Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Responsibility of Corporations in International Law: Positivism and Transnationalism Revisited

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Legal Positivism in a Global and Transnational Age

Part of the book series: Law and Philosophy Library ((LAPS,volume 131))

  • 889 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter applies Philip C. Jessup’s concept of transnational law and HLA Hart’s idea of international law in transition to an analysis of contemporary efforts to impose international legal accountability on transnational corporations. Using instances from mostly transnational cases seeking to hold corporate actors accountable for violating in particular the norms of international environmental and human rights law, the chapter argues that Jessup’s and Hart’s ideas have converged to such a degree that while the landscape of international law is not as transformed as they would have imagined, it is no longer what it used to. The chapter focuses on international efforts to impose international legal accountability on non-state actors such as transnational corporations as one of the areas where this change has been most noticeable. While those changes may not have led to the unequivocal legal recognition of corporations as subjects of international law or deserving of bearing mandatory international legal obligations, they do point to where the transition may ultimately end.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Jessup (1956), p. 1.

  2. 2.

    Jessup (1956).

  3. 3.

    Jessup (1956), p. 2.

  4. 4.

    Jessup (1956), p. 2.

  5. 5.

    Hart (1961), p. 208.

  6. 6.

    Campbell (2005), p. x.

  7. 7.

    Payandeh (2011), p. 993.

  8. 8.

    Jessup (1956), p. 1.

  9. 9.

    Jessup (1956), p. 1.

  10. 10.

    Jessup (1956), p. 1.

  11. 11.

    Jessup (1956), p. 1.

  12. 12.

    Jessup (1956), p. 2.

  13. 13.

    Jessup (1956), p. 2.

  14. 14.

    Zumbansen (2006).

  15. 15.

    Zumbansen (2006).

  16. 16.

    Hart (1961), p. 211.

  17. 17.

    Hart (1961), p. 209.

  18. 18.

    Hart (1961), p. 209.

  19. 19.

    Hart (1961), p. 211.

  20. 20.

    Hart (1961), p. 231.

  21. 21.

    Hart (1961), p. 211.

  22. 22.

    McCorquodale and Simons (2007), p. 599.

  23. 23.

    McCorquodale and Simons (2007), p. 599.

  24. 24.

    Clapham (2013), pp. xiii–xxix.

  25. 25.

    This has been defined as “any attempt to get corporations to behave responsibly on a voluntary basis, out of either ethical or bottom-line considerations:” see Karliner and Bruno (2002).

  26. 26.

    Zia-Zarifi (1999), p. 87.

  27. 27.

    Chirwa (2004), p. 3.

  28. 28.

    Alvarez (2011), p. 1.

  29. 29.

    Reparation for Injuries Suffered in the Service of the United Nations Case, Advisory Opinion, [1949] ICJ Rep 174.

  30. 30.

    Reparation (1949), p. 178.

  31. 31.

    Reparation (1949), p. 178.

  32. 32.

    Reparation (1949), p. 179.

  33. 33.

    Reparation (1949), p. 179.

  34. 34.

    Bonner (2018).

  35. 35.

    Schlemmer (2008), p. 69.

  36. 36.

    Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States, 18 March 1965, 575 UNTS 159 (entered into force 14 October 1966).

  37. 37.

    Convention, Art 1(1).

  38. 38.

    Reinisch and Malintoppi (2008), p. 692.

  39. 39.

    Beaulac (2004).

  40. 40.

    Michaels (2013), p. 289.

  41. 41.

    Walter (2012), p. 2 at para 5.

  42. 42.

    Peters (2016), p. 1.

  43. 43.

    Vukas (2010).

  44. 44.

    Walter (2012).

  45. 45.

    Muhvić (2017), p. 9.

  46. 46.

    Slaughter (2002), p. 15.

  47. 47.

    Chinkin (2013), p. 55.

  48. 48.

    Bakan (2004), p. 1.

  49. 49.

    Ruggie (2013), p. 2.

  50. 50.

    Ruggie (2013), p. 2. See also Scanlan (2018).

  51. 51.

    Weissbrodt and Kruger (2003), p. 902.

  52. 52.

    Werhane (2015), p. 11; stating: “Moreover, often the corporate status as a legal person spills over to imagining that corporations are moral persons as well. As a result, companies are often extended rights that ordinarily are reserved for individual persons.”

  53. 53.

    Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, [2010] 558 U.S. 310.

  54. 54.

    Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. [2014] 573 U.S.

  55. 55.

    Canada (AG) v JTI MacDonald Corporation [2007] 2 SCR 610.

  56. 56.

