Multinational corporations are powerful entities that have considerable influence on the international stage. Their power continues to grow and today some of the world’s largest MNCs have more power than some developing nations. This creates problems for a number of reasons. The legal definition of a corporation places it in a position where it often falls through the gaps of international law. Through globalization the international market has created numerous investment opportunities in developing nations where the cost of labour is low. However, the weak state regulations of the host nation are often inadequate to prevent human rights abuses committed by corporations. A brief overview of the legal structure of a corporation is essential. As well, although there are a number of international mechanisms that were created to regulate the actions of these enterprises, many fall short. Additional solutions proposed by different actors in the international community have some fundamental flaws. Finally, after discussing some proposed solutions to these issues a closer look reveals that the risks involved in creating more rigid accountability mechanisms create more risk than it is worth. International and domestic law has proved to be inconsistent and ineffective and therefore MNCs should be kept outside of the international human rights legal framework until better alternatives become available.
The legal structure of corporations places them in a unique position in international law. According to Iwai, when a group of shareholders come together and incorporate a business the resulting corporation becomes its own legal person (2002, p. 243). In essence this means that the corporation is conferred with many of the same rights of an i...
... middle of paper ...
...nomic Review 53 (3): 243-273.
Katuoka, Saulius and Monika Dailidaite. 2012. "Responsibility of Transnational Corporations for Human Rights Violations: Deficiencies of International Legal Background and Solutions Offered by National and Regional Legal Tools." Jurisprudencija 19 (4): 1301-1316.
Khan, Wasima. 2013. "Corporate Power and the Protection of Human Rights in Equilibrium." Security & Human Rights 24 (1): 29-42.
Kim, Dong-Hun and Peter F. Trumbore. 2010. "Transnational Mergers and Acquisitions: The Impact of FDI on Human Rights, 1981—2006." Journal of Peace Research 47 (6): 723-734.
Leader, Daniel. 2008. Business and Human Rights – Time to Hold Companies to Account. Vol. 8 Martinus Nijhoff.
Watts, Michael J. 2005. "Righteous Oil? Human Rights, the Oil Complex, and Corporate Social Responsibility." Annual Review of Environment & Resources 30 (1): 373-407.
Pratt, Joseph A. “Exxon and the Control of Oil.” Journal of American History. 99.1 (2012): 145-154. Academic search elite. Web. 26. Jan. 2014.
The current century has witnessed immense improvement and re-conceptualization of standards and sovereignty of human rights in Latin America. With the endemic repression and violations of human rights throughout Latin American in the mid to late 20th century, the International human rights regime, an amalgam of international and intergovernmental organizations and bodies, expanded exponentially. By conducting investigations within certain countries, or simply monitoring overt violations of human rights, the international human rights regime stimulated global awareness of violations of human rights in different countries; soon to follow was change in domestic policy in response to international policy. This also led to increased opposition by domestic NGOs against repressive governments or dictatorships largely responsible for human rights violations. Just as well, a number of organizations and groups aided domestic non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in their growing efforts to establish judicial practices that better protected human rights. Declarations, conventions, and charters, established a number of values that served as the credo for the organizations that constituted the international human rights regime. Over time, more and more countries were pressured and held accountable for these values, which developed into universal standards for human rights practices. Thus the International Human right regime and the pressure they imposed upon governments ultimately resulted in widespread positive changes in human rights.
...s Watch | Defending Human Rights Worldwide. Human Rights Watch, 29 Jan. 2014. Web. 21 Mar. 2014.
Wee, Heesun. “Corporate Ethics: Right Makes Might.” Business Week Online. Ed. Douglas Harbrecht. 11 Apr. 2002. 3 Mar. 2005.
297-322. Ross, M. L. (2002). "The Species of a Spec Does Oil Hinder Democracy? World Politics, 53 (3), 325-361. Wantchekon, L. (1999).
Huy, D. T. N., 2012. The Backbone of International Corporate Governance Standards : Case Studies and Analysis. s.l.:Lulu.com.
" Oil is the life blood of our modern industrial society. It fuels the machines and lubricates the wheels of the world’s production. But when that vital resource is out of control, it can destroy marine life and devastate the environment and economy of an entire region…. The plain facts are that the technology of oil-- its extraction, its transport, its refinery and use-- has outpaced laws to control that technology and prevent oil from polluting the environment…" (Max, 1969). Oil in its many forms has become one of the necessities of modern industrial life. Under control, and serving its intended purpose, oil is efficient, versatile, and productive. On the other hand, when oil becomes out of control, it can be one of the most devastating substances in the environment. When spilled in water, it spreads for miles around leaving a black memory behind (Stanley, 1969).
This essay considers that the violation of human rights can indeed be address by extraterritorial jurisdiction throw the human rights legal framework, mainly throw treaties as showed jurisprudence.
Shah, A. (2006, May 28). Corporations and Worker's Rights. - Global Issues. Retrieved April 21, 2014, from http://www.globalissues.org/article/57/corporations-and-workers-rights
The Principle of Separate Corporate Personality The principle of separate corporate personality has been firmly established in the common law since the decision in the case of Salomon v Salomon & Co Ltd[1], whereby a corporation has a separate legal personality, rights and obligations totally distinct from those of its shareholders. Legislation and courts nevertheless sometimes "pierce the corporate veil" so as to hold the shareholders personally liable for the liabilities of the corporation. Courts may also "lift the corporate veil", in the conflict of laws in order to determine who actually controls the corporation, and thus to ascertain the corporation's true contacts, and closest and most real connection. Throughout the course of this assignment I will begin by explaining the concept of legal personality and describe the veil of incorporation. I will give examples of when the veil of incorporation can be lifted by the courts and statuary provisions such as s.24 CA 1985 and incorporate the varying views of judges as to when the veil can be lifted.
...)). As the society is constantly changing and developing, international law is also in constant development, and with time, it came to reflect the legal relations between non-states such as companies and individuals, as well as relations between states, it is being shaped into a new system which is more involved in the structure of the society itself and not only based on state sovereignty.
According to Corporation Act 2001 s124(1), it illustrates that ‘’A company has the legal capacity and powers of an individual both in and outside the jurisdiction” . As it were, company as a legal individual must be freely with all its capital contribution shall embrace liability for its legal actions and obligations of the company’s shareholders is limited to its investment to the company. This ‘separate legal entity’ principle was established in the case of Salomon v Salomon & Co Ltd [1987] as company was held to have conducted the business as a legal person and separate from its members. It demonstrated that the debt of company is belonged to the company but not to the shareholders. Shareholders have only right to participate in managing but not in sharing the company property. Besides ,the Macaura v Northern Assurance Co Ltd [1925] demonstrates that the distinction between the shareholders and company assets. It means that even Mr Macaura owned almost all the shares in the company, he had no insurable interest in the company’s asset. The other recent case is the Lee v Lee’s Air Farming Ltd [1961] which illustrates that the distinct legal entities between employee ad director allows Mr.Lee function in dual capacities. It resulted that the corporation can contract with the controlling member of the corporation.
The world wide oil industry supplies mankind with many life improving products and services. At the same time these technological advances challenge us with numerous ethical considerations.
Leifer, Roman, and Julian Tam. "Human Rights: Collective Rights versus Individual Rights." ThinkQuest. Oracle Foundation, 2001. Web. 05 Jan. 2014.