questionable evidence of whether the kind of reforms envisioned through SCR 1325 have truly taken place and whether progress, if any, has been made towards its implementation. High expectations are pinned to the more recent and related resolutions SCR1820 (2008), SCR1888 (2009) and SCR1889 (2009) recently adopted by the Security Council. Increasingly, the focus has been on the potential offered through the development of ‘action plans’ as possible ‘solutions’ to the current deficit. In this article action plans are examined and a snap-shot of the ways in which ‘National Action Plans for the implementation of SCR 1325’ are being developed and the increasing role they are playing in international debate on the theme of ‘women, peace and security’ is presented. The article argues that implementation of these resolutions requires reformist and radical interventions that create fundamental change. Factors affecting the potential of these plans to encompass this kind of approach are outlined, focusing on the process and content aspects of developing action plans. The article highlights that while action plans are generating positive incentives to compel states to act, caution is required before proclaiming them to be the ‘antidote’ to the existing gulf between the principles of the Resolution and effective policy response and implementation. Commentary on emerging trends and some suggestions on possible avenues for moving forward conclude the article.