Book contents
- Transnational Corporations and Human Rights
- Transnational Corporations and Human Rights
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Dedication
- Contents
- Foreword
- Abbreviations
- Table of Cases
- Table of Statutes
- Introduction
- Part I Rise of Transnational Corporations, Impact on Human Rights, And Victims’ Rights to Remedy
- Part II Legal Barriers to Remedy and How to Overcome Them
- Conclusion
- Select Bibliography
- Index
- References
Select Bibliography
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 04 September 2020
Book contents
- Transnational Corporations and Human Rights
- Transnational Corporations and Human Rights
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Dedication
- Contents
- Foreword
- Abbreviations
- Table of Cases
- Table of Statutes
- Introduction
- Part I Rise of Transnational Corporations, Impact on Human Rights, And Victims’ Rights to Remedy
- Part II Legal Barriers to Remedy and How to Overcome Them
- Conclusion
- Select Bibliography
- Index
- References
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Transnational Corporations and Human RightsOvercoming Barriers to Judicial Remedy, pp. 161 - 168Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2020
References
Select Bibliography
Albiston, C. & Nielsen, L.B., The Procedural Attack On Civil Rights: The Empirical Reality Of Buckhannon For The Private Attorney General, 54 UCLA L. Rev. 1087, 1089 (2007)Google Scholar
Alford, R., The Future of Human Rights Litigation After Kiobel, 89 Notre Dame L. Rev. 1749 (2014)Google Scholar
ALI, Restatement of the Law (Third) the Foreign Relations of the United StatesGoogle Scholar
Bailey, W.F., The Law of Jurisdiction, Including Impeachment of Judgments, Liability for Judicial Acts, and Special Remedies (1st ed. 1899)Google Scholar
Barrett Ristroph, E., How Can the United States Correct Multi-National Corporations’ Environmental Abuses Committed in the Name of Trade?, 15 Ind. Int’l & Comp. L. Rev. 51 (2004)Google Scholar
Barylak, C.H., Reducing Uncertainty in Anti-SLAPP Protection, 71 Ohio St. L. J. 845 (2010)Google Scholar
Bazyler, M. and Green, J., Nuremberg-Era Jurisprudence Redux: The Supreme Court in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co. and the Legacy of Nuremberg, 7 Charleston L. Rev. 23 (2012)Google Scholar
Benish, K., Pennoyer’s Ghost: Consent, Registration Statutes, and General Jurisdiction After Daimler Ag v. Bauman, 90 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 1609 (2015)Google Scholar
Bergman Moure, H., Harrison, B., Marquez-Lechuga, D.A. & Foggo, G., E-Discovery Around the World, 21 Prac. Litigator 41, 52–56 (2010)Google Scholar
Bernaz, N., An Analysis of the ICC Office of the Prosecutor’s Policy Paper on Case Selection and Prioritization from the Perspective of Business and Human Rights, 15 J. of Int’l Criminal Justice 527 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blackburn, A., Striking a Balance to Reform the Alien Tort Statute: A Recommendation for Congress, 53 Santa Clara L. Rev. 1051 (2013)Google Scholar
Blumberg, P., The Corporate Entity in an Era of Multinational Corporations, 15 Del. J. Corp. L. 283 (1990)Google Scholar
Blumberg, P., The Multinational Challenge to Corporation Law: The Search for a New Corporate Personality (1993)Google Scholar
Blumberg, P., The Increasing Recognition of Enterprise Liability Principles In Determining Parent and Subsidiary Corporation Liabilities, 28 Conn. L. Rev. 295 (1996)Google Scholar
Blumberg, P., Asserting Human Rights Against Multinational Corporations Under United States Law: Conceptual and Procedural Problems, 50 Am. J. Comp. L. 493 (2002)Google Scholar
Boggs, C., Project Management: A Smorgasbord of International Operating Risks, Introduction (Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Inst., Paper No. 13, 2008)Google Scholar
Bonacorsi, K., Not at Home with “At-Home” Jurisdiction, 37 Fordham Int’l L. J. 1821 (2014)Google Scholar
Borchers, P., Conflict-of-Laws Considerations in State Court Human Rights Actions, 3 U.C. Irvine L. Rev. 45 (2013)Google Scholar
Bradley, C., Attorney General Bradford’s Opinion and the Alien Tort Statute, 106 Am. J. of Int’l Law 509 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brants-Langeraar, C.H., Consensual Criminal Procedures: Plea and Confession Bargaining and Abbreviated Procedures to Simplify Criminal Procedure, 11.1 Electronic J. Comp. L. (2007)Google Scholar
Braun, K., Giving Victims a Voice: On the Problems of Introducing Victim Impact Statements in German Criminal Procedure, 14(9) German L. J. 1889 (2013)Google Scholar
Broecker, C., Note, “Better the Devil You Know”: Home State Approaches to Transnational Corporate Accountability, 41 N.Y.U. J. Int’l L. & Pol. 159 (2008)Google Scholar
Burke Robertson, C. & Rhodes, C., A Shifting Equilibrium: Personal Jurisdiction, Transnational Litigation, and the Problem of Nonparties, 19 Lewis & Clark L. Rev. 643 (2015)Google Scholar
Burley [Slaughter], A., The Alien Tort Statute and the Judiciary Act of 1789: A Badge of Honor, 83 Am. J. Int’l L. 461 (1989)Google Scholar
Casto, W., The Federal Courts’ Protective Jurisdiction Over Torts Committed in Violation of the Law of Nations, 18 Conn. L. Rev. 467 (1986)Google Scholar
Charette, L., Dumoulin, J., Larocque, B. & Praent, F., Pension Plans and Class Actions: The Vivendi Case, 81 Def. Couns. J. 288 (2014)Google Scholar
Cherif Bassiouni, M., International Recognition of Victims’ Rights, 6 Hum. Rts. L. Rev. 203 (2006)Google Scholar
Childress, D. III, The Alien Tort Statute, Federalism, and the Next Wave of Transnational Litigation, 100 Geo. L. J. 709 (2012)Google Scholar
Chow, D., Counterfeiting as an Externality Imposed by Multinational Companies on Developing Countries, 51 Va. J. Int’l L. 785 (2011)Google Scholar
Clifton Fleming, J. Jr., & Peroni, R., Reinvigorating Tax Expenditure Analysis and Its International Dimension, 27 Va. Tax Rev. 437 (2008)Google Scholar
Colangelo, A. & Kiik, K., Spatial Legality, Due Process, and Choice of Law in Human Rights Litigation Under U.S. State Law, 3 U.C. Irvine L. Rev. 63 (2013)Google Scholar
Cossart, S., Chaplier, J. & Beau de Lomenie, T., The French Law on Duty of Care: A Historic Step Towards Making Globalization Work for All, 2 Bus. Hum. Rts. J. 317–23 (2017)Google Scholar
Cragg, B., Comment, Home is Where the Halt Is: Mandating Corporate Social Responsibility Through Home State Regulation and Social Disclosure, 24 Emory Int’l L. Rev. 735 (2010)Google Scholar
D’Amato, A., The Alien Tort Statute and the Founding of the Constitution, 82 Am. J. Intl. L. 62 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davidson, C., Tort Au Canadien: A Proposal For Canadian Tort Legislation on Gross Violations of International Human Rights and Humanitarian Law, 38 Vand. J. Transnat’l L. 1403 (2005)Google Scholar
Dearborn, M., Enterprise Liability: Reviewing and Revitalizing Liability for Corporate Groups, 97 Cal. L. Rev. 195 (2009)Google Scholar
de Felice, D., Business and Human Rights Indicators to Measure the Corporate Responsibility to Respect: Challenges and Opportunities, 37 Hum. Rts. Q. 511 (2015)Google Scholar
De Schutter, O., International Human Rights Law: Cases, Materials and Commentary (2010)Google Scholar
De Schutter, O., Ramasastry, A., Taylor, M., & Thompson, R., Human Rights Due Diligence: The Role of States, 7–8 (2012)Google Scholar
de Vattel, E., The Law of Nations 137 (Carnegie Institute of Washington ed., Fenwick, Charles G. trans. 1916) (1758)Google Scholar
Dhooge, L., Due Diligence as a Defense to Corporate Liability Pursuant to the Alien Tort Statute, 22 Emory Int’l L. Rev. 455 (2008)Google Scholar
Dickinson, E., The Law of Nations as Part of the National Law of the United States–Part I, 101 U. Pa. L. Rev. 26, 30–32 (1952)Google Scholar
Dodge, W., The Historical Origins of the Alien Tort Statute: A Response to the “Originalists,” 19 Hastings Int’l & Comp. L. Rev. 221 (1996)Google Scholar
Dodge, W., The Constitutionality of the Alien Tort Statute: Some Observations on Text and Context, 42 Va. J. Int’l L. 687 (2002)Google Scholar
Dodge, W., Business and Human Rights Litigation in U.S. Courts Before and after Kiobel, in Business and Human Rights: From Principles to Practice 250 (Baumann-Pauly, Dorothée & Nolan, Justine. eds. 2014)Google Scholar
Douglas, W. & Shanks, C., Insulation from Liability Through Subsidiary Corporations, 39 Yale L. J. 193 (1929)Google Scholar
Drobak, J., Personal Jurisdiction in a Global World: The Impact of the Supreme Court’s Decisions in Goodyear Dunlop Tires and Nicastro, 90 Wash. U. L. Rev. 1707 (2013)Google Scholar
Ehrenzeweig, A., Negligence Without Fault (The Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 1951) (currently out of print), reprinted in 54 Cal. L. Rev. 1422 (1966)Google Scholar
Eizenga, M., Assaf, D., & Davis, E., Antitrust Class Actions: A Tale of Two Countries, 25-SPG Antitrust 83 (2011)Google Scholar
Enodo Rights, Pillar III on the Ground: An Independent Assessment of the Porgera Remedy Framework (2016)Google Scholar
European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, Improving Access to Remedy in the Area of Business and Human Rights at the EU Level (2017)Google Scholar
Evans, S., The Globalization of Drug Testing: Enforcing Informed Consent Through the Alien Tort Claims Act, 19 Temp. Int’l & Comp. L. J. 477 (2005)Google Scholar
Fisk, C. & Chemerinsky, E., The Failing Faith in Class Actions: Wal-Mart v. Dukes and AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, 7 Duke J. of Const. Law & Pub. Pol’y 73 (2011)Google Scholar
Freer, R. & Collins Perdue, W., Civil Procedure: Cases, Materials, and Questions 32 (5th ed. 2008)Google Scholar
Gilbert Warren, M. III, The U.S. Securities Fraud Class Action: An Unlikely Export to the European Union, 37 Brook. J. Int’l L. 1075 (2012)Google Scholar
Goebel, J. Jr., 1 History of the Supreme Court of the United States: Antecedents and Beginnings to 1801 (Freund, Paul A. ed. 1971)Google Scholar
Goldhaber, M., Corporate Human Rights Litigation in Non-U.S. Courts: A Comparative Scorecard, 3 U. C. Irvine L. Rev. 127 (2013)Google Scholar
Golove, D., and Hulsebosch, D., A Civilized Nation: The Early American Constitution, the Law of Nations, and the Pursuit of International Recognition, 85 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 932 (2010)Google Scholar
