Abstract
Corporate accountability actions brought under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS) tend to be grounded more in hope than in expectation. While an effective publicity tool for highlighting allegations of corporate irresponsibility and a successful approach for gaining favorable settlements in a few high-profile cases, U.S. courts have generally been reluctant to use the ATS to hold global corporations accountable for their actions outside the United States.
Highlights
Emerging jurisprudence in North America and Europe indicates reluctance by courts and prosecutors to proceed with litigation in cases where a corporation is alleged to have aided and abetted human rights abuses by a foreign state abroad
These courts and prosecutors appear uncertain whether corporations are bound by international human rights and humanitarian norms, when only an indirect connection exists to the alleged violations
Standard setting by intergovernmental organizations. International standards, such as those developed by the International Labour Organization (ILO), are helpful in principle but only have meaning if effective international remedies and enforcement mechanisms are put in place or taken up by local governments
Summary
Emerging jurisprudence in North America and Europe indicates reluctance by courts and prosecutors to proceed with litigation in cases where a corporation is alleged to have aided and abetted human rights abuses by a foreign state abroad. Far from outside the mainstream Kiobel seems to be firmly situated within this line of cases These courts and prosecutors appear uncertain whether corporations are bound by international human rights and humanitarian norms, when only an indirect connection exists to the alleged violations. Absent affirmative support by the U.S government, or a clearer expression of legislative intent by the U.S Congress, most U.S courts are likely to be reluctant to provide a judicial remedy in foreign-cubed cases.[4] Despite these limitations, it is important to recognize that, since the 2000 Doe v. Judge Pierre Laval of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals noted in a 2013 article: At the very least, keeping courts open to civil suits about human rights can bring solace and compensation to victims More important, these suits draw global attention to atrocities, and in so doing perhaps deter would be abusers. The Supreme Court should continue to interpret the ATS as opening the doors of U.S federal courts to victims of foreign atrocities who cannot get justice elsewhere, and other countries should adopt laws that open the doors of their courts as well.[6]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
