Western societies are witnessing an emerging socio-legal trend towards transnational civil litigation against multinational corporations in relation to harm caused toward people and the planet. These 'foreign direct liability cases' arise against the background of a global governance gap resulting from the rapid globalization of economic actors and activities with no global institutions to manage their worldwide impacts. The increasing reliance on private law mechanisms to realize corporate accountability for violations of human rights, health and safety, and environmental and labor norms perpetrated around the globe raises interesting and complex issues. This study sets out the legal and socio-political framework of this particular type of transnational civil litigation. The book traces the role that Western systems of tort law may play in promoting international corporate social responsibility/accountability. It focuses on the feasibility of bringing foreign direct liability claims before domestic courts in the EU Member States - the Netherlands in particular - and sets out a number of recommendations for European policymakers.

Multinational corporate groups are important actors in today’s global economy, with the power to impact the masses through their activities. National legal systems, which usually have no extraterritorial authority, remain insufficient to regulate the activities of multinational corporate groups, which operate worldwide, not only in the countries where the parent companies reside (home country), but also in countries where the subsidiaries operate (host countries). The mentioned lack of an effective legislation leads to an unjust imbalance – to the benefit of multinational corporate groups and to the detriment, especially, of involuntary creditors, such as tort victims of corporate activities, which predominantly concern human rights abuses and environmental violations. Against this backdrop, the book firstly assesses the position of multinational corporate groups in international law and then discusses potential reforms to corporate law that would allow for a multi-stakeholder approach. It analyses certain aspects of Turkish tort law that could potentially accommodate liability claims against the parent companies of multinational corporate groups for damage incurred due to their transnational subsidiaries’ activities (referred to as ‘foreign direct liability’ in legal doctrine). To this end, the potential legal grounds of fault liability and strict liability are assessed under Turkish law, with a particular focus on the duty of care, in comparison with the corresponding case law in the UK and the Netherlands. Mandatory human rights due diligence is also analysed with a view to proposing a new regulation in Turkish law. Lastly, the aspects of foreign direct liability claims related to private international law are assessed in order to answer the questions of jurisdiction and applicable law within the scope of a comparative legal study.

This book is directed at practical applications and case law support for invoking forum non conveniens. It begins with a basic discussion of the evolution of the doctrine. The balance of the book is devoted to applying appropriate case law to a variety of situations. Likely opposing arguments, public policy notions, and the relationship of forum non conveniens to jurisdiction and venue are also considered. Virginia Journal of International Law American multinational corporations face a unique problem with regard to products liability litigation instituted by foreign plaintiffs. In many cases, plaintiffs outside the U.S. file suits in U.S. courts despite the fact that the incident on which the suit is based took place in other countries. Such action is often taken because of features peculiar to the U.S. legal system, including the doctrine of strict liability, the availability of contingency fees for attorneys, and the prevalence of large awards to individuals in products liability cases. This informative study by a legal professional and products liability specialist focuses on a doctrine that can lessen liability exposure for multinational corporations. By successfully petitioning the courts under the doctrine of forum non conveniens, corporations may have court proceedings transferred to another jurisdiction, often outside the U.S., which has a direct connection with the incident and where potential liability exposure is greatly reduced. Following an introductory discussion of the evolution of this doctrine, Freedman documents its use with appropriate case law in a wide variety of situations.

As part of a current trend towards so-called 'foreign direct liability cases', attempts are being made to hold parent companies of multinational corporations liable in their home countries for damage caused in host countries. This trend, of which the Trafigura case serves as a recent example here, suggests that tort law may have a regulatory part to play when it comes to the transboundary activities of multinational corporations. However, the extent to which tort law can act as a regulatory mechanism is dependent on its applicability, which, in turn, is determined by private international law. The recently adopted Rome II Regulation, which lays down conflict-of-law rules for non-contractual obligations, will only have a limited conducive effect on the feasibility of the regulation through tort law of the transboundary activities of multinational corporations. On the basis of this Regulation, it is only in cases where the resulting damage consists of environmental damage that home country tort law may be applicable. In all other cases, attempts to hold the parent company of the multinational corporation liable for damage caused in the host country will have to be based on the tort law of the host country. This effectively diminishes the feasibility of home country tort law as a mechanism for the regulation of the transboundary activities of multinational corporations.

In January 2013, the The Hague district court in the Netherlands rendered a groundbreaking verdict in a civil liability suit against Royal Dutch Shell and its Nigerian subsidiary (SPDC). The lawsuit had been brought before it by four Nigerian farmers and the Dutch NGO Milieudefensie, in response to a number of oil spill incidents from SPDC-operated pipelines in the Nigerian Niger Delta. Although the majority of the claims were dismissed, the district court in its ruling did grant one claim that related to spills from an abandoned wellhead, ordering SPDC to pay compensation for the resulting loss. This judgment holds international relevance, as this Dutch Shell Nigeria Case forms part of a worldwide trend towards foreign direct liability cases. Growing numbers of similar lawsuits have been brought before courts in other Western societies, but judgments on the merits have so far remained scarce. The relevance of the case has further increased with the US Supreme Court's April 2013 ruling in the case of Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., which has significantly limited the scope of the Alien Tort Statute. This article explores the The Hague district court's decision in the Dutch Shell Nigeria Case, and places the case within the socio-legal context of the contemporary trend towards foreign direct liability cases, the international debates on corporate accountability and business & human rights, and the Supreme Court's judgment in the Kiobel-case.