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
Article

31 Dec 2002

Author:
Elliot J. Schrage, Adjunct Senior Fellow in Business and Foreign Policy at the Council on Foreign Relations, and Lecturer in Law at Columbia Law School, in Columbia Journal of Transnational Law

[PDF] Judging Corporate Accountability in theGlobal Economy

Simply slamming the door on those seeking relief in U.S. courts is bad foreign policy, bad economic policy, and bad legal practice...An effective policy would harness the power of private litigation in U.S. courts as a vehicle for encouraging other countries and the corporations that operate in them to promote respect for the rule of law and improve the administration of justice. [refers to Barclays, Citigroup, Coca-Cola, DaimlerChrysler, Ford, Fresh Del Monte Produce, Gap, General Motors, IBM, JPMorgan Chase, Levi Strauss, Pfizer, Statoil, Talisman, Texaco (part of ChevronTexaco), Unocal]

Part of the following timelines

Rio Tinto lawsuit (re Papua New Guinea)

ExxonMobil lawsuit (re Aceh)

Coca-Cola lawsuit (re Colombia)

Talisman lawsuit (re Sudan)

Texaco/Chevron lawsuits (re Ecuador)