JURISDICTION OF THE ENGLISH COURTS OVER OVERSEAS HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS

2016 ◽  
Vol 75 (3) ◽  
pp. 468-471
Author(s):  
Ekaterina Aristova
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Parent Company ◽  
Foreign Subsidiary ◽  
Human Rights Violations ◽  
High Court ◽  
Foreign State ◽  
Forum Non Conveniens ◽  
Overseas Operations

IN Lungowe v Vedanta Resources Plc [2016] EWHC 975 (TCC), the High Court allowed a claim to be heard in England against parent company incorporated in England and its foreign subsidiary in relation to the overseas subsidiary's operations. The judge considered whether the claim against the English-domiciled defendant could be stayed on the basis of forum non conveniens, and whether jurisdiction could be established over its foreign subsidiary as a necessary and proper party to the case. The overall analysis of the judgment suggests that (1) the claims against the parent company in relation to the overseas operations of the foreign subsidiary can be heard in the English courts and (2) the existence of an arguable claim against the English-domiciled parent company also establishes jurisdiction of the English courts over the subsidiary even if the factual basis of the case occurs almost exclusively in the foreign state.

American and Canadian Civil Actions Alleging Human Rights Violations Abroad by Oil and Gas Companies

2008 ◽  
Vol 45 (3) ◽  
pp. 653 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonathan Horlick ◽  
Joe Cyr ◽  
Scott Reynolds ◽  
Andrew Behrman
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Oil And Gas ◽  
The United States ◽  
Human Rights Violations ◽  
Law Of Nations ◽  
Forum Non Conveniens ◽  
The Government ◽  
Oil And Gas Companies ◽  
Political Question ◽  
The U.S

Under the United States Alien Tort Statute, which permits non-U.S. citizens to bring lawsuits in U.S. courts for human rights violations that are violations of the law of nations, plaintiffs have filed claims against multinational oil and gas corporations for the direct or complicit commission of such violations carried out by the government of the country in which the corporation operated. In addition to exercising jurisdiction over U.S. corporations, U.S. courts have exercised jurisdiction in cases involving non-U.S. defendants for alleged wrongful conduct against non-U.S. plaintiffs committed outside the U.S.The exercise of jurisdiction by U.S. courts over non-U.S. defendants for alleged wrongful conduct against non-U.S. plaintiffs committed outside of the U.S. raises serious questions as to the jurisdictional foundation on which the power of U.S. courts to adjudicate them rests. Defences that foreign defendants can raise against the exercise of jurisdiction by the U.S. courts are an objection to the extraterritorial assertion of jurisdiction, the act of state doctrine, the political question doctrine, forum non conveniens, and the principle of comity. These defences are bolstered by the support of the defendant’s home government and other governments.

Die Haftung der Muttergesellschaft und ihres Vorstands für Menschenrechtsverletzungen im Konzern

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sophie Nordhues
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Multinational Companies ◽  
Parent Company ◽  
Duty Of Care ◽  
Human Rights Violations ◽  
The Board Of Directors

Given the increasing number of human rights violations by multinational companies, the call for liability of western companies is growing louder and louder. The question whether such liability already exists de lege lata has so far been answered only fragmentarily. With her paper on the liability of multinational companies for human rights violations, the author fills this gap. The author not only investigates the liability of a parent company, but also examines whether compliance duties of the board of directors comprise a group-wide obligation to prevent human rights violations. While an explicit implementation of such duty of care has repeatedly been considered, but not yet realised, in Germany, the French legislator has already implemented an obligation to monitor compliance with human rights. Based on this act, the author examines how the liability of multinational companies could be structured de lege ferenda.

Human Rights Litigation against Multinationals in Practice

2021 ◽  
pp. 58-84
Author(s):  
Daniel Leader
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Supply Chain ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Group Actions ◽  
Child Labour ◽  
Parent Company ◽  
Duty Of Care ◽  
Court Decisions ◽  
Ball Rolling ◽  
Forum Non Conveniens

Daniel Leader reviews multinational human rights cases that have developed English law on jurisdiction and parent company liability. He considers the first batch of parent company cases that started the ball rolling in the 1990s, leading to the establishment of the parent company duty of care principle in Chandler v. Cape. He explains the principles of the 2019 and 2021 Supreme Court decisions in Lungowe v. Vedanta and Opkabi v. Shell, and the first trial of a parent company case, where an international auditor was found in breached of its duty to act ethically. The key principles developed on jurisdiction and forum non conveniens are explained. He reviews security and human rights cases, including recent settlements against Gemfields and Kakuzi. He also reviews supply chain cases arising from shipbreaking and child labour on Malawian tobacco farms. Procedural and practical issues concerning discovery, group actions, witness anonymity, and funding and viability of cases are outlined.

The admissibility of evidence obtained through human rights violations in Zambia: Revisiting Liswaniso v The People (1976) Zambia Law Reports 277

2019 ◽  
Vol 23 (3) ◽  
pp. 316-329
Author(s):  
Jamil Ddamulira Mujuzi
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Human Rights Violations ◽  
Bill Of Rights ◽  
High Court ◽  
The People ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Law Reports

In the 1976 case of Liswaniso v The People, the Zambian Supreme Court held that illegally obtained evidence is admissible as long as it is relevant. Since then, unsuccessful attempts have been made to convince the Supreme Court and the High Court to reconsider this position, especially when the evidence in question has been obtained in violation of a right in the Bill of Rights. Recent decisions from the Supreme Court show that the court is unlikely to change its position on this issue. In this article, the author suggests ways in which the Supreme Court could relax, without necessarily overruling, its rule in the Liswaniso when dealing with evidence obtained through violating human rights.

scholarly journals Investigating Extra-territorial Human Rights Violations in Conflict: A Principled Disharmony

