Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-6d856f89d9-vrt8f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-16T06:57:34.366Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

29 - Liability of Multinational Corporations

An Integrated Approach to Economic and Social Rights

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2012

Malcolm Langford
Affiliation:
Norwegian Centre for Human Rights, University of Oslo
Get access

Summary

INTRODUCTION

The activities of multinational corporations (‘MNCs’) often have a positive effect on economic, social and cultural rights. They provide employment, thus facilitating the right to work. Their innovations can lead to the creation of new products, such as new medicines and computers, which facilitate the enjoyment of the rights to health or the right to education. Corporate employers may voluntarily provide for certain economic and social benefits for their workers, such as the provision of antiretroviral drugs for HIV-positive workers in the developing world, or the provision of education for younger workers. Corporate philanthropy can of course assist millions outside a corporation's direct sphere of influence. Their investment activities may be assumed to increase wealth, thus increasing the level of affluence in societies, and the ability of people to afford satisfactory levels of economic and social prosperity.

However, the picture is not all rosy. MNCs are capable of committing acts that detrimentally impact on the enjoyment of economic, social and cultural (‘ESC’) rights. MNCs have been accused of adopting exploitative labour practices, breaching rights to just conditions of work. MNCs are also accused of practices that are antipathetic to trade unions. Poor occupational health and safety (‘OHS’) standards can harm the rights to health of workers, and people in the vicinity of a corporation's operations. Corporate negligence and/or subsequent cover-ups can unacceptably expose consumers to dangerous goods, such as unsafe automobiles or asbestos products.

