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

このページは 日本語 では利用できません。English で表示されています

記事

2018年9月4日

著者:
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...

タイムライン

プライバシー情報

このサイトでは、クッキーやその他のウェブストレージ技術を使用しています。お客様は、以下の方法でプライバシーに関する選択肢を設定することができます。変更は直ちに反映されます。

ウェブストレージの使用についての詳細は、当社の データ使用およびクッキーに関するポリシーをご覧ください

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.

クッキーのアナリティクス

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.

本サイトにおけるお客様のプライバシーに関する選択

このサイトでは、必要なコア機能を超えてお客様の利便性を高めるために、クッキーやその他のウェブストレージ技術を使用しています。