RSE, droits de l’homme et multinationales : la doctrine du forum non conveniens est-elle un obstacle à une judiciarisation du contentieux ?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
La doctrine du forum non conveniens permet de renvoyer un litige incluant un élément d’extranéité devant un for plus approprié. En pratique, la doctrine du forum non conveniens s’avère problématique pour les demandeurs recherchant la responsabilité des entreprises multinationales pour violation des droits de l’Homme. Comme le démontrent des affaires portées devant les juges québécois, de nombreux recours judiciaires intentés dans leur pays siège (le Canada) ont été renvoyés devant les cours des pays hôtes où la justice n’a finalement pas été rendue. La doctrine du forum non conveniens ne constitue-telle pas un obstacle critiquable à la RSE ? D’une part, la situation de vulnérabilité du demandeur et le déséquilibre de force entre les parties au litige brouillent la donne. D’autre part, de récentes décisions de justice canadiennes (Araya v. Nevsun Resources Ltd. et Garcia v. Tahoe Resources Inc.) démontrent une ouverture des cours, ces dernières semblant plus favorables aux demandeurs étrangers.
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 | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.001 |
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".