The e book relies on Dr. Ekaterina Aristova’s PhD thesis, accomplished on the College of Cambridge and subsequently refined by means of postdoctoral analysis on the College of Oxford. The core content material of the e book spans eight chapters throughout 297 pages, excluding the preface, sequence editor’s preface, desk of contents, and index.
The e book explores the method of English courts to jurisdictional points in international direct legal responsibility (FDL) claims introduced towards English-based mum or dad firms and their international subsidiaries as co-defendants. Whereas written from the attitude of English legislation, it incorporates comparative insights from related FDL claims in different jurisdictions, together with Australia, Canada, EU Member States, and the US.
The e book is especially notable for its remark—citing Professor Robert McCorquodale—that FDL claims intersect with numerous fields of legislation, resembling home prison legislation, tort legislation, contract legislation, human rights and constitutional legislation, comparative legislation, public worldwide legislation, and personal worldwide legislation. Regardless of these intersections, the e book primarily focuses on the non-public worldwide legislation side of civil jurisdiction in FDL claims earlier than English courts.
Chapter 1 introduces the e book by highlighting the numerous position of transnational firms (TNCs) and the substantial affect their operations have had on human rights violations inside the enterprise context. It additionally briefly clarifies key terminologies used all through the e book.
The introduction is split into three essential sections. Part A supplies the required context for discussing international direct legal responsibility (FDL) claims. Part B defines the e book’s scope, identifies the analysis questions, and descriptions the final methodology employed within the examine. Part C concludes with an summary of the e book’s construction.
Chapter 2 addresses a serious problem within the regulation of transnational firms (TNCs): the mismatch between the worldwide nature of TNCs’ operations, carried out by legally distinct firms, and the territorial jurisdiction of sovereign states. Aristova highlights the difficulties in offering a transparent authorized definition of TNCs resulting from their advanced, multi-tiered constructions. Whereas a exact definition just isn’t supplied, she notes that TNCs sometimes possess traits of company teams and contractual networks.
The chapter then discusses the challenges and potential options for holding TNCs accountable, specializing in the rules of company authorized persona that separate mum or dad firms from their subsidiaries and the general public worldwide legislation precept of territoriality. Lastly, Aristova traces the origins of an rising legislative pattern towards legally binding devices that mandate mum or dad firms of TNCs to conduct human rights due diligence in cross-border enterprise operations.
Chapter 3 supplies a complete evaluation of litigation towards transnational firms (TNCs) throughout numerous jurisdictions, with a selected concentrate on English courts. It examines how international direct legal responsibility (FDL) claims have contributed to enhancing company accountability for human rights violations.
The chapter begins by introducing a hypothetical FDL case, involving an English-based mum or dad firm accused of negligently exercising (or failing to train) management over the abroad operations of its international subsidiary, leading to hurt to the subsidiary’s workers. Subsequent, it explores how tort legislation, notably the negligence aspect of the obligation of care, has been utilised in English courts to avoid the precept of company authorized persona, which separates mum or dad firms from their subsidiaries.
Chapter 3 additionally presents a comparative overview of the worldwide litigation panorama, highlighting key case legislation developments in Western international locations the place highly effective multinational firms are headquartered. Jurisdictions thought-about embody the US, Canada, EU Member States (notably Germany and The Netherlands), and Australia, the place claimants have sought justice by initiating FDL claims.
Lastly, the chapter addresses the regulatory perform of FDL claims, analyzing points such because the uneven litigation panorama, fact-sensitive inquiries, the dearth of precedents, the interaction between tort legislation and human rights, boundaries to justice in residence states, the steadiness between compensation and deterrence, and the query of whether or not tort legislation supplies an efficient answer.
Chapter 4 examines the capability and challenges confronted by English courts in adjudicating international direct legal responsibility (FDL) claims.
First, Part A presents the pre-Brexit framework of jurisdictional guidelines, specializing in Articles 4, 8, 33, and 34 of the Brussels I Recast Regulation. In the course of the UK’s membership within the EU, establishing the domicile of an EU defendant firm in transnational and parallel litigation was essential for figuring out jurisdiction. It additionally considers the normal English jurisdictional guidelines utilized to different international firms throughout the pre-Brexit interval.
Second, Part B addresses the affect of Brexit on jurisdictional issues. Publish-Brexit, jurisdiction between the UK and the EU is now decided primarily by English conventional jurisdiction guidelines, the Hague 2005 Conference, and as from 1 July 2025, the Hague 2019 Conference. Beneath frequent legislation, jurisdiction is basically based mostly on service, which is split into two classes: jurisdiction as of proper and jurisdiction with go away of the courtroom. Jurisdiction as of proper is decided by presence and/or submission of the defendant inside England, topic to the precept of discussion board non conveniens. Jurisdiction to serve a defendant outdoors England with go away of the courtroom is ruled by Civil Process Guidelines 6.36 and 6.37, which require the claimant to show that (i) a jurisdictional gateway applies, (ii) the declare has an inexpensive prospect of success, and (iii) England is the suitable discussion board to listen to the case.
Lastly, Part C concludes by discussing a number of the conceptual and sensible flaws within the jurisdictional guidelines utilized by English courts in FDL claims.
Chapter 5 explores the affect of transnational firms (TNCs) and their fast enlargement throughout borders, which complicates the normal view of personal worldwide legislation as a impartial algorithm. Whereas Aristova doesn’t search to problem the traditional understanding of the self-discipline or suggest a normative stance on its position in addressing globalisation, the chapter as an alternative goals to ascertain a extra refined and centered method to exercising jurisdiction in FDL claims.
Chapter 6 builds on the goals of Chapter 5 by figuring out the important thing elements to think about when assessing the suitability of English courts as a discussion board for disputes involving English mum or dad firms and their international subsidiaries as co-defendants. These elements are divided into two classes: the non-public pursuits of litigants concerned in FDL claims and the State’s pursuits in exercising jurisdiction over such circumstances.
Part A briefly examines why claimants typically select to deliver FDL claims in England, setting the stage for jurisdictional disputes over the venue. Part B evaluates the claimants’ selection of discussion board towards the procedural equity of jurisdictional guidelines from the company defendant’s perspective. It considers elements such because the English-based mum or dad firm’s private connections to the house state, the financial and managerial construction of TNCs, the avoidance of parallel litigation throughout a number of boards, the burden on company defendants defending in England, and the predictability and authorized certainty of jurisdictional guidelines.
Part C discusses the broader coverage implications English courts can not keep away from when English-based TNCs are accused of abroad human rights violations. It argues that the growing significance of worldwide, regional, and home frameworks for holding TNCs accountable requires an open acknowledgment of the general public curiosity in making an attempt FDL claims towards English mum or dad firms and their subsidiaries in English courts.
Lastly, Part D considers English courts’ assertions of jurisdiction in FDL claims from the attitude of host states, addressing international coverage issues resembling potential infringements on state sovereignty. It examines whether or not residence state adjudication of FDL claims can align with the host state’s pursuits.
Chapter 7 explores whether or not introducing a brand new connecting issue that explicitly accounts for the financial actuality of transnational firms (TNCs) may higher tackle the complexities of FDL claims and enhance how English courts decide jurisdiction. Aristova discusses the financial enterprise principle, which proposes that when a mum or dad firm and its subsidiaries are intently built-in and performance as a single financial entity, their separate authorized identities could also be disregarded. This principle, Aristova explains, may present a brand new framework for jurisdiction in FDL claims.
Aristova acknowledges that the financial enterprise principle has obtained restricted consideration in educational and judicial contexts and stays considerably imprecise and unsure. However, she means that the idea would possibly provide a viable method for FDL jurisdiction circumstances in English courts.
I have to confess, with out claiming experience on this space, that Chapter 7 is especially advanced—particularly the dialogue of the financial enterprise principle, which I discovered unclear. Aristova distinguishes this principle from the idea of piercing the company veil, however her arguments would have been extra persuasive had she extra convincingly demonstrated why this principle is superior to the prevailing tort-based method. The present method, endorsed by the UK Supreme Courtroom, holds {that a} mum or dad firm owes an obligation of care to people harmed by its subsidiary’s actions if it workout routines de facto management or oversight over the related dangerous actions. Moreover, Aristova doesn’t advance the financial enterprise principle with a lot confidence, as an alternative tentatively suggesting it as a possible various for future legislative consideration.
Chapter 8 concludes the work by reaffirming the significance of guaranteeing that victims of FDL claims are given the chance to have their day in courtroom and entry a treatment.
A minor critique is that the usage of abbreviations within the substantive chapters may have been decreased to enhance readability. A greater method could be to introduce the total time period adopted by its abbreviation in every chapter, moderately than doing so solely as soon as for the whole e book.
General, the monograph is well-written and extremely partaking. It’s thorough, notably in its protection of English circumstances, and Aristova demonstrates knowledgeable data of the topic.
:quality(70)/cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/archetype/T4SU6FOBXJBDVDEIE2CV2QJMFY.jpg?w=120&resize=120,86&ssl=1)
