将人权标准应用于企业不当行为的两项关键治外法权技术评价。域外技术的使用引发/造成的司法困境

Rachel Chambers
{"title":"将人权标准应用于企业不当行为的两项关键治外法权技术评价。域外技术的使用引发/造成的司法困境","authors":"Rachel Chambers","doi":"10.18352/ULR.435","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article evaluates two key extraterritorial techniques to bring human rights standards to bear on corporate misconduct, and does so through an analysis of the jurisdictional dilemma they raise. The background to the article is the difficulty of imposing human rights standards on transnational business operating in ‘host’ countries where, for various reasons, such standards are not implemented locally, resulting in governance gaps. Civil litigation in the company’s ‘home’ state and ‘long arm’ regulation emanating from the home state are important alternative methods of establishing and enforcing human rights standards, but they engender controversy both in terms of their legitimacy under public international law and because there are a number of objections to their use that go beyond their technical legality. Concerns include intrusion into the exclusive jurisdiction of the host state to control this litigation or to determine and follow its own regulatory policy in this area, and the related concern about home state imperialism/neocolonialism. The article evaluates whether these concerns raise true dilemmas. For those that do, it offers suggestions for how to adapt or refine extraterritorial techniques.","PeriodicalId":106035,"journal":{"name":"Human Rights & the Global Economy eJournal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-06-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"An Evaluation of Two Key Extraterritorial Techniques to Bring Human Rights Standards to Bear on Corporate Misconduct. Jurisdictional Dilemma Raised/Created by the Use of the Extraterritorial Techniques\",\"authors\":\"Rachel Chambers\",\"doi\":\"10.18352/ULR.435\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article evaluates two key extraterritorial techniques to bring human rights standards to bear on corporate misconduct, and does so through an analysis of the jurisdictional dilemma they raise. The background to the article is the difficulty of imposing human rights standards on transnational business operating in ‘host’ countries where, for various reasons, such standards are not implemented locally, resulting in governance gaps. Civil litigation in the company’s ‘home’ state and ‘long arm’ regulation emanating from the home state are important alternative methods of establishing and enforcing human rights standards, but they engender controversy both in terms of their legitimacy under public international law and because there are a number of objections to their use that go beyond their technical legality. Concerns include intrusion into the exclusive jurisdiction of the host state to control this litigation or to determine and follow its own regulatory policy in this area, and the related concern about home state imperialism/neocolonialism. The article evaluates whether these concerns raise true dilemmas. For those that do, it offers suggestions for how to adapt or refine extraterritorial techniques.\",\"PeriodicalId\":106035,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Human Rights & the Global Economy eJournal\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-06-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Human Rights & the Global Economy eJournal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.18352/ULR.435\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Human Rights & the Global Economy eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18352/ULR.435","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

摘要

本文评估了将人权标准应用于公司不当行为的两种关键治外法权技术,并通过分析它们引发的司法困境来实现这一目标。这篇文章的背景是很难对在“东道国”经营的跨国企业施加人权标准,因为各种原因,这些标准在当地没有实施,导致治理空白。在公司“母国”的民事诉讼和母国的“长臂”监管是建立和执行人权标准的重要替代方法,但它们在国际公法下的合法性方面产生了争议,因为对它们的使用存在许多超出其技术合法性的反对意见。担忧包括侵犯东道国的专属管辖权,以控制这一诉讼或在这一领域确定和遵循自己的监管政策,以及对母国帝国主义/新殖民主义的相关担忧。本文评估了这些担忧是否引发了真正的困境。对于那些做了的人,它提供了如何调整或改进域外技术的建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
An Evaluation of Two Key Extraterritorial Techniques to Bring Human Rights Standards to Bear on Corporate Misconduct. Jurisdictional Dilemma Raised/Created by the Use of the Extraterritorial Techniques
This article evaluates two key extraterritorial techniques to bring human rights standards to bear on corporate misconduct, and does so through an analysis of the jurisdictional dilemma they raise. The background to the article is the difficulty of imposing human rights standards on transnational business operating in ‘host’ countries where, for various reasons, such standards are not implemented locally, resulting in governance gaps. Civil litigation in the company’s ‘home’ state and ‘long arm’ regulation emanating from the home state are important alternative methods of establishing and enforcing human rights standards, but they engender controversy both in terms of their legitimacy under public international law and because there are a number of objections to their use that go beyond their technical legality. Concerns include intrusion into the exclusive jurisdiction of the host state to control this litigation or to determine and follow its own regulatory policy in this area, and the related concern about home state imperialism/neocolonialism. The article evaluates whether these concerns raise true dilemmas. For those that do, it offers suggestions for how to adapt or refine extraterritorial techniques.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Social Protection Instruments and Women Workers in the Informal Economy: A Southern African Perspective Using the Risk-Based Approach To Curb Modern Slavery in the Supply Chain: The Anglo American and Marks and Spencer Example From Creative Destruction to Destructive Creation Economic Analysis of Ethnic Conflicts Why Is Law Central to Public Policy Process in Global South?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1