Conflict of Laws
  • About
  • Editorial board
  • Subscription
  • Submission
  • Materials
  • Contact
  • Click to open the search input field Click to open the search input field Search
  • Menu Menu

Is an International Arbitral Tribunal the Answer to International Human Rights Litigation?

September 19, 2014/in /by Trey Childress
image_pdfimage_print

I just was alerted to a proposal that was put forward to create an International Arbitral Tribunal on business and human rights.  The authors of the proposal are Claes Cronstedt, Robert C Thompson, Rachel Chambers, Adrienne Margolis, David Rönnegard and Katherine Tyler, all (save for Ms Margolis, a journalist, and Dr Rönnegard, a philosopher and economist) one-time or current private practice lawyers with a background and/or practice in human rights and CSR.

The initiative seeks to respond, in part, to the US Supreme Court’s decisions in Kiobel v Royal Dutch Petroleum and Daimler AG v Bauman.  In short, it is now difficult to plead international human rights violations against corporations in U.S. courts.  As I discuss in a forthcoming article, foreign courts may move in to fill the gap.  This proposal raises another question:  Are international tribunals the right forum for such cases?

 

 

Share this entry
  • Share on Facebook
  • Share on X
  • Share on WhatsApp
  • Share on Pinterest
  • Share on LinkedIn
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Share on Vk
  • Share on Reddit
  • Share by Mail
https://conflictoflaws.net/News/2020/08/CoL_Banner-1.png 0 0 Trey Childress https://conflictoflaws.net/News/2020/08/CoL_Banner-1.png Trey Childress2014-09-19 23:26:552014-09-19 23:26:55Is an International Arbitral Tribunal the Answer to International Human Rights Litigation?

Categories

  • Views
  • News

Most Recent Posts

  • Conflicts of jurisdiction in Senegal: lesson from the Senegalese Supreme Court on Lis Pendens and the Exequatur of foreign judgments July 27, 2026
  • Adoption in the proposal for a European Parenthood Regulation July 21, 2026
  • Copyright, Targeting and Geo-Blocking: The CJEU Stirs the Pot July 15, 2026
  • A Follow-Up: The German Judges Association’s Response to the HCCH Draft Text of a Future Convention on Parallel Proceedings and Related Actions July 15, 2026
  • Private International Law Dimensions of Singapore’s New Legislation to Combat Online Harms July 14, 2026
  • The 1961 HCCH Apostille Convention: Why All African Countries Should Ratify It? — Insights from Judicial Practice in Africa July 14, 2026
  • The enforcement of an advance on costs for substitute performance at the expense of a Russian debtor in German-French legal relations July 2, 2026
  • “Yes, in principle, but not quite there yet…” – Some Observations on the Public Consultation on the HCCH Draft Text of a Future Convention on Parallel Proceedings and Related Actions June 29, 2026
  • Judgment Mobility Rules in India’s Private International Law Regime: No place for a revision au fond? June 26, 2026
  • Nothing to See Here: The CJEU’s Decision in Case C-232/25 Idzinski June 18, 2026
  • Refusal to Enforce in Egypt of a Californian (U.S.) Judgment for Lack of Reciprocity: What Has Gotten into the Egyptian Supreme Court? June 15, 2026
  • PRC Double Interest neither Double nor Penal: Australian Courts Clear Its Name When Enforcing Chinese Judgments June 10, 2026
  • The AIFC Court, Gazprom v Naftogaz and the Emergence of a New Conduit Jurisdiction Debate June 6, 2026
  • Montana Supreme Court Decides International Child Custody Case June 3, 2026
  • China’s Countering Improper Foreign Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Regulation Blocked EU’s Extraterritorial Data Acquisition May 29, 2026
Link to: Kühn on Imbalance in Joint and Several Debt in Private International Law Link to: Kühn on Imbalance in Joint and Several Debt in Private International Law Kühn on Imbalance in Joint and Several Debt in Private International Law Link to: Volume on Private International Law in Mainland China, Taiwan and Europe Link to: Volume on Private International Law in Mainland China, Taiwan and Europe Volume on Private International Law in Mainland China, Taiwan and Europe
Scroll to top Scroll to top Scroll to top