{"title":"对种族隔离的财政支持:未偿债务","authors":"J. P. Bohoslavsky","doi":"10.1017/s0021855322000122","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This case note presents the arguments made in the amicus curiae brief submitted by the UN independent expert on debt and human rights to the OECD National Contact Point in the case brought in 2018 by Open Secrets and the Centre for Applied Legal Studies concerning the alleged complicit conduct of two banks during apartheid in South Africa. It also outlines the developments in this legal case and comments on why apartheid victims’ claims against financial accomplices are now more compelling than ever.","PeriodicalId":44630,"journal":{"name":"Journal of African Law","volume":"66 1","pages":"531 - 541"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2022-05-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Financial Support to Apartheid: Outstanding Debts\",\"authors\":\"J. P. Bohoslavsky\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/s0021855322000122\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract This case note presents the arguments made in the amicus curiae brief submitted by the UN independent expert on debt and human rights to the OECD National Contact Point in the case brought in 2018 by Open Secrets and the Centre for Applied Legal Studies concerning the alleged complicit conduct of two banks during apartheid in South Africa. It also outlines the developments in this legal case and comments on why apartheid victims’ claims against financial accomplices are now more compelling than ever.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44630,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of African Law\",\"volume\":\"66 1\",\"pages\":\"531 - 541\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-05-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of African Law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/s0021855322000122\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of African Law","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s0021855322000122","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract This case note presents the arguments made in the amicus curiae brief submitted by the UN independent expert on debt and human rights to the OECD National Contact Point in the case brought in 2018 by Open Secrets and the Centre for Applied Legal Studies concerning the alleged complicit conduct of two banks during apartheid in South Africa. It also outlines the developments in this legal case and comments on why apartheid victims’ claims against financial accomplices are now more compelling than ever.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
