Better Together: A Complementary Approach to Civil Judicial Remedies in Business and Human Rights
Effective civil judicial remedies are often inaccessible to victims of transnational corporations (TNCs) from economically developed states that operate in developing or emerging states. The general consensus is that local capacity development is the most practical solution. The alternative solution...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Penn State law review 2018-10, Vol.122 (48), p.1-15 |
---|---|
1. Verfasser: | |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 15 |
---|---|
container_issue | 48 |
container_start_page | 1 |
container_title | Penn State law review |
container_volume | 122 |
creator | Nissen, Aleydis |
description | Effective civil judicial remedies are often inaccessible to victims of transnational corporations (TNCs) from economically developed states that operate in developing or emerging states. The general consensus is that local capacity development is the most practical solution. The alternative solution—opening the doors of courts to victims in other states (including TNC home states)—is often said to be illusory. At the 2017 Discussion Day on Business and Human Rights, organized by the United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR), one invited speaker went as far as stating that extraterritorial remedies would only result in victims’ disappointment. There is, however, an inconsistency in this argument. Extraterritorial remedies are still important in dealing with current issues. This article weighs the arguments and makes the case for a mixed approach consisting of both local and extraterritorial capacity development. |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>hal_ssoar</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_ssoar_primary_document_65829</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>oai_HAL_hal_02415640v1</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-h629-58d285d7eac461ba71dcba7da4ec61b26d33b98b7b2a19d4dcae31cecc5d3dcd3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNo9j09rg0AQxT200DTtdxjoqQfBXV3_9GakrSlCIeQu4840blFXXA3029eQ0st7zOPHY96NtxEqUn6SJsmdd-_cdxBIJTOx8XDH88wTHO2J55anF8ihsP3Ycc_DjNMP5OM4WdQtzBYKczYdfCxktMEODitEhh2YAXaLMwM7BzgQlEuPAxzMqZ3dg3f7hZ3jxz_fese312NR-tXn-77IK7-NZearlGSqKGHUUSwaTATpVQkj1ustYwrDJkubpJEoMopII4dCs9aKQtIUbr2na61zFqd6nEy_fl-T1ctlSR2rVGYr9XylWuz-GYumLvOqvmSBjISKo-Aswl9JhF-k</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype></control><display><type>article</type><title>Better Together: A Complementary Approach to Civil Judicial Remedies in Business and Human Rights</title><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><source>HeinOnline Law Journal Library</source><creator>Nissen, Aleydis</creator><creatorcontrib>Nissen, Aleydis</creatorcontrib><description>Effective civil judicial remedies are often inaccessible to victims of transnational corporations (TNCs) from economically developed states that operate in developing or emerging states. The general consensus is that local capacity development is the most practical solution. The alternative solution—opening the doors of courts to victims in other states (including TNC home states)—is often said to be illusory. At the 2017 Discussion Day on Business and Human Rights, organized by the United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR), one invited speaker went as far as stating that extraterritorial remedies would only result in victims’ disappointment. There is, however, an inconsistency in this argument. Extraterritorial remedies are still important in dealing with current issues. This article weighs the arguments and makes the case for a mixed approach consisting of both local and extraterritorial capacity development.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1545-7877</identifier><identifier>ISSN: 2574-2590</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>The Dickinson School of Law</publisher><subject>barriers to justice ; business and human rights ; Humanities and Social Sciences ; Law ; multinationales Unternehmen ; Recht ; remediation ; remedies</subject><ispartof>Penn State law review, 2018-10, Vol.122 (48), p.1-15</ispartof><rights>Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>230,314,776,780,881</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://hal.science/hal-02415640$$DView record in HAL$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ssoar.info/ssoar/handle/document/65829$$DView record in SSOAR (Social Science Open Access Repository)$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Nissen, Aleydis</creatorcontrib><title>Better Together: A Complementary Approach to Civil Judicial Remedies in Business and Human Rights</title><title>Penn State law review</title><description>Effective civil judicial remedies are often inaccessible to victims of transnational corporations (TNCs) from economically developed states that operate in developing or emerging states. The general consensus is that local capacity development is the most practical solution. The alternative solution—opening the doors of courts to victims in other states (including TNC home states)—is often said to be illusory. At the 2017 Discussion Day on Business and Human Rights, organized by the United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR), one invited speaker went as far as stating that extraterritorial remedies would only result in victims’ disappointment. There is, however, an inconsistency in this argument. Extraterritorial remedies are still important in dealing with current issues. This article weighs the arguments and makes the case for a mixed approach consisting of both local and extraterritorial capacity development.