Type
Chapter
Information
Social Rights Jurisprudence
Emerging Trends in International and Comparative Law
, pp. 613 - 627
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Meyer, W. H., ‘Human Rights and MNCs: Theory versus Quantitative Analysis’, Human Rights Quarterly, Vol. 18 (1996), pp. 368–397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, J., Bolyard, M. and Ippolito, A., ‘Human Rights and the Global Economy: A Response to Meyer’, Human Rights Quarterly, Vol. 21 (1999), pp. 207–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyer, W. H., ‘Confirming, Infirming and “Falsifying” Theories of Human Rights: Reflections on Smith, Bolyard and Ippolito Through the Lens of Lakatos’, Human Rights Quarterly, Vol. 21 (1999), pp. 220–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, S. and Cavanagh, J., ‘Top 200: The Rise of Global Corporate Power’, Institute for Policy Studies, 4 December 2000, <www.ips-dc.org/reports/top200.htm> (accessed 27 March 2007).Google Scholar
Rogge, M. J., ‘Towards Transnational Corporate Liability in the Global Economy: Challenging the Doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens in Re: Union Carbide, Alfaro, Sequihua, and Aguinda’, Texas International Law Journal, Vol. 26 (2001), pp. 299–317Google Scholar
Ward, H., ‘Towards a New Convention on Corporate Accountability? Some Lessons from the Thor Chemicals and Cape Plc cases’, Yearbook of International Environmental Law, Vol. 12 (2001), pp. 105–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blumberg, P., ‘Accountability of Multinational Corporations: The Barriers Presented by Concepts of the Corporate Juridical Entity’, Hastings International and Comparative Law Review, Vol. 24 (2001), pp. 297–320Google Scholar
Baxi, U., ‘Geographies of Injustice: Human Rights at the Altar of Convenience’, in Scott, C. (ed.), Torture as Tort (Oxford: Hart, 2001), pp. 197–212Google Scholar
World Business Briefing Americas: Nicaragua: Pesticide Claim Dismissed’, New York Times, 25 October 2003, p. C.4.
Joseph, S., ‘Taming the Leviathans: Multinational Enterprises and Human Rights’, Netherlands International Law Review, Vol. 46 (1999), 171–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joseph, S., Schultz, J. and Castan, M., The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: Cases, Materials and Commentary, 2nd edition (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), pp. 87–91Google Scholar
Simma, B. and Alston, P., ‘The Sources of Human Rights Law: Custom, Jus Cogens, and General Principles’, Australian Year Book of International Law, Vol. 12 (1992), pp. 82–108Google Scholar
Scott, C., ‘Multinational Enterprises and Emergent Jurisdiction on Violations of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights’, in Eide, A., Krause, C. and Rosas, A. (eds.), Economic, Cultural and Social Rights: A Textbook, 2nd revised ed. (Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2001), pp. 563–595.Google Scholar
Perez, O., ‘Reflections on an Environmental Struggle: P&O, Dahanu, and the Regulation of Multinational Enterprises’, Georgetown International Environmental Law Review, Vol. 15 (2002), pp. 1–27Google Scholar
Creedy, S., ‘Lonely Planet Challenges the Big End’, The Australian, 31 December 2004, p. 6Google Scholar
Elliot, G., ‘PM Urges Big Business to Dig Deeper’, The Australian, 3 January 2005, p. 6Google Scholar
McDonald, A., ‘Call for Companies to Give’, The Australian, 5 January 2005, p. 9Google Scholar
Elliot, G., ‘Big Business Slammed over Aid Response’, The Australian, 5 January 2005, p. 9Google Scholar
Carruthers, F., ‘Give and Take of Corporate Donations’, Financial Review, 8 January 2005, p. 18Google Scholar
O'Malley, N., ‘It's All About the Dividends’, The Sydney Morning Herald, 29 March 2005, p. 11.Google Scholar
Dunoff, J. L.; ‘The Misguided Debate over NGO Participation at the WTO’, Journal of International Economic Law, Vol. 1 (1998), pp. 433–456, 441–448CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mann, H., International Investment Agreements, Business and Human Rights: Key Issues and Opportunities (International Institute for Sustainable Development, February 2008), pp. 25–29.Google Scholar
Joseph, S., Corporations and Transnational Human Rights Litigation (Oxford: Hart, 2004).Google Scholar
Wallace, R. M. M., International Law, 4th ed. (Sweet & Maxwell, London, 2002), p. 112.Google Scholar
Steiner, H. and Alston, P., International Human Rights in Context, 3rd ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), pp. 280–282.Google Scholar
Meeran, R., ‘Multinational Litigation as a Weapon in Protecting Economic and Social Rights’, in Squires, J., Langford, M. and Thiele, B. (eds.), Road to a Remedy: Current Issues in Litigation of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (Sydney: Australian Human Rights Centre and University of NSW Press, 2006), pp. 183–211Google Scholar
Blumberg, P., ‘Asserting Human Rights against Multinational Corporations under United States Law – Conceptual and Procedural Problems’, American Journal of Comparative Law, Vol. 50 (2002), pp. 493–529CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newman, L. W., ‘Latin America and Forum non Conveniens Dismissals’, New York Law Journal, Vol. 221, Issue 23 (1999), pp. 3–4Google Scholar
Anderson, W., ‘Forum non Conveniens Checkmated? The Emergence of Retaliatory Legislation’, Journal of Transnational Law and Policy, Vol. 10 (2001), pp. 183–216Google Scholar
Baker, D. R., ‘ChevronTexaco on the defensive: Suit in Ecuador alleges drilling by Texaco caused environmental damage in Amazon’, San Francisco Chronicle, 3 March 2005.Google Scholar
Prince, P., ‘Bhopal, Bougainville and Ok Tedi: Why Australia's Forum Non Conveniens Approach Is Better’, International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol. 47 (1998), pp. 573–598CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Byers, M., ‘English Courts and Serious Human Rights Violations Abroad: A Preliminary Assessment’ in Kamminga, M. and Zia-Zarif, S. (eds.), Liability of Multinational Corporations under International Law (The Hague: Kluwer Law International, 2000), pp 241–250Google Scholar
Cuniberti, G., ‘Forum non Conveniens and the Brussels Convention’, International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol. 54, (2005), pp. 973–981.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×