The Litigation Landscape of Business and Human Rights

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-23
Author(s):  
Robert McCorquodale
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Tort Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
Corporate Identity ◽  
International Standards ◽  
European Law ◽  
Business And Human Rights ◽  
Key Concepts ◽  
Forum Non Conveniens

Robert McCorquodale outlines the wider business and human rights context of human rights litigation against multinationals and explains key concepts that arise. He highlights differences between civil law and common law systems in terms of sources of law and procedures, and between criminal and civil claims against multinationals. The concepts of separation of corporate identity and the tort law duty of care developed in the English cases are considered. The principles of European law on jurisdiction over corporations and choice of law are explained. The relevance, in multinational human rights cases, of public international law and sovereignty issues in forum non conveniens disputes, claims in the United States under the Alien Tort Statute, and by direct application in States such as Canada and the Netherlands, is discussed. The important contextual backdrop of developments such as the United Nations Guiding Principles (UNGPs), the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Guidelines and other international standards is also highlighted.

International Human Rights Litigation in the United States

2021 ◽  
pp. 168-200
Author(s):  
Paul Hoffman
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Common Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
Sovereign Immunity ◽  
Human Rights Abuses ◽  
The Past ◽  
Forum Non Conveniens ◽  
International Human

Paul Hoffman reviews the position in the United States regarding the imposition of liability on multinationals for human rights abuses occurring overseas. He focuses on corporate complicity cases brought under the Alien Tort Statute over the past 25 years. By reference to key decisions, he charts the development of the law which had had initially held out considerable promise for human rights victims but which has been gradually whittled away by decisions such as Kiobel in 2012 and Jesner in 2018. The scope of the statute and the concepts of aiding and abetting liability, the presumption against extraterritoriality, ‘touch and concern test’ and ‘foreign sovereign immunity’ are explained. The decision in Doe v. Nestle has resolved many of the uncertainties. Potential liability under various statutes to protect victims of torture, trafficking, terrorism, and corruption are outlined as is the experience of common law tort claims and forum non conveniens.

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.

Reconciling Rights and Obligations

2003 ◽  
Vol 20 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 140-172
Author(s):  
Pernille Ironside
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Due Process ◽  
Common Law ◽  
International Standards ◽  
Freedom Of Religion ◽  
Northern Nigeria ◽  
Law System ◽  
Constitutional Legality ◽  
Human Rights Norms ◽  
Criminal Matters

This article examines the debate concerning the recent reinstatement of Shari`ah law with respect to criminal matters in Northern Nigeria. The discussion explores the inherent challenges in reconciling the equally entrenched and passionate views of pro-Shari`ah supporters on their right to freedom of religion with those that question its application in terms of human rights norms and obligations, and its constitutional legality. The analysis concludes that Shari`ah laws can coexist with Nigeria’s common law system and remain relevant in the context of Islam, provided that its principles are adapted and modernized to comport with international standards for due process and are interpreted and applied consistently.

Is there a Duty to Prevent Harm in Tort? A Common Law Perspective

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 116-145
Author(s):  
Paula Giliker
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Tort Law ◽  
Public Authority ◽  
Public Authorities ◽  
Statutory Duty ◽  
Starting Point ◽  
Private And Public ◽  
Legal Position ◽  
The Common

Abstract In this paper, I will examine the extent to which the common law of tort in England and Wales imposes a duty to prevent harm on public authorities and private individuals. As will be seen, the starting point for the common law is that such liability should, in both cases, be regarded as exceptional. This must, however, be weighed against duties to prevent harm that arise under the torts of negligence and breach of statutory duty. Public authorities may also face claims that their failure to prevent harm is in breach of ECHR arts 2 or 3. While the law is complex, this paper identifies three key arguments that explain the current legal position at common law, namely that: (i) tort law should treat private and public parties alike: (ii) human rights claims should be treated as distinct from private law claims and (iii) libertarian concerns signify that a duty to prevent harm should be exceptional and needs to be justified. While these arguments provide both an explanation of and a justification for the current law, this article questions to what extent the treatment of public authority liability may be regarded as unduly harsh on vulnerable claimants.

