国际公司人权诉讼的未来:跨大西洋比较

IF 1.3 3区 社会学 Q3 BUSINESS American Business Law Journal Pub Date : 2021-09-29 DOI:10.1111/ablj.12193
Rachel Chambers, Gerlinde Berger-Walliser
{"title":"国际公司人权诉讼的未来:跨大西洋比较","authors":"Rachel Chambers,&nbsp;Gerlinde Berger-Walliser","doi":"10.1111/ablj.12193","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Imposing legal liability on corporations for their involvement in human rights violations remains problematic. In the United States, civil liability in such circumstances developed in a series of Alien Tort Statute cases. This evolution came to an abrupt end with the cases of Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum and Jesner v. Arab Bank. As corporate human rights litigation declined in the United States, courts in Europe were presented with their first civil cases, and plaintiffs had some successes. Legal remedies for corporate human rights violations also made it onto the agenda of policy makers at the European Union and national European governments with laws requiring companies to conduct human rights due diligence throughout their operations. Against this background, this article investigates the current state and potential future development of corporate human rights litigation in the United States and Europe. It seeks to answer the following questions: Is the United States losing its prominent place as a preferred forum for human rights litigation against corporate defendants, as recent Supreme Court decisions suggest? What made the U.S. courts attractive in the first place? Is Europe taking over this role, and if so, should the United States be concerned about these developments? Are recent doctrinal and legislative trends in Europe transferable to the U.S. legal system and suitable to fill the gaps left by Kiobel and Jesner? Finally, what do these shifts on both sides of the Atlantic mean for victims of human rights violations and their prospects of effectively pursuing their rights?</p>","PeriodicalId":54186,"journal":{"name":"American Business Law Journal","volume":"58 3","pages":"579-642"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2021-09-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Future of International Corporate Human Rights Litigation: A Transatlantic Comparison\",\"authors\":\"Rachel Chambers,&nbsp;Gerlinde Berger-Walliser\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/ablj.12193\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Imposing legal liability on corporations for their involvement in human rights violations remains problematic. In the United States, civil liability in such circumstances developed in a series of Alien Tort Statute cases. This evolution came to an abrupt end with the cases of Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum and Jesner v. Arab Bank. As corporate human rights litigation declined in the United States, courts in Europe were presented with their first civil cases, and plaintiffs had some successes. Legal remedies for corporate human rights violations also made it onto the agenda of policy makers at the European Union and national European governments with laws requiring companies to conduct human rights due diligence throughout their operations. Against this background, this article investigates the current state and potential future development of corporate human rights litigation in the United States and Europe. It seeks to answer the following questions: Is the United States losing its prominent place as a preferred forum for human rights litigation against corporate defendants, as recent Supreme Court decisions suggest? What made the U.S. courts attractive in the first place? Is Europe taking over this role, and if so, should the United States be concerned about these developments? Are recent doctrinal and legislative trends in Europe transferable to the U.S. legal system and suitable to fill the gaps left by Kiobel and Jesner? Finally, what do these shifts on both sides of the Atlantic mean for victims of human rights violations and their prospects of effectively pursuing their rights?</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":54186,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"American Business Law Journal\",\"volume\":\"58 3\",\"pages\":\"579-642\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-09-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"American Business Law Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ablj.12193\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"BUSINESS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Business Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ablj.12193","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"BUSINESS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

对参与侵犯人权的公司施加法律责任仍然存在问题。在美国,这种情况下的民事责任是在一系列《外国人侵权法》案件中发展起来的。随着Kiobel诉荷兰皇家石油公司和Jesner诉阿拉伯银行的案件,这种演变戛然而止。随着美国企业人权诉讼的减少,欧洲法院收到了第一批民事案件,原告也取得了一些成功。针对企业侵犯人权的法律补救措施也被提上了欧盟和欧洲各国政府的政策制定者的议程,这些国家的法律要求企业在整个经营过程中进行人权尽职调查。在此背景下,本文考察了美国和欧洲企业人权诉讼的现状和未来发展趋势。它试图回答以下问题:美国是否正在失去其作为针对企业被告的人权诉讼首选论坛的突出地位,正如最近最高法院的判决所表明的那样?最初是什么让美国法院具有吸引力?欧洲是否正在接替这一角色,如果是这样,美国是否应该关注这些事态发展?欧洲最近的理论和立法趋势是否可以转移到美国的法律体系中,是否适合填补Kiobel和Jesner留下的空白?最后,大西洋两岸的这些转变对侵犯人权行为的受害者及其有效追求其权利的前景意味着什么?
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
The Future of International Corporate Human Rights Litigation: A Transatlantic Comparison

Imposing legal liability on corporations for their involvement in human rights violations remains problematic. In the United States, civil liability in such circumstances developed in a series of Alien Tort Statute cases. This evolution came to an abrupt end with the cases of Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum and Jesner v. Arab Bank. As corporate human rights litigation declined in the United States, courts in Europe were presented with their first civil cases, and plaintiffs had some successes. Legal remedies for corporate human rights violations also made it onto the agenda of policy makers at the European Union and national European governments with laws requiring companies to conduct human rights due diligence throughout their operations. Against this background, this article investigates the current state and potential future development of corporate human rights litigation in the United States and Europe. It seeks to answer the following questions: Is the United States losing its prominent place as a preferred forum for human rights litigation against corporate defendants, as recent Supreme Court decisions suggest? What made the U.S. courts attractive in the first place? Is Europe taking over this role, and if so, should the United States be concerned about these developments? Are recent doctrinal and legislative trends in Europe transferable to the U.S. legal system and suitable to fill the gaps left by Kiobel and Jesner? Finally, what do these shifts on both sides of the Atlantic mean for victims of human rights violations and their prospects of effectively pursuing their rights?

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
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
16.70%
发文量
17
期刊介绍: The ABLJ is a faculty-edited, double blind peer reviewed journal, continuously published since 1963. Our mission is to publish only top quality law review articles that make a scholarly contribution to all areas of law that impact business theory and practice. We search for those articles that articulate a novel research question and make a meaningful contribution directly relevant to scholars and practitioners of business law. The blind peer review process means legal scholars well-versed in the relevant specialty area have determined selected articles are original, thorough, important, and timely. Faculty editors assure the authors’ contribution to scholarship is evident. We aim to elevate legal scholarship and inform responsible business decisions.
期刊最新文献
Issue Information Protecting the protectors: Whistleblowing and retaliation in the compliance arena The venture corporation Joke or counterfeit? Balancing trademark parody and consumer safety in the edibles market Issue Information
×
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