</description><subject>barriers to justice</subject><subject>business and human rights</subject><subject>Humanities and Social Sciences</subject><subject>Law</subject><subject>multinationales Unternehmen</subject><subject>Recht</subject><subject>remediation</subject><subject>remedies</subject><issn>1545-7877</issn><issn>2574-2590</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2018</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNo9j09rg0AQxT200DTtdxjoqQfBXV3_9GakrSlCIeQu4840blFXXA3029eQ0st7zOPHY96NtxEqUn6SJsmdd-_cdxBIJTOx8XDH88wTHO2J55anF8ihsP3Ycc_DjNMP5OM4WdQtzBYKczYdfCxktMEODitEhh2YAXaLMwM7BzgQlEuPAxzMqZ3dg3f7hZ3jxz_fese312NR-tXn-77IK7-NZearlGSqKGHUUSwaTATpVQkj1ustYwrDJkubpJEoMopII4dCs9aKQtIUbr2na61zFqd6nEy_fl-T1ctlSR2rVGYr9XylWuz-GYumLvOqvmSBjISKo-Aswl9JhF-k</recordid><startdate>20181023</startdate><enddate>20181023</enddate><creator>Nissen, Aleydis</creator><general>The Dickinson School of Law</general><scope>1XC</scope><scope>BXJBU</scope><scope>IHQJB</scope><scope>VOOES</scope><scope>RS5</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20181023</creationdate><title>Better Together: A Complementary Approach to Civil Judicial Remedies in Business and Human Rights</title><author>Nissen, Aleydis</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-h629-58d285d7eac461ba71dcba7da4ec61b26d33b98b7b2a19d4dcae31cecc5d3dcd3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2018</creationdate><topic>barriers to justice</topic><topic>business and human rights</topic><topic>Humanities and Social Sciences</topic><topic>Law</topic><topic>multinationales Unternehmen</topic><topic>Recht</topic><topic>remediation</topic><topic>remedies</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Nissen, Aleydis</creatorcontrib><collection>Hyper Article en Ligne (HAL)</collection><collection>HAL-SHS: Archive ouverte en Sciences de l'Homme et de la Société</collection><collection>HAL-SHS: Archive ouverte en Sciences de l'Homme et de la Société (Open Access)</collection><collection>Hyper Article en Ligne (HAL) (Open Access)</collection><collection>SSOAR (Social Science Open Access Repository)</collection><jtitle>Penn State law review</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Nissen, Aleydis</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Better Together: A Complementary Approach to Civil Judicial Remedies in Business and Human Rights</atitle><jtitle>Penn State law review</jtitle><date>2018-10-23</date><risdate>2018</risdate><volume>122</volume><issue>48</issue><spage>1</spage><epage>15</epage><pages>1-15</pages><issn>1545-7877</issn><issn>2574-2590</issn><abstract>Effective civil judicial remedies are often inaccessible to victims of transnational corporations (TNCs) from economically developed states that operate in developing or emerging states. The general consensus is that local capacity development is the most practical solution. The alternative solution—opening the doors of courts to victims in other states (including TNC home states)—is often said to be illusory. At the 2017 Discussion Day on Business and Human Rights, organized by the United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR), one invited speaker went as far as stating that extraterritorial remedies would only result in victims’ disappointment. There is, however, an inconsistency in this argument. Extraterritorial remedies are still important in dealing with current issues. This article weighs the arguments and makes the case for a mixed approach consisting of both local and extraterritorial capacity development.</abstract><pub>The Dickinson School of Law</pub><tpages>15</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1545-7877 |
ispartof | Penn State law review, 2018-10, Vol.122 (48), p.1-15 |
issn | 1545-7877 2574-2590 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_ssoar_primary_document_65829 |
source | Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals; HeinOnline Law Journal Library |
subjects | barriers to justice business and human rights Humanities and Social Sciences Law multinationales Unternehmen Recht remediation remedies |
title | Better Together: A Complementary Approach to Civil Judicial Remedies in Business and Human Rights |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-08T07%3A06%3A19IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-hal_ssoar&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Better%20Together:%20A%20Complementary%20Approach%20to%20Civil%20Judicial%20Remedies%20in%20Business%20and%20Human%20Rights&rft.jtitle=Penn%20State%20law%20review&rft.au=Nissen,%20Aleydis&rft.date=2018-10-23&rft.volume=122&rft.issue=48&rft.spage=1&rft.epage=15&rft.pages=1-15&rft.issn=1545-7877&rft_id=info:doi/&rft_dat=%3Chal_ssoar%3Eoai_HAL_hal_02415640v1%3C/hal_ssoar%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |