Bitte verwenden Sie diesen Link, um diese Publikation zu zitieren, oder auf sie als Internetquelle zu verweisen: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/209547 
Autor:innen: 
Erscheinungsjahr: 
2018
Quellenangabe: 
[Journal:] Penn State Law Review [ISSN:] 0012-2459 [Volume:] 122 [Issue:] 48 [Publisher:] Penn State University [Place:] University Park, PA [Year:] 2018 [Pages:] 1-15
Verlag: 
Penn State University, University Park, PA
Zusammenfassung: 
Effective civil judicial remedies are often inaccessible to victims of transnational corporations (TNCs) from economically developed states that operate in developing or emerging states. The general consensus is that local capacity development is the most practical solution. The alternative solution – opening the doors of courts to victims in other states (including TNC home states) – is often said to be illusory. One invited speaker at the CESCR’s 2017 Discussion Day on business and human rights went as far as stating that extraterritorial remedies would only result in victims’ disappointment. There is, however, an inconsistency in this argument. Extraterritorial remedies are still important to deal with current issues. This article weighs up the arguments and makes the case for a mixed approach consisting of both local and extraterritorial capacity development.
Schlagwörter: 
business and human rights
remediation
access to justice
JEL: 
H73
K33
K41
K42
Persistent Identifier der Erstveröffentlichung: 
Dokumentart: 
Article
Dokumentversion: 
Published Version
Erscheint in der Sammlung:

Datei(en):
Datei
Größe





Publikationen in EconStor sind urheberrechtlich geschützt.