MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1515421661

Beyond Kiobel: Providing Access to Judicial Remedies for Violations of International Human Rights Norms by Transnational Business in a New (Post-Kiobel) World

2014· article· en· W1515421661 on OpenAlex
Gwynne Skinner

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCorporate Law and Human Rights
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAlien Tort StatuteHuman rightsExtraterritorialityLawPolitical sciencePresumptionContext (archaeology)International Covenant on Civil and Political RightsInternational human rights lawTortJurisdictionLiabilityRight to property
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.172
Threshold uncertainty score0.843

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.239 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it