Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-cphqk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-24T01:25:50.672Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Veiled Power: International Law and the Private Corporation 1886–1981. By Doreen Lustig. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2020. Pp. vii, 256. Index.

Review products

Veiled Power: International Law and the Private Corporation 1886–1981. By Doreen Lustig. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2020. Pp. vii, 256. Index.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 January 2023

Karen J. Alter Open the ORCID record for Karen J. Alter [Opens in a new window]
Karen J. Alter*
Affiliation:
Northwestern University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Book Reviews
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 117 , Issue 1 , January 2023 , pp. 172 - 177
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press for The American Society of International Law

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Whereas domestic corporate veil arguments are focused on whether corporate shareholders become liable for actions taken by corporate leaders, the international conversation extends to whether corporations are also bound by international law. This question arises because international law assumes that states will police corporations, yet many states lack the power or the will to hold corporations accountable for their overseas behavior. Soon I will discuss Lustig's case study where the Liberian government worked as an agent of the Firestone Corporation. The Liberian government could have arguably made a different type of arrangement with Firestone, and thereby avoided violating international law. But in areas of limited statehood (a more benign term than “failed state”), governments may be unable to police, curb, or punish foreign corporate behavior. The investment-receiving state cannot hold a corporation accountable, and investment exporting states choose to extend the corporate veil to actions undertaken abroad.

2 Lustig actually splits the blame between the American free slaves who colonized Liberia and Firestone, as both carried forward the American tolerance for racialized subjugation (pp. 30–31).

3 The inability of League officials to stop forced labor in the Mandate territories is discussed in Susan Pedersen, The Guardians: The League of Nations and the Crisis of Empire (2015). See the book's index for the many places where the problem of forced labor reappears.