Dr Ekaterina Aristova

There is an emerging trend of private claims being brought against parent companies of transnational corporations for their alleged involvement in human rights and environmental abuses committed abroad. These cases form part of an international effort aimed at strengthening responsible business conduct, the success of which depends on the rules governing domestic courts' power to adjudicate disputes. However, in an increasingly globalised environment, the territorial focus of the adjudicative jurisdiction is often contrary to the transnational nature of the business activities.

To address this puzzle, Tort Litigation against Transnational Corporations seeks to answer three questions: Firstly, to what extent can English courts, under existing rules, exercise jurisdiction over an English parent company and its foreign subsidiaries as co-defendants? Secondly, is England a suitable forum for deciding transnational human rights claims? And, finally, should the jurisdictional competence of the English courts be broadened through a new connecting factor derived from the 'economic enterprise' theory?

While the book is written from the perspective of English law, it also draws on examples of similar claims in other jurisdictions to broaden the discussion. It offers a new angle to the business and human rights discourse by placing the discussion of parent company liability cases in the context of the topical debate about the changing role of private international law in a globalised world.

What private law avenues are open to victims of human rights violations? This innovative new collection explores this question across sixteen jurisdictions in the Global South and Global North. It examines existing mechanisms in domestic law for bringing civil claims in relation to the involvement of states, corporations and individuals in specific categories of human rights violation: (i) assault or unlawful arrest and detention of persons; (ii) environmental harm; and (iii) harmful or unfair labour conditions. Taking a truly global perspective, it assesses the question in jurisdictions as diverse as Kenya, Switzerland, the US and the Philippines. A much needed and important new statement on how to respond to human rights violations.

A noteworthy trend within the surge in corporate climate litigation is the increasing focus on personal responsibility of corporate directors. In 2023, ClientEarth commenced a derivative claim against Shell and its directors in the English courts, arguing that those directors were in breach of their directors' duties under the Companies Act 2006. This article analyses the claimant's arguments, examines the basis upon which the court dismissed the claim and identifies the procedural challenges that are likely to be faced by future claimants in commencing similar claims. In light of the rising trend in shareholder activism, coupled with the ever-increasing regulatory requirements to strengthen corporate human rights and environmental performance, the article anticipates further attempts to bring derivative claims against directors for failing to take action to address climate change risks. It provides suggestions for the sorts of arguments that may have greater prospects of succeeding before the English courts.

In 2023, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) launched an updated version of the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises on Responsible Business Conduct. The changes represent substantial and potentially far-reaching implications for business, particularly in the areas of climate change and biodiversity. This article examines the 14 climate-related complaints filed under the Guidelines prior to the adoption of the 2023 Update, showing how many of these cases illustrate the potential interlinkages between the human rights and climate change dimensions of the Guidelines. The article then discusses how the updated provisions may influence future complaints concerning climate change. Based on this analysis, the article concludes that the Guidelines could have been strengthened by the explicit integration of climate change into the scope of corporate human rights responsibilities under the Guidelines.

This article examines private international law issues raised by civil liability cases commenced in the courts of home states against transnational corporations concerning their alleged involvement in the overseas human rights violations. These claims have been particularly successful in the United Kingdom, where in the last several years the framework of Brussels I Regulation (recast) and English common law rules made it appropriate for the English courts to assert jurisdiction over corporate defendants without the possibility of subjecting claims against the parent companies to forum non conveniens control. In 2019, however, the Supreme Court in a high-profile case Lungowe v Vedanta Resources plc expressed doubts as to whether England should always constitute a proper forum for litigating overseas wrongs arising from the operations of British multinationals. The article aims to assess how the search of the most appropriate forum to litigate the dispute might impact victims of business-related human rights abuses in the post-Brexit environment and propose avenues for legal change.

In recent decades, some jurisdictions have shown a growing trend of private claims alleging direct liability of parent companies for overseas human rights abuses (‘Tort Liability Claims’). These cases form part of an international effort aimed at establishing public control over the private operations of transnational corporations (‘TNCs’). Their success in addressing the challenges of cross-border operations of corporate groups, however, depends on the rules governing domestic courts’ power to adjudicate disputes. One of the consequences of globalisation is that the territorial focus of the adjudicative jurisdiction is often contrary to the transnational nature of the TNCs’ activities. The central purpose of this article is to demonstrate how jurisdictional issues arising in Tort Liability Claims challenge the traditional paradigm of private international law as an abstract and technical discipline by necessitating increasing involvement of domestic courts in the regulation of international business. The article focuses on the rules of jurisdiction applied by the English courts and, in particular, on the much-debated decisions in Lungowe v Vedanta and Okpabi v Shell.

This Chapter explores private international law (PIL) issues arising in transnational climate change cases based on private law. It adopts a broad comparative perspective, going beyond European Union PIL to also consider other legal traditions, though it acknowledges that most relevant litigation has occurred in Continental Europe. The analysis centres on how PIL facilitates or restricts access to remedy by shaping the questions of jurisdiction, applicable law, and recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments. While academic debates in this field are lively, actual climate change litigation raising PIL issues remains limited. This Chapter aims to provide conceptual insights into the interaction between PIL and climate change, contributing to broader debates on sustainability, global governance, and the regulatory potential of the field.

IN Lungowe v Vedanta Resources Plc [2016] EWHC 975 (TCC), the High Court allowed a claim to be heard in England against parent company incorporated in England and its foreign subsidiary in relation to the overseas subsidiary's operations. The judge considered whether the claim against the English-domiciled defendant could be stayed on the basis of forum non conveniens, and whether jurisdiction could be established over its foreign subsidiary as a necessary and proper party to the case. The overall analysis of the judgment suggests that (1) the claims against the parent company in relation to the overseas operations of the foreign subsidiary can be heard in the English courts and (2) the existence of an arguable claim against the English-domiciled parent company also establishes jurisdiction of the English courts over the subsidiary even if the factual basis of the case occurs almost exclusively in the foreign state.