1) this paper comes to the conclusion that, independent of whether or
not MNCs have international legal personality, they enjoy considerable rights under
international investment law and under international human rights law. Conversely,
MNCs do not have binding obligations under international law, notwithstanding a
range of initiatives, attempting to create, both, voluntary and non-voluntary
instruments. http://PDF WP129-Wouters-Chane(updatedFeb2015)
2) whether MNCs are subjects of international law? whether they have rights and obligations
3) К цели (этого КВС хоет избежаить): By being non-state actors, MNCs are not directly bound by the obligations set down in multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs) between states. Only when governments implement environmental rules on a local level may MNCs come under pressure to enforce them. However, multinational corporations often operate in third world countries, where the environment is not on the agenda of first priorities and judges are resistant in litigating against them. This leads to an alarmingly low quantity and quality of environmental standards that developing countries impose on such corporations.http://PDF Global Environmental Liability_ Multinational Corporations under Scrutiny _ Namballa _ Exchanges_ the Warwick Research Journal ниже все из этой же ссылки
4) - By being non-state actors, MNCs are not directly bound by the obligations set down in multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs) between states. Only when governments implement environmental rules on a local level may MNCs come under pressure to enforce them.
- the regional liability framework of the Council of Europe (Lugano Convention, 1993) and the European Union, with the Environmental Liability Directive (2004/35/EC) impose liability on a wider sector of companies involved in environmentally hazardous activities.
- Environmental Liability Directive excludes traditional civil damage and creates an administrative liability system whereby public authorities must make sure that the polluters remedy damage to the environment. For that purpose, it sets down a two-tier scheme by imposing strict liability for listed hazardous activities
- Therefore, in addition to the various liability schemes, there have been a number of soft-law initiatives in order to increase the environmental accountability of these corporations. A relevant example is the United Nations Global Compact, which encourages companies to follow ten general principles in their business activities, including environmental standards (The Ten Principles).
- Given the limited scope of international liability schemes, it is up to local governments to
bridge the gap in MNC regulatory framework. Transnational investment agreements (TIAs) between multinationals and host states, despite being international per se, provide an insight into how efficient the developing countries are in this role (see Ong, 2006). With the objective to receive profitable investments, third world countries are often willing not to enforce the environmental standards on multinational corporations.
- Notably, principle 13 of the Rio Declaration invites states to ‘develop national law regarding liability and compensation for pollution victims and other the environmental damage … and to co-operate “in a more expeditious and determined manner” to develop international law in this respect’ (Rio Declaration, 1992).
- As a result, citizens cannot sue the polluting MNC directly but instead ‘[t] he public authorities act as trustee for … natural resources and have the authority to file a claim against the operator who caused a significant damage to … natural resources’ (Brans, 2005: 96). Still, it is a comprehensive harmonization of choice of law and has an important impact on transboundary environmental litigation against MNCs. Besides, Article 15 (3) of the Environmental Liability Directive makes clear that even when the polluter of another state causes damage, the Member State has the right to recover remedial measures.
- Environmental Liability Directive ????!!!
