scholarly journals The Hague Rules on Business and Human Rights Arbitration

2020 ◽  
Vol 114 ◽  
pp. 149-155
Author(s):  
Ursula Kriebaum

Let me start with the goals of the Hague Rules on Business and Human Rights Arbitration. The Business and Human Rights Arbitration Project dates back to 2013. In that year the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the Kiobel v. Shell case that the U.S. Alien Tort Statute of 1789 has no extraterritorial effect. It denied victims of human rights abuses by companies access to U.S. courts to obtain damages for alleged violations. As a consequence, the idea arose that arbitration could be used as an alternative route for dispute resolution available to corporations and rights holders to resolve their disputes in the business and human rights field.

2013 ◽  
Vol 107 (4) ◽  
pp. 858-863 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vivian Grosswald Curran ◽  
David Sloss

In Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., the Supreme Court held that “the presumption against extraterritoriality applies to claims under the [Alien Tort Statute (ATS)], and that nothing in the statute rebuts that presumption.” The Court preserved the possibility that claims arising from conduct outside the United States might be actionable under the ATS “where the claims touch and concern the territory of the United States ... with sufficient force to displace the presumption against extraterritorial application.” However, the Court’s decision apparently sounds the death knell for “foreign-cubed” human rights claims under the ATS—that is, cases in which foreign defendants committed human rights abuses against foreign plaintiffs in foreign countries.


Author(s):  
Bradley Curtis A

This chapter focuses on litigation under the Alien Tort Statute, which provides for jurisdiction over suits brought by aliens for torts in violation of international law. The chapter begins by exploring Congress’s likely intent in enacting the Statute in 1789, and how the Statute may have related to Article III of the Constitution (concerning the powers of the federal courts). The chapter then describes how the Statute received little attention until the Filartiga decision in 1980, which allowed for it to be used by aliens to sue other aliens for human rights abuses committed abroad. The chapter proceeds to explore a variety of doctrinal issues relating to this human rights litigation, including the source of the cause of action, the standards for bringing a claim, and the ability to sue corporations. The chapter also considers the contours of the Torture Victim Protection Act, which Congress enacted in 1992 to facilitate certain human rights claims. The chapter then discusses limitations on Alien Tort Statute litigation imposed by the Supreme Court in its 2004 decision in Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, as well as the rise of suits brought against corporate defendants brought under the Statute. The chapter concludes by discussing the Supreme Court’s 2013 decision in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum, in which the Court substantially curtailed the territorial reach of claims that could be brought under the Statute, and the Court’s 2018 decision in Jesner v. Arab Bank, in which the Court disallowed suits under the Statute against foreign corporations.


2020 ◽  
Vol 23 (3) ◽  
pp. 465-488
Author(s):  
Corina Vodă

The insufficient level of protection afforded to human rights violations caused by business-related activities of multinational enterprises has recently begun to garner increased attention. On an intergovernmental level, the elaboration of an internationally binding treaty regulating the activities of transnational corporations is underway. States have also taken initiatives on a national level to reflect their commitment in implementing the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. In both respects, much work remains ahead. Against this background, a group of prominent lawyers have suggested the use of arbitration as an alternative venue for resolving business and human rights disputes. After a span over five years of concept elaboration, public consultation and drafting, the idea has materialised in the creation of the Hague Rules on Business and Human Rights Arbitration (the Hague Rules or Rules), which were officially launched on 12 December 2019. This paper aims to take stock of the proposed Rules and the context of their appearance and examine if arbitration is a suitable medium for resolving business-related human rights infringements. In doing so, it discusses the legal framework governing the confluence of business and human rights as well as the features which speak both in favor and against arbitration as a means of settling business-related human rights disputes. The provisions of the Hague Rules are addressed in detail, particularly where default rules where tailored to better respond to the needs of human rights disputes. The paper concludes with an assessment of arbitration’s potential to ensure protection and enforcement of human rights in international business and reflects whether the Rules are robust enough to empower victims in this endeavor.


2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 173-187
Author(s):  
Irina Artamonova

This article analyses the Hague Rules on Business and Human Rights Arbitration that were published in December 2019. The Hague Rules state how arbitration proceedings should resolve disputes arising from the influence of commercial activity in general on human rights. The purpose of the article is to assess the efficiency of the Hague Rules in settling such disputes by examining their features. The first part of the article studies the possibility of referring human rights disputes to international arbitration. In particular, the author examines the current practice of international investment tribunals and specifies the following situations where arbitrators deal with issues of human rights violations: to accept jurisdiction over counterclaims by host states against foreign investors; to interpret and provide guidance for establishing international investment law standards; to reasonably reduce the amount of compensation awarded to foreign investors in the event of violation by the host state. The author also emphasises that the application of the Hague Rules will enable tribunals to fully exercise their jurisdiction over human rights disputes and to examine such disputes on their merits. Having established the general possibility of referring human rights disputes to international arbitration, the author proceeds by analysing certain features of the Hague Rules, and then considering provisions on the importance of collaborative settlement mechanisms, special requirements to arbitrators, culturally appropriate arbitration proceedings, the possibility of bringing multiparty claims, enhanced requirements to the transparency of the arbitration proceedings and other issues. Finally, the author delves into certain challenges that may impede the practical application of the Hague Rules. In particular, such challenges may include: the fact that the Hague Rules do not solve the problem of the companies’ lack of obligations to protect human rights; the problem of enforcing awards taken in accordance with the Hague Rules; the hindered access of individuals to arbitration proceedings. Despite the above challenges, the author concludes that the Hague Rules may become a rather powerful instrument as an additional mechanism to resolve human rights disputes.


2021 ◽  
pp. 1-18
Author(s):  
William S. Dodge

On June 17, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court delivered its opinion in Nestlé USA, Inc. v. Doe, a human rights case brought under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS), alleging that U.S. companies aided and abetted child slavery in Ivory Coast. By a vote of 8 to 1, the Court held that the claims were impermissibly extraterritorial because nearly all the conduct occurred abroad. The Court left open the possibility that the implied cause of action under the ATS applies to U.S. corporations.


2018 ◽  
Vol 112 ◽  
pp. 323-323
Author(s):  
Jill Goldenziel

Welcome to the Business and Human Rights in Action panel, sponsored by the ASIL Human Rights Interest Group. Business and Human Rights is an evolving field that has gone through many changes in recent years, with new legislative developments and private initiatives designed to improve corporate social responsibility practices and respect for human rights. Meanwhile, the Alien Torts Claims Act has been limited by the U.S. Supreme Court, and stakeholders have faced challenges involving corporations in transitional justice initiatives.


2018 ◽  
Vol 112 (4) ◽  
pp. 720-727
Author(s):  
Rebecca J. Hamilton

The exclusion of transnational human rights litigation from U.S. federal courts is, for most practical purposes, now complete. On April 24, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court delivered a 5–4 ruling inJesner v. Arab Bank,deciding that foreign corporations cannot be sued under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS).


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document