Beyond Kiobel: Providing Access to Judicial Remedies for Violations of International Human Rights Norms by Transnational Business in a New (Post-Kiobel) World
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the April 2013 case of Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum, the U.S. Supreme Court significantly limited the application of the Alien Tort Statute (ATS) by finding that the presumption against extraterritoriality exists with regard to claims brought for violations of customary international law (CIL) occurring abroad, even where U.S. citizens, including corporations, might be liable. In addition, there are many other obstacles to holding transnational businesses liable for their involvement in extraterritorial human rights abuses, especially those occurring in host countries with ineffective or corrupt judicial systems. Many home countries, including the United States, are simply failing to meet their obligations under international law to provide access to judicial remedies to such victims. This article, after describing countries’ obligations under international to provide access to judicial remedies for such abuses, outlines the various barriers victims face in seeking access to judicial remedies for harms caused by violations of international human rights on the part of transnational businesses’ located or doing significant business in the United States. The article also takes note of some of the barriers victims face in Canada, Switzerland, and in the European Union against transnational businesses located or doing significant business there, in order to give larger context to the barriers victims of such abuses face in accessing a judicial remedy in any country. The article then proposes ways forward, including specific policy recommendations.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".