Grabosch, R., Rechtsschutz vor deutschen Zivilgerichten gegen Beeinträchtigungen von Menschenrechten durch transnationale Unternehmen, in Transnationale Unternehmen und Nichtregierungsorganisationen im Völkerrecht 69, 84–86 (Nikol, Ralph, Bernhard, Thomas, & Schniederjan, Nina, eds. 2013)Google Scholar
Green, J., The Rule of Law at a Crossroad: Enforcing Corporate Responsibility in International Investment Through the Alien Tort Statute, 35 U. Penn. J. Int’l L. 1085 (2014)Google Scholar
Hanna, C., Corporate Tax Reform: Listening to Corporate America, 35 J. Corp. L. 283 (2009)Google Scholar
Hansmann, H. & Kraakman, R., Toward Unlimited Shareholder Liability for Corporate Torts, 100 Yale L. J. 1879 (1991)Google Scholar
Harper Ho, V., Of Enterprise Principles and Corporate Groups: Does Corporate Law Reach Human Rights? 52 Colum. J. Transnat’l L. 113, 136 (2013)Google Scholar
Havers, P., Take the Money and Run: Inherent Ethical Problems of the Contingency Fee and Loser Pays Systems, 14 Notre Dame J. L. Ethics & Pub. Pol’y 621 (2000)Google Scholar
Henn, M., Tax Havens and the Taxation of Transnational Corporations, Friedrich Ebert Stiftung (June 2013)Google Scholar
Herz, R., The Future of Alien Tort Litigation: Kiobel and Beyond, 106 Am. Soc’y Int’l L. Proc. 493 (2013)Google Scholar
Hoffman, P. & Stephens, B., International Human Rights Cases Under State Law and In State Courts, 3 U.C. Irvine L. Rev. 9 (2013)Google Scholar
Independent Commission of Experts, The Corporate Crimes Principles: Advancing Investigations and Prosecutions in Human Rights Cases (Oct. 2016)Google Scholar
International Commission of Jurists, Judicial Accountability: A Practitioners’ Guide (June 2016)Google Scholar
Int’l St. Crime Initiative, Torture at the Río Blanco Mine—A State-Corporate Crime?Google Scholar
Issacharoff, S. & Miller, G., Will Aggregate Litigation Come to Europe?, 62 Vand. L. Rev. 179 (2009)Google Scholar
Jägers, N. & van der Heijden, M., Corporate Human Rights Violations: The Feasibility of Civil Recourse in the Netherlands, 33 Brook. J. Int’l L. 833 (2008)Google Scholar
Jägers, N., Jesse, K., & Verschuure, J., The Future of Corporate Liability for Extraterritorial Human Rights Abuses: The Dutch Case Against Shell, Am. J. Int’l L. Unbound e-36, e-41 (2014)Google Scholar
Jaworek, M. & Kuzel, M., Transnational Corporations in the World Economy: Formation, Development and Present Position, 4 Copernican J. of Fin. & Acct. 55–70 (2015)Google Scholar
Joseph, S., Protracted Lawfare: The Tale of Chevron Texaco in the Amazon 3(1) Journal of Human Rights and the Environment (2012) 70Google Scholar
Kahan, D., Note, Shareholder Liability for Corporate Torts: A Historical Perspective, 97 Geo. L. J. 1085 (2009)Google Scholar
Kaleck, W. & Saage-Maaß, M., Corporate Accountability for Human Rights Violations Amounting to International Crimes: The Status Quo and its Challenges, 8 Journal of International Criminal Justice 699 (2010)Google Scholar
Kempin, F. Jr., Limited Liability in Historical Perspective, 4 Am. Bus. Law Assn. Bulletin 11 (1960)Google Scholar
Khoury, S. and Whyte, D., Corporate Human Rights Violations: Global Prospects for Legal Action 78 (2016)Google Scholar
Kirshner, J., Why is the U.S. Abdicating the Policing of Multinational Corporations to Europe?: Extraterritoriality, Sovereignty, and the Alien Tort Statute, 30 Berkeley J. Int’l L. 259 (2012)Google Scholar
Kirshner, J., A Call for the EU to Assume Jurisdiction over Extraterritorial Corporate Human Rights Abuses, 13 Nw. J. Int’l Hum. Rts. 1 (2015)Google Scholar
Ku, J., Customary International Law in State Courts, 42 Va. J. Int’l L. 265 (Fall 2001)Google Scholar
Langbien, J., Controlling Prosecutorial Discretion in Germany, 41(3) U. Chi. L. Rev. 439, 463 (1974)Google Scholar
Leebron, D., Limited Liability, Tort Victims, and Creditors, 91 Colum. L. Rev. 1565 (1991)Google Scholar
Lee Troutman, T., Jurisdiction by Necessity: Examining One Proposal for Unbarring the Doors of Our Courts, 21 Vand. J. Transnat’l L. 401 (1988)Google Scholar
Lemper, T., The Promise and Perils of “Privileges or Immunities”: Saenz v. Roe 119 S. Ct. 1518 (1999), 23 Harv. J. L. & Pub. Pol’y 295 (1999)Google Scholar
Lowell, C., Significance of Transfer Pricing for Multinational Enterprises, in U.S. Int’l Tax: Agreements, Checklists and Commentary (2015)Google Scholar
Mamolea, A., Note, The Future of Corporate Aiding and Abetting Liability Under the Alien Tort Statute: A Roadmap, 51 Santa Clara L. Rev. 79 (2011)Google Scholar
Manolis, M., Vermette, N., & Hungerford, R., The Doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens: Canada and the United States Compared, 60 Fed’n Def. & Corp. Couns. Q. 3 (2009)Google Scholar
Manuel Diaz, V. Jr., Litigation in U.S. Courts of Product Liability Cases Arising in Latin America, Panel Talk Before the Miami Conference on Products Liability in Latin America, in 20 Ariz. J. Int’l & Comp. L. 47 (Molloy, John F. ed. 2003)Google Scholar
Mardirossian, N., Direct Parental Negligence Liability: An Expanding Means to Hold Parent Companies Accountable for the Human Rights Impacts of Their Foreign Subsidiaries SSRN (2015)Google Scholar
Mares, R., Responsibility to Respect: Why the Core Company Should Act When Affiliates Infringe Rights, in The UN Guiding Principles On Business And Human Rights: Foundation And Implementation 169–92 (Mares, Radu ed. 2012)Google Scholar
Mason Meier, B., International Protection of Persons Undergoing Medical Experimentation: Protecting the Right of Informed Consent, 20 Berkeley J. Int’l L. 513 (2002)Google Scholar
McAllister, L., On Environmental Enforcement and Compliance: A Reply to Professor Crawford’s Review of Making Law Matter: Environmental Protection and Legal Institutions in Brazil, 40 Geo. Wash. Int’l L. Rev. 649 (2009)Google Scholar
McCorquodale, R., Waiving Not Drowning: Kiobel Outside the United States, 107 Am. J. Int’l L. 846 (2013)Google Scholar
Meeran, R., Litigation of Multinational Corporations: A Critical Stage in the UK, in Liability of Multinational Corporations under International Law 251 (Kamminga, Menno T. & Zia-Zarifi, Saman eds. 2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyer, J., Extraterritorial Common Law: Does the Common Law Apply Abroad? 102 Geo. L. J. 301, 314–18 (2014)Google Scholar
Miller, G., In Search of the Most Adequate Forum: State Court Personal Jurisdiction, 2 Stan. J. Complex Litig. 1 (2014)Google Scholar
Mohsin Reza, S., Daimlerchrysler, v. Cuno: An Escape from the Dormant Commerce Clause Quagmire? 40 U. Rich. L. Rev. 1229 (2006)Google Scholar
Monestier, T., Is Canada the New Shangri-La of Global Securities Class Actions? 32 Nw. J. Int’l L. & Bus. 305 (2012)Google Scholar
Monestier, T., Registration Statutes, General Jurisdiction, and the Fallacy of Consent, 36 Cardozo L. Rev. 1343 (2015)Google Scholar
Muchlinski, P., Corporations in International Litigation: Problems of Jurisdiction and the United Kingdom Asbestos Cases, 50 Int’l & Comp. L. Q. 1 (2001)Google Scholar
Mwaura, K., Internalization of Costs to Corporate Groups: Part-Whole Relationships, Human Rights Norms and the Futility of the Corporate Veil, 11 J. Int’l Bus. & L. 85 (2012)Google Scholar
OECD, OECD Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Supply Chains of Minerals from Conflict-Affected and High-Risk Areas: Third Edition (2016)Google Scholar
Organization for International Investment, Foreign Direct Investment in the United States 2017Google Scholar
Oswald, L., Strict Liability of Individuals Under CERCLA: A Normative Analysis, 20 B. C. Envt’l. Aff. L. Rev. 579 (1993)Google Scholar
Oxford Pro Bono Publico, Univ. of Oxford, Obstacles to Justice and Redress for Victims of Corporate Human Rights Abuse (2008)Google Scholar
Perl, M., Not Just Another Mass Tort: Using Class Actions to Redress International Human Rights, 88 Geo. L. J. 773 (1999)Google Scholar
Randall, K., Federal Jurisdiction Over International Law Claims: Inquiries into the Alien Tort Statute, 18 N.Y.U. J. Int’l & Pol. 1 (1985)Google Scholar
Rhodes, “Rocky” & Burke Robertson, C., Toward a New Equilibrium in Personal Jurisdiction, 48 U. C. Davis L. Rev. 207, 261–62 (2014)Google Scholar
Rogers, J., The Alien Tort Statute and How Individuals “Violate” International Law, 21 Vand. J. Transnat’l L. 47 (1988)Google Scholar
Roin, J., The Grand Illusion: A Neutral System for the Taxation of International Transactions, 75 Va. L. Rev. 919 (1989)Google Scholar
Rosenhek, S. & Maric, V., Canadian Price-Fixing Class Actions: The Supreme Court of Canada Gives the Green Light to Indirect Purchaser Claims, 81 Def. Couns. J. 302 (2014)Google Scholar
Ryngaert, C., Accountability for Corporate Human Rights Abuses: Lessons from the Possible Exercise of Dutch National Criminal Jurisdiction Over Multinational Corporations, 29 Criminal Law Forum 1 (2018)Google Scholar
Saage-Maaß, M., Labor Conditions in the Global Supply Chain: What is the Extent and Implications of German Corporate Responsibility? 7 (Friedrich Ebert Stiftung, 2011)Google Scholar
Samuels, J., When is an Alternative Forum Available? Rethinking the Forum Non Conveniens Analysis, 85 Ind. L. J. 1059 (2010)Google Scholar
Schrage, E., Judging Corporate Accountability in the Global Economy, 42 Colum. J. Int’l L. 153 (2003)Google Scholar
Sepinwall, A., Failures to Punish: Command Responsibility in Domestic and International Law, 30 Mich. J. Int’l L. 251 (2009)Google Scholar
Silberman, L., Goodyear and Nicastro: Observations from a Transnational and Comparative Perspective, 63 S.C. L. Rev. 591 (2012)Google Scholar
Silberman, L., Jurisdictional Imputation in Daimler Chrysler AG v. Bauman: A Bridge Too Far, 66 Vand. L. Rev. En Banc 123 (2013)Google Scholar
Skinner, G., McCorquodale, R., De Schutter, O., & Lambe, A., The Third Pillar: Access to Judicial Remedies for Human Rights Violations by Transnational Businesses (2013)Google Scholar
Skinner, G., Rethinking Limited Liability of Parent Corporations for Foreign Subsidiaries’ Violations of International Human Rights Law, 72 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 1769 (2015)Google Scholar
Skinner, G., Beyond Kiobel: Providing Access to Judicial Remedies for Corporate Accountability for Violations of International Human Rights Norms by Transnational Corporations in a New (Post-Kiobel) World, 46 Colum. Hum. Rts. L. Rev. 158 (2014)Google Scholar
Skinner, G., Expanding General Personal Jurisdiction Over Transnational Corporations for Federal Causes of Action, 121 Penn St. L. Rev. 617 (2017)Google Scholar
Steinhardt, R., The Alien Tort Claims Act; Theoretical and Historical Foundations of the Alien Tort Claims Act and its Discontents: A Reality Check, 16 St. Thomas L. Rev. 585 (2004)Google Scholar
