abusesaffiliationarrow-downarrow-leftarrow-rightarrow-upattack-typeburgerchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-upClock iconclosedeletedevelopment-povertydiscriminationdollardownloademailenvironmentexternal-linkfacebookfiltergenderglobegroupshealthC4067174-3DD9-4B9E-AD64-284FDAAE6338@1xinformation-outlineinformationinstagraminvestment-trade-globalisationissueslabourlanguagesShapeCombined Shapeline, chart, up, arrow, graphLinkedInlocationmap-pinminusnewsorganisationotheroverviewpluspreviewArtboard 185profilerefreshIconnewssearchsecurityPathStock downStock steadyStock uptagticktooltiptwitteruniversalityweb

هذه الصفحة غير متوفرة باللغة العربية وهي معروضة باللغة English

المقال

4 سبتمبر 2018

الكاتب:
Gabriela Quijano, Legal Adviser, Amnesty International - International Secretariat

Okpabi v Royal Dutch Shell: An opportunity to honour international standards or another instance of corporate impunity?

On 14 February 2018, a UK Court of Appeal dismissed the Okpabi v Royal Dutch Shell (RDS or Shell) appeal on the basis that RDS could not be held legally responsible for the actions of its Nigerian subsidiary, the Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria (SPDC)...This decision is highly concerning for two main reasons. Firstly, it denies the Ogale and Bille communities an opportunity for justice in a case where the chances of obtaining meaningful reparation in Nigeria are virtually non-existent.  Secondly, it backtracks on prior UK court decisions on parent company liability...

The Court of Appeal dismissed the claims based on the absence of evidence to demonstrate operational control of Shell over its subsidiary...Such a high evidentiary burden on claimants alleging parent company liability at such an early stage in the proceedings is unjust and unrealistic...

UK courts have gradually advanced useful parent company liability principles, with Chandler v Cape plc being the strongest precedent yet.  However, the Court of Appeal disregarded principles established in this case...[I]t is not the active engagement of a parent company in the abuse, but its failure to act to prevent it when it could that results in serious harm.  Unfortunately, the Court of Appeal chose to backtrack on this important point.

The view expressed by the Court of Appeal that a parent company duty of care may only arise in cases of active control or enforcement would promote a “hands off” approach to the human rights impacts of subsidiaries...Should it stand, the Court of Appeal’s ruling would have the exact opposite effect of discouraging parent companies from concerning themselves with, and taking action to avoid, the adverse human rights impacts of their subsidiaries...

الجدول الزمني

معلومات الخصوصية

هذا الموقع يستخدم ملفات تعريف الارتباط وتكنولوجيا التخزين الشبكي. يمكنك ضبط خيارات الخصوصية أدناه. تسري التغييرات فورًا.

للمزيد من المعلومات عن استخدامنا للتخزين الشبكي، انظر سياستنا في استخدام البيانات وملفات تعريف الارتباط

Strictly necessary storage

ON
OFF

Necessary storage enables core site functionality. This site cannot function without it, so it can only be disabled by changing settings in your browser.

ملفات تعريف الارتباط التحليلية

ON
OFF

When you access our website we use Google Analytics to collect information on your visit. Accepting this cookie will allow us to understand more details about your journey, and improve how we surface information. All analytics information is anonymous and we do not use it to identify you. Google provides a Google Analytics opt-out add on for all popular browsers.

Promotional cookies

ON
OFF

We share news and updates on business and human rights through third party platforms, including social media and search engines. These cookies help us to understand the performance of these promotions.

خيارات الخصوصية على هذا الموقع

هذا الموقع يستخدم ملفات تعريف الارتباط وتكنولوجيا التخزين الشبكي لتحسين تجربتك لما يتجاوز الخصائص الرئيسية الضرورية.