![]() In the first category, home state courts have parochially interpreted corporate legal personality. As international business has been able to structure itself to avoid the adjudicative reach of home state courts, harmed host state plaintiffs are unable to utilize domestic common laws to exact civil liability and obtain compensation.Ĭomprised mainly of transnational claims that originate in commercial activities in the extractive and manufacturing industries, the vacuum’s doctrinal limitations fall within two broad categories. Cumulatively, the doctrines create a ‘jurisdictional vacuum,’ illustrating that domestic legal principles have not kept pace with commerce that spans across state borders. Focusing on the United States, the United Kingdom, and Canada, this Article outlines the current state of common law doctrines that consistently inhibit host state plaintiffs from advancing transnational home state claims. Host state plaintiffs who then seek redress in home states where a corporate parent is domiciled face a number of doctrinal limitations. Private MNCs that operate in developing host states through overseas subsidiaries are regularly accused of human rights and environmental violations. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |