Was Kiobel detrimental to corporate social responsibility

Applying lessons learnt from american exceptionalism

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleScientificpeer-review

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.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)82-98
Number of pages17
JournalMerkourios: Utrecht Journal of International and European Law
Volume30
Issue number78
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 28 Feb 2014
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

social responsibility
international law
human rights violation
statute
remedies
corporation
scope of action
multinational corporation
Supreme Court
human rights
abuse
justice
cause
Law
lack

Keywords

  • human rights
  • Corporate social responsibility
  • business and human rights
  • alien tort statute
  • kiobel
  • extraterritorial jurisdiction

Cite this

@article{c61f194a06454f088b04999eb186711a,
title = "Was Kiobel detrimental to corporate social responsibility: Applying lessons learnt from american exceptionalism",
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.",
keywords = "human rights, Corporate social responsibility, business and human rights, alien tort statute, kiobel, extraterritorial jurisdiction",
author = "Benjamin Thompson",
year = "2014",
month = "2",
day = "28",
doi = "10.5334/ujiel.ce",
language = "English",
volume = "30",
pages = "82--98",
journal = "Merkourios: Utrecht Journal of International and European Law",
issn = "0927-460X",
number = "78",

}

Was Kiobel detrimental to corporate social responsibility : Applying lessons learnt from american exceptionalism. / Thompson, Benjamin.

In: Merkourios: Utrecht Journal of International and European Law, Vol. 30, No. 78, 28.02.2014, p. 82-98.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleScientificpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Was Kiobel detrimental to corporate social responsibility

T2 - Applying lessons learnt from american exceptionalism

AU - Thompson, Benjamin

PY - 2014/2/28

Y1 - 2014/2/28

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

KW - human rights

KW - Corporate social responsibility

KW - business and human rights

KW - alien tort statute

KW - kiobel

KW - extraterritorial jurisdiction

U2 - 10.5334/ujiel.ce

DO - 10.5334/ujiel.ce

M3 - Article

VL - 30

SP - 82

EP - 98

JO - Merkourios: Utrecht Journal of International and European Law

JF - Merkourios: Utrecht Journal of International and European Law

SN - 0927-460X

IS - 78

ER -