False Extraterritoriality? Municipal and multinational jurisdiction over transnational corporations
License
Cadmus Permanent Link
Full-text via DOI
ISBN
ISSN
1783-7014
Issue Date
Type of Publication
Keyword(s)
LC Subject Heading
Other Topic(s)
EUI Research Cluster(s)
Initial version
Published version
Succeeding version
Preceding version
Published version part
Earlier different version
Initial format
Author(s)
Citation
Human Rights and International Legal Discourse (HR&ILD), 2012, 6, 1, 108-130
Cite
WRAY, Benedict S., RAFFAELLI, Rosa, False Extraterritoriality? Municipal and multinational jurisdiction over transnational corporations, Human Rights and International Legal Discourse (HR&ILD), 2012, 6, 1, 108-130 - https://hdl.handle.net/1814/21914
Abstract
This article analyses the tricky question of territoriality in respect of transnational corporations, arguing that there is a need to move away from the confines of traditional legal categories in cases where corporate actors are concerned. Nowhere are the problems arising from the separation between domestic and international regulation, and between private and public, thrown into such stark relief as in the case of conflict zones. With that in mind, we examine jurisdiction in public and private international law and criminal law against the backdrop of two well-known case studies: the involvement of corporations in the Democratic Republic of Congo and the actions of Royal Dutch Shell in Nigeria. We ask whether domestic regulation or universal jurisdiction offer satisfactory solutions in cases such as these, and put forth an alternative solution based on functional economic, not territorial, criteria that better mirror the joint interest and involvement of states, companies and other actors in the operations of transnational corporations (‘TNCs’) across the globe. Thus, we argue, why not regulate based upon principle of ‘benefit-and-burden’ which would allow any interested state to assert jurisdiction in appropriate circumstances and avoid the impasse between oft en non-existent host-state regulation and home-state apathy. This is something we can already observe beginning in the criminal field, and given the intermingling of different legal norms where TNCs are concerned, is something that not only could, but should be clarified and extended.