    Rowland (2007).

  57. 57.

    Clements and Coates (2017).

  58. 58.

    Ruggie (2007).

  59. 59.

    Nardin (1998), p. 17.

  60. 60.

    Austin (1955), p. 184.

  61. 61.

    Nardin (1998), p. 18.

  62. 62.

    Kingsbury (2002), p. 409.

  63. 63.

    Knox (2011), p. 51.

  64. 64.

    Knox (2011), p. 54.

  65. 65.

    Hart (1958).

  66. 66.

    Knox (2011), p. 54. (Emphasis in original).

  67. 67.

    Johns (1994), p. 900.

  68. 68.

    Johns (1994), p. 897.

  69. 69.

    The Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Co Ltd Case (Belgium v Spain), [1970] ICJ 3, para. 70.

  70. 70.

    The Registered Trustees of the Socio-Economic Rights & Accountability Project (SERAP) v President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria & Others, Suit No: ECW/CCJ/APP/08/09.

  71. 71.

    SERAP v. Nigeria & Others (2010), para 65.

  72. 72.

    SERAP v. Nigeria & Others (2010), para 69.

  73. 73.

    Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co. et al., No. 06- 4800, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 19382.

  74. 74.

    Kiobel (2010), p. 9; see also Anton and Shelton (2011), p. 943.

  75. 75.

    Blit et al. (2018).

  76. 76.

    Cox (2018), indicating that a pharmaceutical corporation could choose “chronic treatment” over “cure” where the latter is deemed detrimental to the corporation’s profit maximisation goals.

  77. 77.

    Etty et al. (2018), p. 191.

References

  • Alvarez JE (2011) Are corporations ‘subjects’ of international law? Santa Clara J Int Law 9(1):1–36

    Google Scholar 

  • Anton D, Shelton D (2011) Environmental protection and human rights. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Austin J [1832] (1955) The province of jurisprudence determined. Weidenfeld and Nicolson, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Bakan J (2004) The corporation: the pathological pursuit of profit and power. Viking Canada, Toronto

    Google Scholar 

  • Beaulac S (2004) The Westphalian model in defining international law: Challenging the myth. Aust J Legal Hist 8(2):181–213

    Google Scholar 

  • Blit J, Amand SS, Wajda J (2018) Automation and the future of work: scenarios and policy options. CIGI Papers No. 174

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonner O (2018) Protecting rights through a transnational corporate accountability treaty. Centre for International Environmental Law, online: http://www.ciel.org/protecting-rights-transnational-corporate-accountability-treaty/. Accessed 21 June 2018

  • Campbell R (ed) [1865] (2005) John Austin: Lectures on jurisprudence or the philosophy of positive law. The Lawbook Exchange Ltd., Clark

    Google Scholar 

  • Chinkin C (2013) International law and human rights. In: Clapham A (ed) Human rights and non-state actors. Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, Cheltenham, pp 42–68

    Google Scholar 

  • Chirwa D (2004) The doctrine of state responsibility as a potential means of holding private actors accountable for human rights. Melb J Int Law 5(1):1–36

    Google Scholar 

  • Clapham A (2013) Introduction. In: Andrew C (ed) Human rights and non-state actors. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, pp xiii–xxix

    Google Scholar 

  • Clements J, Coates J (2017) Corporations like Exxon are using spurious free speech claims to fend off regulation, Vox online: https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/2/14/14601932/exxon-first-amendment-free-speech-citizens-global-warming. Accessed 21 June 2018

  • Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States, 18 March 1965, 575 UNTS 159 (entered into force 14 October 1966)

    Google Scholar 

  • Cox KL (2018) Goldman Sachs asks: ‘Is curing patients a sustainable business model?’, Above the Law, online: https://abovethelaw.com/2018/05/goldman-sachs-asks-is-curing-patients-a-sustainable-business-model/. Accessed 21 June 2018

  • Etty T et al (2018) Transnational climate law. Transnational Environ Law 7(2):191–200

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hart HLA (1958) Positivism and the separation of law and morals. Harv Law Rev 71(4):593–629

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hart HLA (1961) The concept of law. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Jessup P (1956) Transnational law. Yale University Press, New Haven

    Google Scholar 

  • Johns F (1994) The invisibility of the transnational corporation: an analysis of international law and legal theory. Melb Univ Law Rev 19(4):893–923

    Google Scholar 

  • Karliner J, Bruno K (2002) USA: Corporate responsibility vs. accountability. International Herald Tribune (1 July 2002), online: https://corpwatch.org/article/usa-corporate-responsibility-vs-accountability. Accessed 21 June 2018

  • Kingsbury B (2002) Legal positivism as normative politics: international society, balance of power and Lassa Oppenheim’s positive international law. Eur J Int Law 13(2):401–436

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knox J (2011) The Ruggie rules: applying human rights law to corporations. In: Mares R (ed) The UN guiding principles on business and human rights: foundations and implementation. Brill, Leiden, pp 51–83

    Google Scholar 

  • McCorquodale R, Simons P (2007) Responsibility beyond borders: state responsibility for extraterritorial violations by corporations of international human rights law. Modern Law Rev 70(4):598–625

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Michaels R (2013) In: Banakar R, Travers M (eds) Law and society theory. Hart Publishing, Oxford, pp 287–304

    Google Scholar 

  • Muhvić D (2017) Legal personality as a theoretical approach to non-state entities in international law: the example of transnational corporations. Pécs J Int Eur Law 1:7–18

    Google Scholar 

  • Nardin T (1998) Legal positivism as a theory of international society. In: Mapel D, Nardin T (eds) International society: diverse ethical perspectives. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, pp 17–35

    Google Scholar 

  • Payandeh M (2011) The concept of international law in the jurisprudence of H.L.A. Hart. Eur J Int Law 21(4):967–995

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peters A (2016) Beyond human rights: the legal status of the individual in international law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Reinisch A, Malintoppi L (2008) Methods of dispute resolution. In: Muchlinski P, Ortino F, Schreuer C (eds) The Oxford handbook of international investment law. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 691–720

    Google Scholar 

  • Reparation for Injuries Suffered in the Service of the United Nations Case, Advisory Opinion, [1949] ICJ Rep 174

    Google Scholar 

  • Rowland W (2007) Canadian corporate rights and Canada’s Supreme Court, online: http://www.waderowland.com/canadian-corporate-rights-and-canadas-supreme-court/. Accessed 21 June 2018

  • Ruggie J (2007) Business and human rights: the evolving international agenda. Am J Int Law 101(4):819–840

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruggie J (2013) Just business: multinational corporations and human rights. W.W. Norton & Company, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Scanlan M (2018) Facebook is a tyranny – and our government isn’t built to stop it. The Guardian online: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/apr/18/facebook-tyranny-government-regulation-what-we-need?CMP=share_btn_tw. Accessed 21 June 2018

  • Schlemmer E (2008) Investment, investor, nationality, and shareholders. In: Muchlinski P, Ortino F, Schreuer C (eds) The Oxford handbook of international investment law. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 49–88

    Google Scholar 

  • Slaughter A-M (2002) Breaking out: the proliferation of actors in the international system. In: Dezalay Y, Garth B (eds) Global prescriptions: the production, exportation, and importation of a new legal orthodoxy. The University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, pp 12–36

    Google Scholar 

  • Vukas B (2010) States, peoples and minorities as subjects of international law. In: Johns F (ed) International legal personality. Routledge, London, pp 79–104

    Google Scholar 

  • Walter C (2012) Subjects of international law. In: Wolfrum R (ed) The Max Planck encyclopedia of public international law. Oxford University Press, Oxford, p 3. online: http://cesl.cupl.edu.cn/upload/201101205659822.pdf. Accessed 9 Aug 2018

    Google Scholar 

  • Weissbrodt D, Kruger M (2003) Norms on the responsibilities of transnational corporations and other business enterprises with regard to human rights. Am J Int Law 97(4):901–922

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Werhane PS (2015) Corporate moral agency and the responsibility to respect human rights in the UN Guiding Principles: do corporations have moral rights? Bus Hum Rights J 1(1):5–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zia-Zarifi S (1999) Suing multinational corporations in the U.S. for violating international law. Univ Calif Los Angeles J Int Law Foreign Aff 4(1):81–147

    Google Scholar 

  • Zumbansen P (2006) Transnational law. In: Smits J (ed) Elgar encyclopedia of comparative law. Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, Cheltenham, pp 738–754

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for International Governance Innovation, Waterloo, ON, Canada

    Basil Ugochukwu

Authors
  1. Basil Ugochukwu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Basil Ugochukwu .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. School of Law, University of Dundee, Dundee, UK

    Luca Siliquini-Cinelli

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Ugochukwu, B. (2019). Responsibility of Corporations in International Law: Positivism and Transnationalism Revisited. In: Siliquini-Cinelli, L. (eds) Legal Positivism in a Global and Transnational Age. Law and Philosophy Library, vol 131. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-24705-8_11

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-24705-8_11

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-24704-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-24705-8

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation