abusesaffiliationarrow-downarrow-leftarrow-rightarrow-upattack-typeburgerchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-upClock iconclosedeletedevelopment-povertydiscriminationdollardownloademailenvironmentexternal-linkfacebookfiltergenderglobegroupshealthC4067174-3DD9-4B9E-AD64-284FDAAE6338@1xinformation-outlineinformationinstagraminvestment-trade-globalisationissueslabourlanguagesShapeCombined Shapeline, chart, up, arrow, graphLinkedInlocationmap-pinminusnewsorganisationotheroverviewpluspreviewArtboard 185profilerefreshIconnewssearchsecurityPathStock downStock steadyStock uptagticktooltiptwitteruniversalityweb

Diese Seite ist nicht auf Deutsch verfügbar und wird angezeigt auf English


18 Feb 2021

Dr. Lucas Roorda, Utrecht University law school, on CORE COlaition Blog

Shell in court, again: a short comparison of the Okpabi and Milieudefensie judgments

This is of course good news for the victims hoping to achieve remedies for their harms, but also in general for those arguing for more accountability for parent companies of transnational corporate groups. Nevertheless, for all the (justified) optimism following these cases, there are still areas where there is significant work to be done. I will highlight some of these core issues regarding the liability of parent company RDS, and also discuss some jurisdictional implications of the decision.

The cases are similar in a number of aspects: they concern the same defendants, similar facts and broadly similar substantive legal arguments. I have discussed the details of the Dutch case in another blog post here, and the English case in a blog post here, but for the purposes of this post I will focus on how they compare on parent company liability and jurisdiction...