Promoting Business and Human Rights Education: Lessons from Colombia, Ukraine and Pakistan

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-9
Author(s):  
Anthony EWING
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Western Europe ◽  
Academic Discipline ◽  
Business Case ◽  
International Standards ◽  
Corporate Accountability ◽  
Course Content ◽  
Business And Human Rights ◽  
Training Programmes ◽  
University Settings

Business and human rights (BHR) has been taught as an academic discipline and field of practice for thirty years.1 Since the first courses at business schools, law schools, and schools of public policy in North America and Western Europe, BHR curricula have proliferated worldwide. BHR course content has expanded to include new international standards, such as the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs); tools for corporate accountability; 2 and examples from the growing body of corporate BHR practice. BHR pedagogy has evolved to embrace multidisciplinary teaching techniques, from business case studies to legal drafting exercises and experiential role plays.3 BHR teaching is taking place in every region, from Africa and Asia to the Middle East and Latin America. Over 350 individuals teach the subject in some form at more than 200 institutions in 45 countries.4 More than 100 universities have added BHR courses to their curricula in the past decade alone. BHR is also taught outside traditional university settings in dedicated workshops and training programmes for professionals, academics and students.5

Conclusion The American and Westminster Models

2021 ◽  
pp. 391-396
Author(s):  
Steven Gow Calabresi
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Separation Of Powers ◽  
Common Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
State Of Emergency ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
European Court

This concluding chapter identifies the four major causes of the growth and origin of judicial review in the G-20 common law countries and in Israel. First, the need for a federalism umpire, and occasionally a separation of powers umpire, played a major role in the development of judicial review of the constitutionality of legislation in the United States, in Canada, in Australia, in India, and most recently in the United Kingdom. Second, there is a rights from wrongs phenomenon at work in the growth of judicial review in the United States, after the Civil War; in Canada, with the 1982 adoption of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms; in India, after the Indira Gandhi State of Emergency led to a massive trampling on human rights; in Israel, after the Holocaust; in South Africa, after racist apartheid misrule; and in the United Kingdom, after that country accumulated an embarrassing record before the European Court of Human Rights prior to 1998. This proves that judicial review of the constitutionality of legislation often occurs in response to a deprivation of human rights. Third, the seven common law countries all borrowed a lot from one another, and from civil law countries, in writing their constitutions. Fourth, and finally, the common law countries all create multiple democratic institutions or political parties, which renders any political attempt to strike back at the Supreme Court impossible to maintain.

scholarly journals Actual Issues of Forensic Activities in Ukraine and the Possibility of Implementing International Standards of the Industry in the Ukrainian Legislation

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Lidiya Kotlyarenko ◽  
◽  
Nataliia Pavlovska ◽  
Eugenia Svoboda ◽  
Anatolii Symchuk ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
International Standards ◽  
European Convention ◽  
European Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Council Of Europe ◽  
Legal Standard ◽  
The Eu

International standards exist in any field of legal regulation however, they are mostly identified with standards that regulate the technical sphere, since they are the most common ones. Nonetheless, today it is hard to imagine any area of public life withno generally recognized international standards. European legal standards are formed within the framework of the two most regional international associations –the Council of Europe and the European Union. The Council of Europe sets, first of all, standards in the humanitarian sphere: human rights, environment protection, and constitutional law, which is determined by the goals and purpose of its functioning. The European Union (hereinafter referred to as the EU) using directives, regulations, and other legal acts sets standards for most areas of the EU population's life. It should be noted it is during the development of 'standardization' in the European law that specific development of public relations in the EU takes place. Defining the EU legal standardas a separate category of norms of the European law, it is noteworthy that this term is used in a broad sense as a 'legal standard' and incorporates such elements as the general principles of the EU law and the 'common values' of the EU –they relate to people, environment, economic issues, and so on. The European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1950 is a classic example of their implementation. In a narrow sense, this term has a specific meaning and does not coincidewith the concept of 'legal standard', e.g. these are standards in the technical field that are adopted by the European Committee for Standardization, that is, in its content, it is a technical publication that is used as a norm, rule, guide or definition.Therefore, they relate to products, services, or systems and are the basis for convergence and interaction within the growing market of various business sectors. Today, in international law de facto there is a system of standards that regulate various aspects of international relations.

