Causes of Action Behind Parent Companies’ Accountability for Human Rights Violations in National Courts
Abstract
The vertical nature of international human rights norms presupposes states to be the addressee of human rights obligations. Therefore, there is no corporate liability for human rights abuses under international law. National legislation also does not contain any explicit rule that would allow to hold a parent company liable for human rights violations committed by its subsidiary or supplier abroad. Nevertheless, even in the absence of a clear legal basis, the national courts of Canada, France, the UK and the Netherlands, express their willingness to recognise the existence of responsibility to respect human rights on the part of corporations. Furthermore, modern case law of the aforementioned states represents possibilities to actually hold corporations liable under tort and criminal law for violations of this obligation. The reason for these “bottom — up” developments appears to be the shift of focus from corporate to victims protection. Corporate legal autonomy originated from strict corporate separation principle, as it becomes questionable nowadays. The need for the developments was born from a laissez-faire approach applied to corporations over the years that gave them the possibility to become invisible in their home states and therefore insulate liability for wrongdoings abroad. National courts of Canada, France, the UK and the Netherlands in course of their judicial practice invoke a great variety of possible causes of action to be the ground of imposing the responsibility to respect human rights on corporations and consequently holding them liable for violation of that obligation. Causes of action encompass international human rights law provisions, invocation of duty of care concept, human rights due diligence framework and criminal law provisions. However, the question whether any cause of action invoked by national courts in order to hold parent companies liable for human rights abuses committed by their subsidiaries or suppliers abroad meets the criteria of universality and applicability at the international level.
Downloads
References
Bueno N. (2020) The Swiss Popular Initiative on Responsible Business: From Responsibility to Liability. In: Enneking L., Giesen I., Schaap A.-J., Ryngaert C., Kristen F., Roorda L. (eds.) Accountability, International Business Operations and the Law. New York: Routledge, pp. 239– 258. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351127165-12
Butler J. (2020) The Corporate Keepers of International Law. American Journal of International Law, vol. 114, no. 2, pp. 189–220. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/ajil.2020.1
Chambers R. (2021) Parent Company Direct Liability for Overseas Human Rights Violations: Lessons from the UK Supreme Court. University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Law, vol. 42, no. 3, pp. 519–579. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3682273
Curran V. (2016) Harmonizing Multinational Parent Company Liability for Foreign Subsidiary Human Rights Violations. Chicago Journal of International Law, vol. 17, no. 2, art. 3, pp. 403–446.
van Dam C. (2021) Breakthrough in Parent Company Liability: Three Shell Defeats, the End of an Era and New Paradigms. European Company and Financial Law Review, vol. 18, no. 5, pp. 714–748. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/ecfr-2021-0032
van Dam C., Gregor F. (2017) Corporate Responsibility to Respect Human Rights vis-à-vis Legal Duty of Care. In: Rubio J., Yiannibas K. (eds.) Human Rights in Business: Removal of Barriers to Access to Justice in the European Union. London: Routledge, pp. 119–138. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315269467
Dowling P. (2020) Limited Liability and Separate Corporate Personality in Multinational Corporate Groups: Conceptual Flaws, Accountability Gaps, and the Case for Profit-Risk Liability. In: Enneking L., Giesen I., Schaap A.-J., Ryngaert C., Kristen F., Roorda L. (eds.) Accountability, International Business Operations and the Law. New York: Routledge, pp. 219–238. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351127165-11
Farah Y., Kunuji V., Kent A. (2023) Civil Liability Under Sustainability Due Diligence Legislation: A Quiet Revolution?. King's Law Journal, vol. 34, no. 3, pp. 499–523. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09615768.2023.2283234
Fasterling B. (2020) Whose Responsibilities? The Responsibility of the “Business Enterprise” to Respect Human Right. In: Enneking L., Giesen I., Schaap A.-J., Ryngaert C., Kristen F., Roorda L. (eds.) Accountability, International Business Operations and the Law. New York: Routledge, pp. 18–37. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351127165-2
Jagers N., Heijden M.-J. (2008) Corporate Human Rights Violations: the Feasibility of Civil Recourse in the Netherlands. Brooklyn Journal of International Law, vol. 33, no. 3, art. 2, pp. 833–870.
Macchi C., van Zeben J. (2021) Business and Human Rights Implications of Climate Change Litigation: Milieudefensie et al. v. Royal Dutch Shell. Review of European, Comparative and International Environmental Law, vol. 30, no. 3, pp. 409–415. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/reel.12416
McCorquodale R. (2013) Pluralism, Global Law and Human Rights: Strengthening Corporate Accountability for Human Rights Violations. Global Constitutionalism, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 287–315. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/s2045381713000099
Palombo D. (2020) Business and Human Rights: The Obligations of the European Home States. Oxford: Bloomsbury Publishing. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5040/9781509928064
Rusinova V., Ganina O. (2021) Postanovlenie Verkhovnogo suda Kanady ot 28 fevralya 2020 goda po delu “Nevsun” protiv Arayi: “tikhaya revolyutsiya” v. otsenke statusa korporatsiy po mezhdunarodnomu publichnomu pravu [Judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada of 28 February 2020, on Nevsun v. Araya: a “Quiet Revolution” in the Assessment of the Status of Corporations under Public International Law?]. Mezhdunarodnoe pravosudie, vol. 11, no. 2. pp. 25–39. (in Russian). DOI: https://doi.org/10.21128/2226-2059-2021-2-25-39
Rusinova V., Korotkov S. (2021) Mandatory Corporate Human Rights Due Diligence Models: Shooting Blanks?. Russian Law Journal, vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 33–71. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17589/2309-8678-2021-9-4-33-71
Salminen J. (2018) The Accord on Fire and Building Safety in Bangladesh: A New Paradigm for Limiting Buyers’ Liability in Global Supply Chains?. American Journal of Comparative Law, vol. 66, no. 2, pp. 411–451. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcl/avy030
Siddiqui J., Uddin S. (2016) Human Rights Disasters, Corporate Accountability and the State: Lessons Learned from Rana Plaza. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, vol. 29, no. 4, pp. 679–704. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/aaaj-07-2015-2140
Trebilcock A. (2020) The Rana Plaza Disaster Seven Years on: Transnational Experiments and Perhaps a New Treaty?. International Labour Review, vol. 159, no 4, pp. 545–568. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/ilr.12183
This work is licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 4.0
