Journal of Business Ethics

, Volume 117, Issue 3, pp 493–511 | Cite as

Enhancing Corporate Accountability for Human Rights Violations: Is Extraterritoriality the Magic Potion?

Article

Abstract

The United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, resulting from the work of John Ruggie and his team, largely depend on state action and corporate good will for their implementation. One increasingly popular way for states to prevent and redress violations of human rights committed by companies outside their country of registration is to adopt measures with extraterritorial implications, some of which are presented in the article, or to assert direct extraterritorial jurisdiction in specific instances. Some United Nations human rights bodies and non-governmental organisations are clearly supporting the use of extraterritoriality and have argued that international human rights law places an obligation on states to embrace extraterritoriality so as to better control the activities of companies registered on their territories. In this context, the article aims to determine whether extraterritoriality is the magic potion that will help enhance corporate accountability for human rights violations committed overseas. The article explores whether such obligation exists and, beyond this, whether extraterritoriality should be further encouraged.

Keywords

Business and human rights Accountability Extraterritoriality Stock exchange Procurement Reporting Export credit International human rights law United Nations Alien Tort Statute 

Abbreviations

ECA

Export Credit Agency

EU

European Union

G.A.

United Nations General Assembly

OECD

Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development

Res.

Resolution

UN

United Nations

U.N.T.S.