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Daniel Hunt
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Human Rights Violations ◽  
High Court ◽  
British Occupation ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Institutional Responses ◽  
Domestic Courts ◽  
United Kingdom Government ◽  
Southern Iraq

<p>This paper discusses a sequence of litigation concerning attempts by Iraqi citizens to have the United Kingdom Government investigate their claims of ill-treatment and death by British soldiers during the six-year British occupation of Basra, Southern Iraq. This paper uses the litigation as a foil to examine broader issues arising from the extra-territorial application of the duty to effectively investigate rights violations under the European Convention on Human Rights, an unprecedented occurrence. Specifically, it compares the duty of effective investigation to comparative institutional responses to human rights violations in conflict. These mechanisms have developed a broader set of victim-oriented objectives in dealing with violations and this paper argues the duty of effective investigation is comparatively deficient. It then looks at the manner in which the domestic courts have applied the duty, arguing that the various factors have driven the High Court to adopt a limited model of investigation.</p>

Perspectives on the Development and Significance of Tort Litigation against Multinational Parent Companies

2021 ◽  
pp. 24-57
Author(s):  
Richard Meeran
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Parent Company ◽  
Cross Border ◽  
Business And Human Rights ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Forum Non Conveniens ◽  
Tort Litigation ◽  
Concurrent Development ◽  
Parent Companies

Richard Meeran explains the genesis of tort-based multinational human rights litigation in the United Kingdom, including some striking features, events, and judgments in original cases of Connelly v. Rio Tinto, Ngcobo v. Thor Chemical, and Lubbe v. Cape plc cases and their impact on the development of English law relating parent company liability leading to the precedents in the Chandler v. Cape, Vedanta, and Okpabi v. Shell cases. He offers insights on strategic litigation from these and other multinational cases. He outlines the key legal, procedural, and practical barriers to justice for victims, with particular emphasis on forum non conveniens, funding litigation, and the interrelationship of the barriers in deterring victims’ lawyers. He considers the concurrent development and integration of multinational human rights litigation and business and human rights including in the UN Guiding Principles. He outlines the potential for cross-border collaboration between lawyers to pursue cases in multinational host States.

The Admissibility of Evidence Obtained through Human Rights Violations in Ghana: Analysing Cubagee v Asare and Others (NO. J6/04/2017) [2018] GHASC 14 (28 February 2018)

2019 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 81-105
Author(s):  
Jamil Ddamulira Mujuzi
Keyword(s):  
South Africa ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Human Rights Violations ◽  
African Countries ◽  
High Court ◽  
Important Decision ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Court Of Appeal

Abstract The Constitution of Ghana, unlike those of other African countries such as Zimbabwe, Kenya, and South Africa is silent on the issue of the admissibility of evidence obtained through human rights violations. Jurisprudence from Ghana demonstrates that although there had been cases in which the High Court and the Court of Appeal briefly dealt with this type of evidence, the Supreme Court, the highest court in Ghana, had not expressed an opinion on this issue until recently. In February 2018, in the case of Cubagee v Asare and Others, the Supreme Court laid down the criteria that Ghanaian courts have to use in determining the admissibility of evidence obtained through human rights violations. In this article, the author argues that much as this is an important decision, the Supreme Court left some issues unresolved and there is still room for improvement.

scholarly journals Investigating Extra-territorial Human Rights Violations in Conflict: A Principled Disharmony

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Daniel Hunt
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Human Rights Violations ◽  
High Court ◽  
British Occupation ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Institutional Responses ◽  
Domestic Courts ◽  
United Kingdom Government ◽  
Southern Iraq

<p>This paper discusses a sequence of litigation concerning attempts by Iraqi citizens to have the United Kingdom Government investigate their claims of ill-treatment and death by British soldiers during the six-year British occupation of Basra, Southern Iraq. This paper uses the litigation as a foil to examine broader issues arising from the extra-territorial application of the duty to effectively investigate rights violations under the European Convention on Human Rights, an unprecedented occurrence. Specifically, it compares the duty of effective investigation to comparative institutional responses to human rights violations in conflict. These mechanisms have developed a broader set of victim-oriented objectives in dealing with violations and this paper argues the duty of effective investigation is comparatively deficient. It then looks at the manner in which the domestic courts have applied the duty, arguing that the various factors have driven the High Court to adopt a limited model of investigation.</p>

Social representations of human rights violations: Further evidence

2001 ◽  
Vol 60 (2) ◽  
pp. 89-98 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alain Clémence ◽  
Thierry Devos ◽  
Willem Doise
Keyword(s):  
Cluster Analysis ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Costa Rica ◽  
Young People ◽  
Social Representations ◽  
Social Reality ◽  
Questionnaire Study ◽  
Human Rights Violations ◽  
High Tolerance ◽  
Individual Actions

Social representations of human rights violations were investigated in a questionnaire study conducted in five countries (Costa Rica, France, Italy, Romania, and Switzerland) (N = 1239 young people). We were able to show that respondents organize their understanding of human rights violations in similar ways across nations. At the same time, systematic variations characterized opinions about human rights violations, and the structure of these variations was similar across national contexts. Differences in definitions of human rights violations were identified by a cluster analysis. A broader definition was related to critical attitudes toward governmental and institutional abuses of power, whereas a more restricted definition was rooted in a fatalistic conception of social reality, approval of social regulations, and greater tolerance for institutional infringements of privacy. An atypical definition was anchored either in a strong rejection of social regulations or in a strong condemnation of immoral individual actions linked with a high tolerance for governmental interference. These findings support the idea that contrasting definitions of human rights coexist and that these definitions are underpinned by a set of beliefs regarding the relationships between individuals and institutions.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document