Stephens, B., Translating Filartiga: A Comparative and International Law Analysis of Domestic Remedies for International Human Rights Violations, 27 Yale J. Int’l L. 1, 29 (2002)Google Scholar
Stephens, B., Extraterritoriality and Human Rights After Kiobel, 28 Md. J. Int’l L. 256 (2013)Google Scholar
Stewart, F., Foreign Judgments, Judicial Trailblazing and the Cost of Cross-Border Complexity: Thoughts on Chevron Corp v Yaiguaje, 34 J. of Energy & Nat. Resources L. (2016)Google Scholar
Stone, C., The Place of Enterprise Liability in the Control of Corporate Conduct, 90 Yale L. J. 1, 1 (1980)Google Scholar
Terry, J. & Shody, S., Could Canada Become a New Forum for Cases Involving Human Rights Violations Committed Abroad?, 1 Com. Litig. & Arb. Rev. 63 (2012)Google Scholar
Thompson, R., Unpacking Limited Liability: Direct and Vicarious Liability of Corporate Participants for Torts of the Enterprise, 47 Vand. L. Rev. 1 (1994)Google Scholar
Tröger, T., Organizational Choices of Banks and the Effective Supervision of Transnational Financial Institutions, 48 Tex. Int’l L. J. 177 (2012)Google Scholar
Ubertazzi, B., Intellectual Property Rights and Exclusive (Subject Matter) Jurisdiction: Between Private and Public International Law, 15 Marq. Intell. Prop. L. Rev. 357 (2011)Google Scholar
UN Conference on Trade and Development, World Investment Report 2014 Overview: Investing in the SDGs: An Action Plan, U.N. Doc. UNCTAD/WIR/2014 (2014)Google Scholar
UN Conference on Trade and Dev., The World’s Top 100 Non-Financial MNEs, Ranked by Foreign Assets, U.N. doc. UNCTAD/WIR/2017 (2017)Google Scholar
UN Organization Mission in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Report on the Conclusions of the Special Investigation into Allegations of Summary Executions and Other Violations of Human Rights Committed by the FARDC in Kilwa (Province of Katanga) on 15 October 2004 (2005)Google Scholar
U.N. Working Group on the Issue of Human Rights and Transnational Corporations and other Business Enterprises, Report, U.N. Doc. A/72/162 (2017)Google Scholar
U.N. Working Group on Business and Human Rights, Corporate Human Rights Due Diligence – Emerging Practices, Challenges and Ways Forward (2018)Google Scholar
Ursin, E., Holmes, Cardozo, and the Legal Realists: Early Incarnations of Legal Pragmatism and Enterprise Liability, 50 San Diego L. Rev. 537 (2013)Google Scholar
Vanto, J., Attorneys’ Fees as Damages in International Commercial Litigation, 15 Pace Int’l L. Rev. 203 (2003)Google Scholar
Washington, G., Fourth Annual Address, in 1 A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the President 125 (Richardson, James D. ed. 1911)Google Scholar
Williams, N., Why Congress May Not “Overrule” the Dormant Commerce Clause, 53 UCLA L. Rev. 153 (2005)Google Scholar
Winslow Crosskey, W., Politics and the Constitution in the History of the United States (1953)Google Scholar
Yang, Y., Corporate Civil Liability Under the Alien Tort Statute: The Practical Implications from Kiobel, 40 W. St. U. L. Rev. 195 (2013)Google Scholar
Yilmaz-Vastardis, V. and Chambers, R., Overcoming the Corporate Veil Challenge: Could Investment Law Inspire the Proposed Business and Human Rights Treaty? International and comparative law quarterly, 389–423 (2018)Google Scholar
Ysewyn, J., Private Enforcement of Competition Law in the EU: Trials and Tribulations, 19 SPG Int’l L. Practicum 14 (2006)Google Scholar