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

這頁面沒有繁體中文版本,現以English顯示

文章

2012年2月28日

作者:
Room for Debate, New York Times

Corporate Rights and Human Rights

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court heard arguments in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum over whether corporations can be sued for human rights violations overseas. The plaintiffs filed suit in the United States under the Alien Tort Statute, a law enacted by Congress in 1789, that empowers the federal courts to hear cases by foreigners bringing a civil suit for wrongs committed “in violation of the law of nations.” Should the Alien Tort Statute hold corporations liable for heinous crimes? Is there a more effective way to do this? [Online debate participants are: "A Permissible and Effective Way", Oona H. Hathway, Yale Law School; "It is Up to Congress to Decide", Ilya Shapiro, Cato Institute; "The Right Thing To Do", Vincent Warren, Center for Constitutional Rights; "Liability for Harms", Susan Faberstein & Tyler Giannini, Harvard Law School]