Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W1607035041> ?p ?o ?g. }
Showing items 1 to 71 of
71
with 100 items per page.
- W1607035041 endingPage "471" @default.
- W1607035041 startingPage "453" @default.
- W1607035041 abstract "For over a century, since the case of Salomon v. Salomon, litigators have attempted without success to pierce the corporate veil of corporations in order to sue the holding companies for the torts committed by their subsidiaries. However, Salomon v. Salomon is still good law and the concept of separate legal personality is established all over the world. Recently, United States litigators have attempted to establish a cause of action based on a combination between common law torts and the violation of customary international law. However, this approach too has been unsuccessful. In Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled against holding the multinational corporation liable for the violation of customary international law committed by its subsidiary. The current issue is what strategy human rights litigators might adopt in front of United Kingdom courts in these types of cases. This article suggests that human rights activists should argue that holding corporations are liable for the human rights abuses committed by their subsidiaries on the basis of domestic tort law rather than customary international law. In this context, the line of cases, which was first established with Lubbe v. Cape and then further developed with Chandler v. Cape, offers an alternative to either piercing the corporate veil or establishing a cause of action based on a combination of tort and customary international law. In Chandler, the U.K. Court of Appeal held the holding company directly responsible for the human rights violations committed by its subsidiary without the need to address the issues related to piercing the corporate veil or customary international law. Chandler has the potential to become an authority not only in the United Kingdom, but also abroad as it establishes a parent company's duty of care toward its subsidiary's employees. However, the case left some unanswered questions, such as whether the parent company owes a direct duty of care toward third parties and whether this could be applicable to the multinational context. This article will address these questions by analyzing Chandler v. Cape and its application in the Dutch decision of Akpan v. Royal Dutch Shell." @default.
- W1607035041 created "2016-06-24" @default.
- W1607035041 creator A5057165189 @default.
- W1607035041 date "2015-01-01" @default.
- W1607035041 modified "2023-09-23" @default.
- W1607035041 title "Chandler v. Cape : An Alternative to Piercing the Corporate Veil Beyond Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Shell" @default.
- W1607035041 hasPublicationYear "2015" @default.
- W1607035041 type Work @default.
- W1607035041 sameAs 1607035041 @default.
- W1607035041 citedByCount "0" @default.
- W1607035041 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
- W1607035041 hasAuthorship W1607035041A5057165189 @default.
- W1607035041 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
- W1607035041 hasConcept C166957645 @default.
- W1607035041 hasConcept C169437150 @default.
- W1607035041 hasConcept C170706310 @default.
- W1607035041 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
- W1607035041 hasConcept C185436325 @default.
- W1607035041 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
- W1607035041 hasConcept C200635333 @default.
- W1607035041 hasConcept C2777834853 @default.
- W1607035041 hasConcept C2778449503 @default.
- W1607035041 hasConcept C2779343474 @default.
- W1607035041 hasConcept C2779921323 @default.
- W1607035041 hasConcept C55447825 @default.
- W1607035041 hasConcept C95457728 @default.
- W1607035041 hasConceptScore W1607035041C144024400 @default.
- W1607035041 hasConceptScore W1607035041C166957645 @default.
- W1607035041 hasConceptScore W1607035041C169437150 @default.
- W1607035041 hasConceptScore W1607035041C170706310 @default.
- W1607035041 hasConceptScore W1607035041C17744445 @default.
- W1607035041 hasConceptScore W1607035041C185436325 @default.
- W1607035041 hasConceptScore W1607035041C199539241 @default.
- W1607035041 hasConceptScore W1607035041C200635333 @default.
- W1607035041 hasConceptScore W1607035041C2777834853 @default.
- W1607035041 hasConceptScore W1607035041C2778449503 @default.
- W1607035041 hasConceptScore W1607035041C2779343474 @default.
- W1607035041 hasConceptScore W1607035041C2779921323 @default.
- W1607035041 hasConceptScore W1607035041C55447825 @default.
- W1607035041 hasConceptScore W1607035041C95457728 @default.
- W1607035041 hasIssue "1" @default.
- W1607035041 hasLocation W16070350411 @default.
- W1607035041 hasOpenAccess W1607035041 @default.
- W1607035041 hasPrimaryLocation W16070350411 @default.
- W1607035041 hasRelatedWork W1448825013 @default.
- W1607035041 hasRelatedWork W1966968079 @default.
- W1607035041 hasRelatedWork W2135901704 @default.
- W1607035041 hasRelatedWork W2220688536 @default.
- W1607035041 hasRelatedWork W2259806639 @default.
- W1607035041 hasRelatedWork W2294401036 @default.
- W1607035041 hasRelatedWork W2318439589 @default.
- W1607035041 hasRelatedWork W2331129614 @default.
- W1607035041 hasRelatedWork W2475792526 @default.
- W1607035041 hasRelatedWork W2761804289 @default.
- W1607035041 hasRelatedWork W2917794929 @default.
- W1607035041 hasRelatedWork W3121241665 @default.
- W1607035041 hasRelatedWork W3121451584 @default.
- W1607035041 hasRelatedWork W3123983996 @default.
- W1607035041 hasRelatedWork W3125076151 @default.
- W1607035041 hasRelatedWork W3125554622 @default.
- W1607035041 hasRelatedWork W3183304930 @default.
- W1607035041 hasRelatedWork W3193536779 @default.
- W1607035041 hasRelatedWork W796967351 @default.
- W1607035041 hasRelatedWork W3123970449 @default.
- W1607035041 hasVolume "4" @default.
- W1607035041 isParatext "false" @default.
- W1607035041 isRetracted "false" @default.
- W1607035041 magId "1607035041" @default.
- W1607035041 workType "article" @default.