Notice bibliographique
Résumé
In the current state of law, multinational enterprises (MNEs) do not have a specific legal status in the field of labour relations. There is not a specific set of rules that govern them. Thus, in labour relations, MNEs are generally subject to the national law of the host countries. There are, of course, exceptions. For example, the supranational law of the European Union recognizes the pan-European enterprise insofar as it obliges the Member-States to ensure that a European enterprise committee is created within a pan-European group. Similarly, MNEs are, on the whole, understood through different instruments decreed by regional or international organizations, including the International Labour Organisation (ILO), the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and the United Nations. These instruments can be characterized as “green” or “soft” law due to their lack of legal “compellability.” Notwithstanding these exceptions, the MNEs’ lack of a transnational legal status reduces legal intervention to a set of national laws, that is, those of the host countries of its legal components and activities. Indeed, national labour laws, whose vocation is, in principle, strictly territorial cannot affect an MNE in its entirety since, by definition, it extends beyond the borders of a single country.Despite their naturally territorial vocation with regard to MNE activities’, national laws could be adapted, albeit marginally, to cover a number of extraterritorial applications of their labour law. The legislator of the subsidiary’s host country or the parent corporation’s country could affect the MNE if the parent corporation presented itself as the “usual” employer, on its own or together with its subsidiary. Moreover, although the conservatism of standard international jurisprudence rejects the extraterritoriality of the law of the parent corporation’s country, it has not stopped the American legislator from expressly recognizing the extraterritorial application of laws on workplace discrimination to foreign subsidiaries of American parent corporations.However, the question of the normativity applicable to MNEs cannot be dealt with on its own. It must be addressed at the same time as the question of its implementation. This involves determining to what extent the courts of the host country are able to apply these norms in order to grasp the true nature of MNEs. Therefore, it can be proposed that these courts—those of the subsidiary’s host country and those of the parent corporation’s country—will generally be able to compel the parent corporation to meet a number of obligations deriving from their national labour law subject to two conditions: first, that the parent corporation has the legal status of an employer at the location of the subsidiary or together with the subsidiary ; second that the principle of “piercing the corporate veil” is admitted in their national law. Moreover, despite their non-binding nature, the ILO’s Tripartite Declaration of Principles Concerning Multinational Enterprises and Social Policy, as well as the OECD’s Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises, take into account the true nature of MNEs based on the follow-up mechanisms provided for their respective implementation.Although it is true that currently, in labour relations, MNEs are still almost exclusively governed by the national law of the countries in which they are based, it is entirely possible that this situation can and will eventually change. As shown by history, labour law has always demonstrated an adaptive capacity, reflecting the gradual development of employer-employee relations.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,004 | 0,008 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,006 | 0,013 |
| Communication savante | 0,007 | 0,006 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,006 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,005 | 0,005 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,015 | 0,002 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».