Updated database on Corruption (Surrey University)

A quick post to indicate to those interested in corruption law and research that the University of Surrey’s School of Law website has released an updated database on corruption materials with links to international and domestic instruments in the Field.

The last version of the database provides links to the corruption laws of the Commonwealth and EU countries.

See the Corruption website and the Database

The German perspective on extraterritorial jurisdiction in transnational business & human rights litigation

Claimants from all over the world have brought various lawsuits against non-US companies because of human rights being violated outside of the United States. Currently, a supposed clash of extraterritorial jurisdiction of civil courts with the international law principle of state sovereignty, or non-intervention, has put all litigation under the US Alien Tort Claims Act to a halt. The Notepad repeatedly commented on this kind of litigation (see the ATCA / ATS tags). In a post over at grabosch-law.eu, I try to explain that provisions of extraterritorial jurisdiction – i.e. jurisdiction in cases which have no or hardly any connection to the forum state – are well known in legal systems outside of the United States. At least from a German understanding of international law, civil courts’ jurisdiction is not at odds with the principle of non-intervention.

India seeks treaty revisions to deal with corporate suits – Indian Express

Just a quick line about a report published ten days ago in an Indian online newspaper regarding Indian’s plans to abandon international arbitration in investment disputes.

Everything is here: India seeks treaty revisions to deal with corporate suits – Indian Express.

New paper published: “Corporate liability for violations of international human rights: law, international custom or politics?”

The full extent of the 1789 Alien Tort Claims Act (ATCA) which allows non-U.S. citizens to file suits in the U.S. for international human rights violations has been the subject of many debates in recent U.S. cases (Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain,Kiobel, Boimah Flomo I and II, Exxon). This comment looks at the key points relied upon in recent decisions to reject the existence of a corporate liability principle under customary international law. The concurring observations of Judge Leval, who argued that the Kiobel decision might have kept the door open to major corporate abuses and created a precedent of corporate impunity, are especially relevant because they have been confirmed by more recent decisions. This comment also considers the arguments presented in the Kiobel re-hearing rejection regarding the policy impact of the decision and the policy-making role of U.S. tribunals. Finally, this comment questions whether U.S. courts should be expected to get involved in international justice, thereby risking being characterized as imperialist, self-appointed world judges.

The paper is availble here, and as a pdf version

US Supreme Court sceptical on Kiobel hearings

Further arguments in the Kiobel case on the liability of transnational corporations under ATCA were presented yesterday (28th February 2012) before the US Supreme Court. The case was commented a moment ago on this blog (see here as well as the ATCA / ATS tags for more comments)  and it seemed at the time that the Court was reluctant to aknowledge the existence of a principle of corporate liability under international law. Well, it seems that the argument persists.

For those interested in the debate, a very informative post by Lyle Denniston can be found on the SCOTUSblog:

” When Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, in the opening minute of a Supreme Court argument, tells a lawyer that his entire case is in jeopardy, it is extremely difficult for even an experienced counsel to recover.   And, though he tried, Venice, Calif., attorney Paul L. Hoffman did not appear on Tuesday to have resuscitated his argument that foreign corporations should be held to account in U.S. courts for human rights abuses in foreign lands.  At least a majority of the Justices looked notably unconvinced [...]“

Venezuela officially withdraws from ICSID

By Julián Cárdenas García, Doctoral Fellow at the Research Center of International Investment and Trade Law, CREDIMI – Université de Bourgogne

 

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Venezuela recently denounced the ICSID Convention through a Ministry of Foreign Affairs Press Release (Spanish):

Unofficial translation:

Venezuelan Government Withdraws from ICSID
Venezuelan Ministry of People’s Power for Foreign Affairs.-

The government of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela gave notice to  the World Bank on January 24th, of its irrevocable denunciation of the  “Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States  and Nationals of Other States” of 1966, which established the  International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID).