The Future of Corporate Liability for Extra territorial Human Rights Abuses: The dutch Case Against Shell

The U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co. limits the potential of the Alien Tort Statute (ATS) as a means of legal redress for victims of human rights abuses caused by transnational companies. Interestingly enough, almost simultaneously with the Kiobel decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, a Dutch court issued its rulings in five cases concerning Nigerian individuals, supported by a Dutch environmental nongovernmental organization (NGO), in their claims against Royal Dutch Shell (RDS), headquartered in the Netherlands, and its Nigerian subsidiary, Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria, Ltd. (SPDC). These cases relate to oil spills for which the plaintiffs believed Shell should be held liable.

Download Full-text

Corporate Liability Design for Human Rights Abuses: Individual and Entity Liability for Due Diligence

Oxford Journal of Legal Studies ◽

10.1093/ojls/gqaa052 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Nick Friedman

Keyword(s):

Economic Theory ◽

Human Rights ◽

Policy Implications ◽

Global Supply Chains ◽

Due Diligence ◽

Human Rights Abuses ◽

Human Rights Norms ◽

Corporate Liability ◽

Human Rights Due Diligence ◽

Individual Human

Abstract In this article, I critically review the economic theory of corporate liability design, focusing on the allocation of liability between a corporation and its individual human agents. I apply this theory to transnational commercial contexts where human rights abuses occur and assess the likely efficacy of some putative liability regimes, including regimes requiring corporations to undertake human rights due diligence throughout their global supply chains. I advance a set of general considerations justifying the efficacy of due diligence in relation to alternative liability regimes. I argue, however, that due diligence regimes will likely under-deter severe human rights abuses unless they are supported by substantial entity-level sanctions and, in at least some cases, by supplementary liability for individual executives. The analysis has significant policy implications for current national and international efforts to enforce human rights norms against corporations.

Download Full-text

Human Rights Watch Arms Project—Chemical and Biological Weapons Program

Politics and the Life Sciences ◽

10.1017/s0730938400019857 ◽

1996 ◽

Vol 15 (1) ◽

pp. 114-115 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

Keyword(s):

New York ◽

Human Rights ◽

Hong Kong ◽

Los Angeles ◽

Nongovernmental Organization ◽

Biological Weapons ◽

Free Expression ◽

Human Rights Abuses ◽

The World ◽

Chemical And Biological Weapons

Human Rights Watch is the largest U.S.-based independent human rights organization. It conducts regular, systematic investigations of human rights abuses in some seventy countries around the world. Human Rights Watch (HRW) includes five divisions, covering Africa, the Americas, Asia, the Middle East, and the signatories of the Helsinki accords, and has four thematic projects: the Arms Project, the Women's Rights Project, the Children's Rights Project, and the Free Expression Project. HRW maintains offices in New York, Washington, Los Angeles, London, Brussels, Moscow, Rio de Janeiro, Dushanbe, and Hong Kong. Human Rights Watch is a nongovernmental organization, supported by contributions from private individuals and foundations worldwide. It accepts no government funds.

Download Full-text

Extracurricular International Criminal Law

International Criminal Law Review ◽

10.1163/15718123-01603005 ◽

2016 ◽

Vol 16 (3) ◽

pp. 412-447

Author(s):

Mark A. Drumbl

Keyword(s):

Human Rights ◽

Criminal Law ◽

International Criminal ◽

The United States ◽

International Criminal Law ◽

Crimes Against Humanity ◽

Limited Capacity ◽

Criminal Courts ◽

Human Rights Abuses ◽

Corporate Liability

This article unpacks the jurisprudential footprints of international criminal courts and tribunals in domestic civil litigation in the United States conducted under the Alien Tort Statute (ats). The ats allows victims of human rights abuses to file tort-based lawsuits for violations of the laws of nations. While diverse, citations to international cases and materials in ats adjudication cluster around three areas: (1) aiding and abetting as a mode of liability; (2) substantive legal elements of genocide and crimes against humanity; and (3) the availability of corporate liability. The limited capacity of international criminal courts and tribunals portends that domestic tort claims as avenues for redress of systematic human rights abuses will likely grow in number. The experiences of us courts of general jurisdiction as receivers of international criminal law instruct upon broader patterns of transnational legal migration and reveal an unanticipated extracurricular legacy of international criminal courts and tribunals.

Download Full-text

The European Union Global Human Rights Sanctions Regime (EUGHRSR)

International Legal Materials ◽

10.1017/ilm.2021.8 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 60 (2) ◽

pp. 298-318

Author(s):

Tom Ruys

Keyword(s):

European Union ◽

Human Rights ◽

The European Union ◽

Human Rights Abuses ◽

Council Decision ◽

Council Regulation ◽

The U.S ◽

Country Specific ◽

Individual Human

On December 7, 2020, the Council of the European Union adopted two legal instruments, Council Decision (CFSP) 2020/1999 and Council Regulation (EU) 2020/1998, which together make up the new EU Global Human Rights Sanctions Regime (EUGHRSR). Similar to the U.S. “Global Magnitsky Act,” and in contrast with the EU's existing country-specific sanctions regimes, the EUGHRSR seeks to address human rights abuses worldwide, by providing for the imposition of travel bans as well as financial sanctions on individual human rights offenders—state and non-state alike. The list of designated (natural and legal) persons will be reviewed on a periodic basis.

Download Full-text

The new rebels

Lovecidal ◽

10.5422/fordham/9780823271092.003.0012 ◽

2016 ◽

Author(s):

Trinh T. Minh-ha

Keyword(s):

Social Media ◽

Human Rights ◽

Civil Society ◽

Rule Of Law ◽

Human Rights Abuses ◽

Speaking Out ◽

Public Scrutiny ◽

And Control ◽

The U.S ◽

Chinese Civil Society

This chapter examines not only the unrest in Tibet but also that among China's civil society. It explores social media as a platform for speaking out against the human rights abuses, as well as the limitations of social media given the Chinese government's attempts at censoring these platforms on the matter of Tibet—an act that shares similarities with the U.S. government's own attempts at information surveillance and control as depicted in the previous chapters. The chapter then turns to Chinese civil society at large, as well as the emerging socio-political significance of the legal profession as China's rule of law consistently comes under public scrutiny.

Download Full-text

Guantanamo

Detain and Punish ◽

10.5744/florida/9781683400400.003.0006 ◽

2018 ◽

pp. 99-125

Author(s):

Carl Lindskoog

Keyword(s):

United States ◽

Human Rights ◽

The United States ◽

The Political ◽

Human Rights Abuses ◽

Guantanamo Bay ◽

Legal Challenges ◽

History Of ◽

Prison Camp ◽

The U.S

Chapter 5 examines the government’s first detention camp at the U.S naval base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and the experience of the Haitian refugees—the original Guantanamo detainees—held there from 1991 to 1994. An important part of this history also involves the government’s detention of HIV-positive Haitians in the world’s first and only “HIV prison camp.” Examining the political and legal challenges to the government’s use of off-shore detention at Guantanamo, this chapter illuminates the history of the legal struggle over the government’s authority to detain in such extraterritorial facilities and debates over how far the U.S. Constitution might reach beyond the United States’ territorial boundaries, and when exercising the U.S. Constitution can lead to human rights abuses.

Download Full-text

Commentary on the OHCHRRs Study on Domestic Law Remedies: Corporate Liability for Gross Human Rights Abuses

SSRN Electronic Journal ◽

10.2139/ssrn.2504128 ◽

2014 ◽

Author(s):

Erika R. George ◽

Lisa J. Laplante

Keyword(s):

Human Rights ◽

Human Rights Abuses ◽

Corporate Liability ◽

Domestic Law

Download Full-text

A Pragma-Dialectical Analysis of Chinese Government’s Argumentation: A Case of ‘Comment on Country Report of Human Rights Practice by the U.S. Department of State’

Sinología hispánica ◽

10.18002/sin.v3i2.5259 ◽

2016 ◽

Vol 3 (2) ◽

pp. 21

Author(s):

Jin Ruhua

Keyword(s):

Human Rights ◽

Argument Structure ◽

Chinese Government ◽

Mixed Complex ◽

Argumentative Discourse ◽

Country Report ◽

Human Rights Abuses ◽

Department Of State ◽

Rights Discourse ◽

The U.S

This paper, adopting pragma-dialecticalapproach, analyses the Chinese government’sargumentative discourse in response to theaccusation of its human rights practices byAmerican government, in order to explore theformer’s argumentation in resistance toAmerica’s hegemony. It takes “Comment onCountry Report of Human Rights Practices bythe U.S. Department of State”, three pieces ofofficial documents issued by Information Officeof State Council of China (“IOSC”) from 1995 to1997, as the research texts. It analyses theclaim (standpoint), argument (reason), argumentstructure and scheme to find out theargumentative strategies of IOSC in these fouraspects. It was found that: 1) in terms ofstandpoint, IOSC denied the view of U.S. sidethat China had human rights abuses in someparts of its Country Report; 2) in terms ofargument, IOSC mainly provided four types ofreasons: the U.S. counterpart distorted China’sdomestic human rights practices in some cases,neglected the progress of human rights theChinese government had made, took a blind eyeto America’s own severe human rights violations,and American government’s accusation throughCountry Report was the embodiment ofhegemony; 3) As to the argument structure, theChinese government adopted non-mixed complexargumentation with their various types ofmultiple, coordinate and subordinate structurein combination on human rights issue; 4) interms of argument scheme, IOSC mainly adoptedsymptomatic scheme in its discourse. The studyprovides practical values for the improvementof a development country’s international humanrights discourse in the argumentative lens.

Download Full-text

IMPLEMENTING HUMAN RIGHTS DUE DILIGENCE THROUGH CORPORATE CIVIL LIABILITY

International and Comparative Law Quarterly ◽

10.1017/s0020589320000305 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 69 (4) ◽

pp. 789-818 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Nicolas Bueno ◽

Claire Bright

Keyword(s):

Human Rights ◽

Civil Liability ◽

Case Law ◽

Court Decisions ◽

Due Diligence ◽

Human Rights Abuses ◽

Business And Human Rights ◽

Corporate Liability ◽

The Relationship ◽

Human Rights Due Diligence

AbstractSince the adoption of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights the relationship between human rights due diligence (HRDD) and corporate liability has been a source of legal uncertainty. In order to clarify this relationship, this article compares and contrasts civil liability provisions aiming at implementing HRDD. It explains the legal liability mechanisms in the draft Treaty on Business and Human Rights and in domestic mandatory HRDD legislation and initiatives such as the French Duty of Vigilance Law and the Swiss Responsible Business Initiative. It compares these developments with the emerging case law on parent company and supply chain liability for human rights abuses. It explores the potentially perverse effects that certain civil liability provisions and court decisions might have on companies’ practices. Finally, it makes recommendations for the design of effective liability mechanisms to implement HRDD.

Download Full-text

The Hague Rules on Business and Human Rights Arbitration

Proceedings of the ASIL Annual Meeting ◽

10.1017/amp.2021.17 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 114 ◽

pp. 149-155

Author(s):

Ursula Kriebaum

Keyword(s):

Human Rights ◽

Supreme Court ◽

Dispute Resolution ◽

Alternative Route ◽

Human Rights Abuses ◽

Business And Human Rights ◽

The Hague ◽

Rights Arbitration ◽

The U.S ◽

Alien Tort Statute

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.

Download Full-text