Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/10419/209547
Authors: 
Nissen, Aleydis
Year of Publication: 
2018
Citation: 
[Journal:] Penn State Law Review [ISSN:] 0012-2459 [Volume:] 122 [Issue:] 48 [Pages:] 1-15
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. One invited speaker at the CESCR’s 2017 Discussion Day on business and human rights 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 to deal with current issues. This article weighs up the arguments and makes the case for a mixed approach consisting of both local and extraterritorial capacity development.
Subjects: 
business and human rights
remediation
access to justice
JEL: 
H73
K33
K41
K42
Persistent Identifier of the first edition: 
Document Type: 
Article
Document Version: 
Published Version

Files in This Item:
File
Size





Items in EconStor are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.