Kiobel对企业社会责任有害吗?运用美国例外论的经验教训

IF 0.3 Q4 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS Utrecht Journal of International and European Law Pub Date : 2014-02-28 DOI:10.5334/UJIEL.CE
Benjamin Thompson
{"title":"Kiobel对企业社会责任有害吗?运用美国例外论的经验教训","authors":"Benjamin Thompson","doi":"10.5334/UJIEL.CE","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The recent decision in the US Supreme Court Kiobel case applied the presumption against extraterritoriality towards the Alien Tort Statute, decreasing the potential scope of tort actions that can be made against corporations for severe human rights violations. In light of the growing influence of multinational corporations and the lack of any international law regime to regulate corporate wrongdoing, this decision might be seen as a blow against one of the few potential avenues for justice for those victims of corporate human rights violations.  The Alien Tort Statute is not a jurisdictional statute that allows for claims under international law but is rather a uniquely American cause of action unconnected to international law. The question remains whether an extension of American law to provide remedies for severe corporate human rights abuses can be justified in the absence of any such remedies existent in international law.  This article will attempt to answer this question applying criteria developed by leading scholars in response to American exceptionalism. It will argue that the Kiobel decision, rather than being detrimental to holding corporations accountable, actually addresses many of the negative aspects of extraterritorial litigation whilst preserving some possibility of remedy for victims of severe human rights violations by corporations.","PeriodicalId":30606,"journal":{"name":"Utrecht Journal of International and European Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2014-02-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Was Kiobel Detrimental to Corporate Social Responsibility? Applying Lessons Learnt from American Exceptionalism\",\"authors\":\"Benjamin Thompson\",\"doi\":\"10.5334/UJIEL.CE\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The recent decision in the US Supreme Court Kiobel case applied the presumption against extraterritoriality towards the Alien Tort Statute, decreasing the potential scope of tort actions that can be made against corporations for severe human rights violations. In light of the growing influence of multinational corporations and the lack of any international law regime to regulate corporate wrongdoing, this decision might be seen as a blow against one of the few potential avenues for justice for those victims of corporate human rights violations.  The Alien Tort Statute is not a jurisdictional statute that allows for claims under international law but is rather a uniquely American cause of action unconnected to international law. The question remains whether an extension of American law to provide remedies for severe corporate human rights abuses can be justified in the absence of any such remedies existent in international law.  This article will attempt to answer this question applying criteria developed by leading scholars in response to American exceptionalism. It will argue that the Kiobel decision, rather than being detrimental to holding corporations accountable, actually addresses many of the negative aspects of extraterritorial litigation whilst preserving some possibility of remedy for victims of severe human rights violations by corporations.\",\"PeriodicalId\":30606,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Utrecht Journal of International and European Law\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2014-02-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Utrecht Journal of International and European Law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5334/UJIEL.CE\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Utrecht Journal of International and European Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5334/UJIEL.CE","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

最近,美国最高法院在Kiobel案中对《外国侵权法》适用了反对治外法权的推定,减少了对严重侵犯人权的公司提起侵权诉讼的潜在范围。鉴于跨国公司的影响日益扩大,而且缺乏任何管制公司不法行为的国际法制度,这一决定可能被视为对为数不多的可能为公司侵犯人权行为的受害者伸张正义的途径之一的打击。《外国人侵权法》并不是一部允许根据国际法提出索赔的管辖权法规,而是一种与国际法无关的独特的美国诉因。问题仍然是,在国际法中不存在任何此类补救措施的情况下,是否有理由扩大美国法律,为严重的公司侵犯人权行为提供补救措施。本文将尝试运用一些著名学者针对美国例外论所制定的标准来回答这个问题。它将争辩说,Kiobel案的决定不仅不利于追究公司的责任,而且实际上解决了域外诉讼的许多消极方面,同时为公司严重侵犯人权的受害者保留了一些补救的可能性。
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
Was Kiobel Detrimental to Corporate Social Responsibility? Applying Lessons Learnt from American Exceptionalism
The recent decision in the US Supreme Court Kiobel case applied the presumption against extraterritoriality towards the Alien Tort Statute, decreasing the potential scope of tort actions that can be made against corporations for severe human rights violations. In light of the growing influence of multinational corporations and the lack of any international law regime to regulate corporate wrongdoing, this decision might be seen as a blow against one of the few potential avenues for justice for those victims of corporate human rights violations.  The Alien Tort Statute is not a jurisdictional statute that allows for claims under international law but is rather a uniquely American cause of action unconnected to international law. The question remains whether an extension of American law to provide remedies for severe corporate human rights abuses can be justified in the absence of any such remedies existent in international law.  This article will attempt to answer this question applying criteria developed by leading scholars in response to American exceptionalism. It will argue that the Kiobel decision, rather than being detrimental to holding corporations accountable, actually addresses many of the negative aspects of extraterritorial litigation whilst preserving some possibility of remedy for victims of severe human rights violations by corporations.
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
2.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
2
审稿时长
11 weeks
期刊最新文献
The Legal Nature of the Climate Change Regime: Fluctuation between Lex Lata and Lex Ferenda The Concept of a Virtual Registered Office in EU Law: Challenges and Opportunities Discharge of Debts of Insolvent Entrepreneurs Under the Restructuring and Insolvency Directive Editorial of Volume 38, Issue I of the Utrecht Journal of International and European Law Will Victims’ Rights Be Lost in Translation? Bridging the Information Gap in Universal Jurisdiction Cases
×
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