首页> 外文期刊>Georgetown Journal of International Law >CORPORATE LIABILITY FOR HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES: ANALYZING KIOBEL & ALTERNATIVES TO THE ALIEN TORT STATUTE
【24h】

CORPORATE LIABILITY FOR HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES: ANALYZING KIOBEL & ALTERNATIVES TO THE ALIEN TORT STATUTE

机译:侵犯人权行为的企业责任:分析外国侵权法的规章制度和替代规定

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Can corporations be held liable for human rights abuses under international law? According to the Second Circuit's highly controversial Kiobel decision, the answer is "no." Specifically, corporations are not liable for human rights abuses under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS) - a statute that has become the central battleground for debating the role of international law in U.S. courts. In an era of prolific transnational economic and legal activity, Kiobel entails a fascinating and sharply-worded debate on the duties that corporations as private actors owe under international law, as well as key insights into how an influential U.S. court interprets international law and the scope of its authority to create legal remedies. Despite the importance of these issues for scholars and practitioners of international law, current scholarship does not comprehensively analyze this decision issued in October 2010, the various opinions issued in February 2011 denying en banc and panel rehearing, and the ensuing circuit split- leading up to oral arguments before the Supreme Court in February 2012. This Note weaves together these important strands into a singular narrative and provides a rigorous framework to analyze Kiobel's major themes, fault lines, and consequences. Furthermore, it uniquely combines an analysis of Kiobel and its narrowing of ATS corporate liability with a detailed examination of alternatives to the ATS in holding corporations accountable for human rights abuses. Following a careful evaluation of the ATS's deficiencies, it proposes alternate forms of relief, including suing corporate officers and directors, initiating state law claims, suing in specific foreign jurisdictions, and relying on multilateral corporate social responsibility initiatives. It further proposes two novel statutory alternatives to the ATS: imposing corporate civil liability, modeled on the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, and individual criminal liability for violating the law of nations.
机译:公司可以根据国际法对侵犯人权行为负责吗?根据第二巡回法院极富争议的科贝尔决定,答案是“否”。具体来说,根据《外国侵权法》(ATS),公司不应对侵犯人权行为负责。该法律已成为辩论国际法在美国法院中作用的主要战场。在跨国经济和法律活动多产的时代,Kiobel围绕公司作为私人行为者根据国际法应负的职责展开了引人入胜的,措辞犀利的辩论,并就具有影响力的美国法院如何解释国际法及其范围进行了重要见解。制定法律救济的权力。尽管这些问题对于国际法的学者和实践者很重要,但当前的奖学金并未全面分析2010年10月发布的这项决定,2011年2月发布的各种观点,即禁止进行庭审和专家小组复审,并且随之而来的电路分裂导致2012年2月,最高法院进行了口头辩论。本说明将这些重要内容编织成一个单一的叙述,并提供了一个严格的框架来分析Kiobel的主要主题,断层线和后果。此外,它独特地结合了对Kiobel的分析及其对ATS公司责任范围的缩小与对让公司对侵犯人权行为负责的ATS替代方案的详细研究。在仔细评估了ATS的缺陷之后,它提出了另一种救济形式,包括起诉公司高管和董事,提起州法律诉讼,在特定的外国司法管辖区提起诉讼以及依靠多边公司社会责任倡议。它还提出了ATS的两种新的法定替代方案:以《反海外腐败法》为模型施加公司民事责任,以及违反国家法律的个人刑事责任。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号