Stemming the Flow of Corporate Human Rights Abuses: Incorporating the Ruggie Report in the Common Law Doctrine of Foreign Judgment Enforcement

<p>The eminent case of Aguinda v Chevron Corporation, currently in its twentieth year of litigation, represents a growing phenomenon in international commercial litigation between multinational corporations and victims of human rights abuse from developing nations. In 2011 Aguinda awarded approximately US$18 billion against Chevron for extreme environmental and human rights abuse from oil contamination in the Amazon region of Ecuador. Chevron has removed its assets from Ecuador’s jurisdiction leaving the plaintiffs without remedy. This paper traces Aguinda to Canada where the plaintiffs’ action in Yaiguaje to enforce the judgment to satisfy their debt is stayed. This paper critiques this decision of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice as being unprincipled and failing to consider the wider implications of its decision on the struggle for developing nations to remedy human rights abuses by multinational corporations. This paper argues that the common law doctrine of foreign judgment enforcement must evolve to reflect the needs of modern society. The paper does this by incorporating the “Protect, Respect and Remedy: A Framework for Business and Human Rights” report released by the United Nations in 2011.</p>

Stemming the Flow of Corporate Human Rights Abuses: Incorporating the Ruggie Report in the Common Law Doctrine of Foreign Judgment Enforcement

<p>The eminent case of Aguinda v Chevron Corporation, currently in its twentieth year of litigation, represents a growing phenomenon in international commercial litigation between multinational corporations and victims of human rights abuse from developing nations. In 2011 Aguinda awarded approximately US$18 billion against Chevron for extreme environmental and human rights abuse from oil contamination in the Amazon region of Ecuador. Chevron has removed its assets from Ecuador’s jurisdiction leaving the plaintiffs without remedy. This paper traces Aguinda to Canada where the plaintiffs’ action in Yaiguaje to enforce the judgment to satisfy their debt is stayed. This paper critiques this decision of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice as being unprincipled and failing to consider the wider implications of its decision on the struggle for developing nations to remedy human rights abuses by multinational corporations. This paper argues that the common law doctrine of foreign judgment enforcement must evolve to reflect the needs of modern society. The paper does this by incorporating the “Protect, Respect and Remedy: A Framework for Business and Human Rights” report released by the United Nations in 2011.</p>

Enforcement of Arbitral Awards in Nigeria and the Jigsaw of Limitation Period: The Need for Compliance with Global Best Practices

In Nigeria, the limitation period begins to run from the date the dispute leading to the arbitration arose instead of when the award was rendered. While highlighting the rationale and effect of limitation period to the jurisdiction of court, I argue that the period set out in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act (ACA) for enforcement of arbitral awards fails to countenance the inherent delays in Nigeria’s justice system which can be exploited to render the enforcement of an award nugatory. The operationalisation of limitation period unless amended, can be a dissuading factor for choosing Nigeria as a seat of international arbitration which rubs her of the attendant benefits. It is further argued that, anyone, wishing to enforce an award in Nigeria, must ingeniously act timeously to avoid untoward outcome due to the repressive limitation period. This article identifies registration of award pursuant to Foreign Judgment (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act as a leeway to enforce foreign arbitral awards. It compares the practice in Nigeria with jurisdictions like India, Canada, United Kingdom and Ethiopia and draw lessons for Nigeria. It makes a case for amendment of the existing legal framework to bring the law on limitation of time in tandem with global best practices.

Globalized Cross-Border Insolvency Law: The Roles Played by China

This study empirically investigates China’s participation in the globalized cross-border insolvency collaboration system. It is the first time for the development of China’s cross-border insolvency law to be examined against the background of private international law on foreign judgment recognition and enforcement. The findings of this article reveal that foreign bankruptcy representatives face considerable difficulties in satisfying the treaty and reciprocity requirements when seeking judicial assistance from China, and that local protectionism in favour of China’s state-owned and state-linked companies undermines foreign bankruptcy representatives’ confidence in approaching China’s courts for support. Although there are several court recognitions of foreign bankruptcy judgments in China, this article finds that they are only used to acknowledge the legal status of foreign bankruptcy representatives to meet the demands of government authorities; Chinese courts have not taken a substantial step in recognizing a foreign bankruptcy judgment so as to bar individual creditors’ action in the interest of a foreign bankruptcy proceeding. On the contrary, for Chinese bankruptcy representatives seeking assistance abroad, they could take advantage of the liberal judicial infrastructure, especially of some advanced jurisdictions, to obtain recognition and relief.

Foreign Judgments and Contracts: The Anti-enforcement Injunction

This essay examines, within the common law world, the practice of courts in England and Wales and in Singapore of granting injunctions to restrain the enforcement of foreign judgments, with particular reference to cases in which the injunction is sought to protect a contractual right. It considers the approach in recent case law, contrasting the ‘anti-enforcement injunction’ with the more frequently granted ‘anti-suit injunction’. It further seeks to differentiate cases where the proceedings leading to the foreign judgment had been brought in breach of a choice of court or arbitration agreement from cases where the reliance on the foreign judgment is the breach of contract.