Suchergebnisse

The right to remedy for victims of human rights abuses by transnational corporations is far from guaranteed. Often, the state where the abuses occurred is unwilling or incapable of offering effective remedies, especially effective judicial remedies. The victims may then choose to "go global" and bring civil suits in the courts of other states, including the home states of the corporations alleged to have committed the abuse. One way in which they have done so is by bringing so-called "foreign direct liability" (FDL) cases: civil claims in domestic courts of foreign states against corporate actors, in the hopes of getting financial compensation as a remedy.

In the past two decades, private military and security companies (PMSCs) have become important actors in the international sphere, in armed conflict as well as in law enforcement. Along with the need for private actors in the military and security industry, the need to regulate these actors has increased. Both domestically and internationally, legislators have sought to curtail PMSC actions while trying to accommodate states' demand for more private involvement in the security sector. This article examines how risk mitigation and risk commodification work as socio-political motives for states to outsource security tasks and responsibilities, and how the resulting industry has taken the shape of a horizontal network in which states, companies, NGOs and international organizations play different roles. The article also highlights how and why international and domestic law both struggle to deal with the existence of this network and the nature of the private security industry.

In the past two decades, private military and security companies (PMSCs) have become important actors in the international sphere, in armed conflict as well as in law enforcement. Along with the need for private actors in the military and security industry, the need to regulate these actors has increased. Both domestically and internationally, legislators have sought to curtail PMSC actions while trying to accommodate states' demand for more private involvement in the security sector. This article examines how risk mitigation and risk commodification work as socio-political motives for states to outsource security tasks and responsibilities, and how the resulting industry has taken the shape of a horizontal network in which states, companies, NGOs and international organizations play different roles. The article also highlights how and why international and domestic law both struggle to deal with the existence of this network and the nature of the private security industry.

AbstractMega-sporting events (MSEs) can have a negative impact on human rights throughout their lifecycle, from the bidding stage, over to the planning and preparation stage, the delivery of the event, and also as part of their legacy after the event has concluded. They can be linked to land grabbing, forced evictions, forced labour and many other human rights abuses. The problem is that only a very few of these cases are actually addressed in the sense that rights-holders receive an effective remedy and those responsible for the abuse are held to account. MSEs are jointly organized and staged by public, private, national, and international actors, which each contribute in different ways to the associated human rights impact. Rather than looking at the responsibility of those actors directly involved in organizing and staging the event, this article looks at the responsibility of the participating actors of states that are represented at the event, namely businesses and sports bodies, using the Netherlands and the 2022 FIFA World Cup in Qatar as the guiding example. The central questions it tries to explore based on lessons learned and opportunities missed in Qatar are how such actors are connected to adverse human rights impacts associated with MSEs, which responsibilities under the human rights framework flow from those connections, and how participating states should then ensure that businesses live up to their responsibilities.

Foreign direct liability litigation against businesses is still a growing trend in European domestic courts, going on for over two decades. With absent effective remedies in host states, victims of human rights abuses committed by transnational corporations' subsidiaries try to get access to remedy in the courts of the home states of the parent companies. A crucial factor for whether such cases can succeed, is the viability of the claims against the parent companies allegedly involved in the abuses. The principal legal route that victims have used to hold parent companies liable is through common law negligence claims.

Foreign direct liability litigation against businesses is still a growing trend in European domestic courts, going on for over two decades. With absent effective remedies in host states, victims of human rights abuses committed by transnational corporations' subsidiaries try to get access to remedy in the courts of the home states of the parent companies. A crucial factor for whether such cases can succeed, is the viability of the claims against the parent companies allegedly involved in the abuses. The principal legal route that victims have used to hold parent companies liable is through common law negligence claims.

"This volume inquires how regulatory tools stemming from international law, public law, and private law may or may not be used for transnational corporate accountability purposes. Attention is devoted to applicable standards of liability, institutional and jurisdictional issues, and practical challenges, with a focus on ways to improve the existing legal status quo. In addition, there is consideration of the extent to which non-legal regulatory instruments may complement or provide more viable alternatives to these legal mechanisms. The book combines legal-doctrinal approaches with comparative, interdisciplinary and policy insights with the dual aim of furthering the legal scholarly debate on these issues and enabling higher quality decision-making by policymakers seeking to implement regulatory measures that enhance corporate accountability in this context. Through its study of contemporary developments in legislation and case law, it provides a timely and important contribution to the scholarly and socio-political debate in the fast evolving field of international corporate social responsibility and accountability"

"This volume inquires how regulatory tools stemming from international law, public law, and private law may or may not be used for transnational corporate accountability purposes. Attention is devoted to applicable standards of liability, institutional and jurisdictional issues, and practical challenges, with a focus on ways to improve the existing legal status quo. In addition, there is consideration of the extent to which non-legal regulatory instruments may complement or provide more viable alternatives to these legal mechanisms. The book combines legal-doctrinal approaches with comparative, interdisciplinary and policy insights with the dual aim of furthering the legal scholarly debate on these issues and enabling higher quality decision-making by policymakers seeking to implement regulatory measures that enhance corporate accountability in this context. Through its study of contemporary developments in legislation and case law, it provides a timely and important contribution to the scholarly and socio-political debate in the fast evolving field of international corporate social responsibility and accountability"--