United Nations Treaty Series

WTO

World Trade Organisation

References

  1. Akehurst, M. (1972–1973). Jurisdiction in international law, British Yearbook of International Law, 46, 145–257.Google Scholar
  2. Baker, M. B. (2000–2001). Flying over the judicial hump: A human rights drama featuring Burma, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the WTO and the Federal Courts, Law and Policy in International Business, 32, 51, 93–94.Google Scholar
  3. Born, G. B. (1992). A reappraisal of the extraterritorial reach of U.S. Law. Law & Policy in International Business, 24(1), 67–68.Google Scholar
  4. Campbell, D. (2004). Energy giant agrees settlement with Burmese villagers. The Guardian (London), 15 December 2004.Google Scholar
  5. Choudhury, B. (2005). Beyond the Alien Tort Claims Act: Alternative approaches to attributing liability to corporations for extraterritorial abuses. Northwestern Journal of International Law and Business, 26, pp 43, 68.Google Scholar
  6. Clapham, A. (2006). Human rights obligations of non-state actors. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Coomans, F. (2011). The extraterritorial scope of the international covenant on economic, social and cultural rights in the work of the United Nations Committee on economic, social and cultural rights. Human Rights Law Review, 11(1), 29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. De Schutter, O. (2006a). Extraterritorial jurisdiction as a tool for improving the Human Rights Accountability of Transnational Corporations, November 2006, p. 10.Google Scholar
  9. De Schutter, O. (2006b) Extraterritorial jurisdiction as a tool for improving the human rights accountability of transnational corporations, November 2006, p. 34.Google Scholar
  10. De Schutter, O. (2006c). Extraterritorial jurisdiction as a tool for improving the human rights accountability of transnational corporations, November 2006, p. 51.Google Scholar
  11. De Schutter, O. (2010). International human rights law (p. 162). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Donovan, D. F., & Roberts, A. (2006). The emerging recognition of universal civil jurisdiction, American Journal of International Law, 100, 142, 149–153.Google Scholar
  13. Evans, J. (2010a). Human rights and labour standards: The duty of export credit agencies. OECD, Smart Rules for Fair Trade: 50 years of Export Credits, p. 66.Google Scholar
  14. Evans, J. (2010b). Human rights and labour standards: The duty of export credit agencies. OECD, Smart Rules for Fair Trade: 50 years of Export Credits p. 69.Google Scholar
  15. Feeney, D. J. (2002). The European Commission’s Extraterritorial Jurisdiction over Corporate Mergers, Georgia State University Law Review, 19, 425–491, 428.Google Scholar
  16. Grundman, V. R. (1980). The new imperialism: The extraterritorial application of United States law. The International Lawyer (ABA), 14, 257.Google Scholar
  17. Keenan, K. (2008). Export credit agencies and the international law of human rights (p. 2). Halifax: Halifax Coalition Initiative.Google Scholar
  18. Leigh, D. (2009). Trafigura reaches a global settlement, The Guardian (London), 16 September 2009.Google Scholar
  19. Mattei, U., & Lena, J. (2000–2001). US jurisdiction over conflicts arising outside of the United States: Some hegemonic implications. Hastings International & Comparative Law Review, 24, 381.Google Scholar
  20. McCorquodale, R., & Simons, P. (2007a). Responsibility beyond borders: State responsibility for extraterritorial violations by corporations of international human rights law. Modern Law Review, 70, 618.Google Scholar
  21. McCorquodale, R., & Simons, P. (2007b). Responsibility beyond borders: State responsibility for extraterritorial violations by corporations of international human rights law. Modern Law Review, 70, 616–617.Google Scholar
  22. McCrudden, C. (1999). International economic law and the pursuit of human rights: A framework for discussion of the legality of ‘selective purchasing’ laws under the WTO Government Procurement Agreement. Journal of International Economic Law, 2(1), 3–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Milanovic, M. (2011). Extraterritorial application of human rights treaties (p. 46). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Parrish, A. L. (2008–2009). Reclaiming international law from extraterritoriality, Minnesota Law Review, 93, pp. 815, 856.Google Scholar
  25. Roth, P. M. (1992). Reasonable extraterritoriality: Correcting the balance of interest. International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 41, 245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Sander, B. (2012). Kiobel: Universal civil jurisdiction under international law. EJIL Talk! 26 April 2012.Google Scholar
  27. Scheffer, D., & Kaeb, C. (2011a). The five levels of CSR compliance: The resiliency of corporate liability under the alien tort statute and the case for a counterattack strategy in compliance theory. Berkeley Journal of International Law, 29, 334, 335.Google Scholar
  28. Scheffer, D., & Kaeb, C. (2011b). The five levels of CSR compliance: The resiliency of corporate liability under the alien tort statute and the case for a counterattack strategy in compliance theory. Berkeley Journal of International Law, 29, 334, 380.Google Scholar
  29. Schwelb, E. (1973). An instance of enforcing the universal declaration of human rights—action by the Security Council. International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 22, 155, 162.Google Scholar
  30. Sepúlveda, M. (2006). Obligations of ‘International Assistance and Cooperation’ in an optional protocol to the international covenant on economic, social and cultural rights. Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights, 24, 271.Google Scholar
  31. Stephan, P. B. (2002). A becoming modesty-US litigation in the mirror of international law. DePaul Law Review, 52, 627.Google Scholar
  32. Stephens, B. (2004). Upsetting checks and balances: The bush administration’s efforts to limit human rights litigation. Harvard Human Rights Journal, 17, 169.Google Scholar
  33. Sterio M. (2007). Clash of the titans: Collisions of economic regulations and the need to harmonize prescriptive jurisdiction rules, University of California Davis Journal of International Law and Policy, 13, 95, 113–117.Google Scholar
  34. The Oxford English Dictionary. (1989). 2nd edn. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  35. Tvardek, S. (2010). Smart rules for fair trade: Why export credit matters, OECD. Smart Rules for Fair Trade: 50 years of Export Credits, pp. 15–16.Google Scholar
  36. Ward, H. (2001). Securing transnational corporate accountability through national courts: Implications and policy options, Hastings International and Comparative Law Review, 24, 451, 456–458.Google Scholar
  37. Wyatt, E. (2012). Use of ‘conflict minerals’ gets more scrutiny from U.S., The New York Times, 19 March 2012.Google Scholar
  38. Zerk, J. A. (2010a). Extraterritorial jurisdiction: Lessons for the business and human rights sphere from six regulatory areas (p. 15). Corporate Social Responsibility Initiative Working Paper No. 59, Cambridge, MA: John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University.Google Scholar
  39. Zerk, J. A. (2010b). Extraterritorial jurisdiction: Lessons for the business and human rights sphere from six regulatory areas (p. 17). Corporate Social Responsibility Initiative Working Paper No. 59, Cambridge, MA: John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Middlesex UniversityLondonUK

Personalised recommendations