scholarly journals THE ROLE OF NATIONAL ACTION PLANS IN IMPLEMENTATION OF INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS IN BUSINESS AND HUMAN RIGHTS

2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (6) ◽  
Author(s):  
Adel I. Abdullin ◽  
Alexey A. Sinyavskiy
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Transnational Corporations ◽  
International Standards ◽  
Action Plans ◽  
Legal Personality ◽  
Business And Human Rights ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
Guiding Principles ◽  
International Legal Personality

"Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights” are the first universally recognized global international standard in the field of human rights and business. In accordance with them, transnational corporations and other enterprises are obliged to comply with the national laws of states and respect internationally recognized human rights while carrying out their business activities. On 16 June 2011, the Human Rights Council unanimously endorsed the Guidelines in its resolution 17/4, “Human Rights and Transnational Corporations and Other Enterprises,” setting a universal standard for protecting human rights from the adverse effects of transnational corporations and other enterprises. However, in accordance with the doctrine of international law, corporations do not have an international legal personality and their obligations to respect human rights are only voluntary in nature, and therefore, the main obligation to ensure the protection of human rights lies with states. One of the ways to implement international standards in the field of business and human rights in practice is the development by States of National Action Plans. This paper is devoted, firstly, to a summary of the main ideas of the “Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights” as an international legal standard in the field of human rights. Secondly, to consider the role of National Action Plans in the implementation of the Guidelines in EU countries. Thirdly, a review of existing practices for the implementation of these principles by EU states using National Action Plans

scholarly journals Jurisdictional issues in the Ogoni case

2020 ◽  
pp. 332-337
Author(s):  
Maryna Medvedieva
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
The Netherlands ◽  
The United States ◽  
Environmental Damage ◽  
Forum Shopping ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
The Us ◽  
Forum Non Conveniens ◽  
Extraterritorial Jurisdiction ◽  
African Commission

The article analyzes the Ogoni case, which combines several high-profile lawsuits in the courts of Nigeria, the United States, theNetherlands, the United Kingdom, the African Commission on Human Rights, and the Court of Justice of the Economic Communityof West Africa. Practical issues related to the jurisdiction of states are covered, namely, extraterritorial jurisdiction, universal jurisdictionin civil matters, ‘piercing the corporate veil’, ‘forum shopping’, doctrines ‘forum non conveniens’, ‘forum necessitatis’, etc. The Ogonicase demonstrated the diversity and complexity of jurisdictional issues at the national and international levels. Although in terms ofjurisdiction the courts of Nigeria were the most appropriate forum to bring an action in this case, due to the inefficiency of the Nigerianjudicial system, the plaintiffs appealed to other jurisdictions. The Wiwa and Kiobel cases before the US courts can be considered asexamples of an attempt, albeit unsuccessful, to implement the extraterritorial application of US national law and to apply the principleof universal jurisdiction in civil tort cases. US courts have denied the plaintiffs’ claims under the ‘forum non conveniens’ doctrine andrefused to apply extraterritorially the American tort law to corporations located and registered in other states. In the Akpan case, theDistrict Court of the Netherlands refused to ‘pierce the corporate veil’, but the Court of Appeal ruled that it had jurisdiction to hear thacase concerning both Shell and the Nigerian subsidiary. In the Kiobel case, which is also before the courts of the Netherlands, an alternativebasis for jurisdiction was used – ‘forum necessitatis’. In the Okpabi case, the British courts have so far refused to recognize theirjurisdiction. It should be noted that the Wiwa and Kiobel cases concern the liability of Shell and SPDC for human rights violations,while the Akpan and Okpabi cases concern the civil liability for environmental damage. The above proceedings in national and internationalcourts are a clear example of ‘forum shopping’. The case was considered by the African Commission on Human Rights, whichrecognized its jurisdiction despite the absence of domestic remedies exhaustion, and by the West African Economic Community Court,which recognized its jurisdiction to hear the case under the African Charter as well as international covenants on human rights.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document