Suchergebnisse

AbstractPrivate safety auditors are key constituents of modern risk governance in global value chains (GVCs). However, high-impact safety incidents causing extensive harm inside and outside the chain have cast widespread doubts as to the integrity and rigour with which these commercial auditors carry out their professional services. Civil liability has been considered an important legal instrument to incentivise auditors to improve audit accuracy and integrity. Relying on English law, this article assesses the extent to which this premise holds true for product safety and social auditing. To that end, it studies the liability exposure of private safety auditors for negligent auditing in GVCs. It is argued that this exposure is primarily a function of the contractual obligations these auditors undertake to perform for producers or suppliers in GVCs. This finding draws attention to the need to better understand and define the scope of the safety audits offered for risk management purposes within GVCs.

In 1999, the Alliance mistakenly bombed the Chinese embassy in Belgrade. Around the same period, allegations were made regarding its involvement in human trafficking and forced prostitution in Bosnia-Herzegovina. A decade later, NATO airplanes hit a fuel truck causing significant civilian casualties in Kunduz, Afghanistan. After more than 60 years of existence and a track-record of more than 30 missions performed worldwide, it is surprising that there is still uncertainty on the scope and content of NATO's responsibility for wrongful conduct during its military operations. This timely book deals with the international responsibility of NATO during military operations. It examines, the status of the Alliance, the existence of international obligations and conditions of attribution of conduct in NATO.

How can international organizations (IOs) like the United Nations (UN) and their implementing partners be held accountable if their actions and policies violate fundamental human rights? This text provides a new conceptual framework to study pluralist accountability, whereby third parties hold IOs and their implementing partners accountable for human rights violations.

Abstract
Empirical work consistently finds that Chinese courts resolve civil cases by finding a compromise solution. But beyond this split-it-down-the-middle tendency, when and how do Chinese courts arrive at decisions that feel "fair and just" in cases in which they invoke those ideas? Drawing on a data set of 9,485 tort cases, we find that Chinese courts impose liability on two types of parties with ethical, but not legal, obligation to victims: (1) participants in a shared activity and (2) those who control a physical space. In these cases, Chinese courts stretch the law to spread losses through communities and to acknowledge traumatic harm. Considering fairness, then, returns Chinese courts to their long-standing role as managers of communities who respond to misfortune by assigning legal responsibility to relationships that range from intimate to surprisingly tenuous.