LEADER 04352nam  22007931  450 
001 9910826225703321
005 20050421151241.0
010   $a1-4725-6308-5
010   $a1-280-80815-2
010   $a9786610808151
010   $a1-84731-074-5
024 7 $a10.5040/9781472563088
035   $a(CKB)1000000000338438
035   $a(EBL)270693
035   $a(OCoLC)271809479
035   $a(SSID)ssj0000130960
035   $a(PQKBManifestationID)12019332
035   $a(PQKBTitleCode)TC0000130960
035   $a(PQKBWorkID)10098709
035   $a(PQKB)10984128
035   $a(Au-PeEL)EBL1772517
035   $a(CaPaEBR)ebr10276122
035   $a(CaONFJC)MIL80815
035   $a(OCoLC)893332143
035   $a(OCoLC)191793306
035   $a(UtOrBLW)bpp09256369
035   $a(Au-PeEL)EBL270693
035   $a(MiAaPQ)EBC1772517
035   $a(EXLCZ)991000000000338438
100   $a20140929d2004      uy         0
101 0 $aeng
135   $aur|n|---|||||
181   $ctxt
182   $cc
183   $acr
200 10$aCorporations and transnational human rights litigation /$fSarah Joseph
205   $a1st ed.
210  1$aOxford [Eng.] ;$aPortland, Oregon :$cHart Publishing,$d2004.
215   $a1 online resource (190 p.)
225 1 $aHuman rights law in perspective ;$vv. 4
300   $aDescription based upon print version of record.
311   $a9781841134570 
311   $a1-84113-457-0 
320   $aIncludes bibliographical references and index.
327   $a1. Introduction -- 2. The Alien Tort Claims Act -- 3. Other jurisdictional bases in the US -- 4. Procedural obstacles in the US -- 5. A new front: the Nike case -- 6. Transnational human rights litigation in other countries -- 7. Parent corporation liability in transnational human rights cases -- 8. Conclusion.
330   $a"Since the mid-1980s, beginning with the unsuccessful Union Carbide litigation in the USA, litigants have been exploring ways of holding multinational corporations [MNCs] liable for offshore human rights abuses in the courts of the companies' home States. The highest profile cases have been the human rights claims brought against MNCs (such as Unocal, Shell, Rio Tinto, Coca Cola, and Talisman) under the Alien Tort Claims Act in the United States. Such claims also raise issues under customary international law (which may be directly applicable in US federal law) and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations [RICO] statute. Another legal front is found in the USA, England and Australia, where courts have become more willing to exercise jurisdiction over transnational common law tort claims against home corporations.  Futhermore, a corporation's human rights practices were indirectly targeted under trade practices law in groundbreaking litigation in California against sportsgoods manufacturer Nike. This new study examines these developments and the procedural arguments (eg. regarding personal jurisdiction and especially forum non conveniens) which have been used to block litigation, as well as the principles which can be gleaned from cases which have settled. The analysis is important for human rights victims in order to know the boundaries of possible available legal redress. It is also important for MNCs, which must now take human rights into account in managing the legal risks (as well as moral and reputation risks) associated with offshore projects."--Bloomsbury Publishing.
410  0$aHuman rights law in perspective ;$vv. 4.
606   $aAliens$zUnited States
606   $aEconomic development$xEnvironmental aspects
606   $aEnvironmental responsibility
606   $aHuman rights
606   $aJurisdiction (International law)
606   $aTorts (International law)
606   $2International human rights law
615  0$aAliens
615  0$aEconomic development$xEnvironmental aspects.
615  0$aEnvironmental responsibility.
615  0$aHuman rights.
615  0$aJurisdiction (International law)
615  0$aTorts (International law)
676   $a341.481
676   $a342.085
700   $aJoseph$b Sarah$0257247
801  0$bUtOrBLW
801  1$bUtOrBLW
906   $aBOOK
912   $a9910826225703321
996   $aCorporations and transnational human rights litigation$9765617
997   $aUNINA