Abstract
The article draws on scholarships in the areas of international law, inequality and energy justice to engage in a dialogue with the business and human rights literature, from the perspective of the global south and Latin America, in particular. It engages with Gwynne Skinner's monograph about overcoming barriers to judicial remedy for corporate abuses of human rights. Skinner argues that if victims of these abuses cannot secure remedy in the countries in which the abuses occur – because of weak or corrupt institutions, among other factors – then the victims have a right to remedy in the home countries of the corporations and in countries in which they may conduct business – specifically, the United States, Canada and Europe. Skinner recommends that new legislation be introduced in these countries to ensure that their courts have jurisdiction to hear cases, under international human rights law, even when the cases have little or no links with the forum countries. I argue that a more robust international law and interdisciplinary approach shows that international human rights law alone provides a weak basis for the recommendations. I also reflect on part of the narrative that supports Skinner's argument, which builds a negative image of the courts in developing countries, to argue that this is unnecessary and that expansions of the bases of jurisdiction should be implemented on specific and stronger reasons.
Original language | English |
---|---|
Pages (from-to) | 64-96 |
Number of pages | 33 |
Journal | Israel Law Review |
Volume | 55 |
Issue number | 1 |
Early online date | 4 Feb 2022 |
DOIs | |
Publication status | Published - 4 Mar 2022 |
Keywords
- business and human rights
- right to remedy
- extraterritorial jurisdiction
- inequality
- energy justice
- just framework
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Law
- Political Science and International Relations