Criteria for Exercise Jurisdiction On multinational corporations

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 member of faculty of law at ATU university

2 PHD student of international law SBU

Abstract

Today, because of ignoring the interests of the host country, Following the observance of human rights standards, Environmental rights and Economic concerns such The outflow of capital from the country and also The power and interference of these companies in the political issues of the host country, Governments are trying to make multinational companies Under the jurisdiction of the domestic courts. in these areas The connection is "Territorial" and the connection of "Citizenship". Connects the government to a multinational corporation. However, the practice of developed governments Like the United States (In the description and application of the jurisdiction of these enterprises in their laws) Shows that governments tend to Find More communication lines to exercise jurisdiction On multinational corporations such (Benchmark Supervision, the citizenship of shareholders or managers, manufactured goods, etc.) Principle of territorial jurisdiction of the court Prevent them from exercising their jurisdiction over multinational corporations But if a multinational corporation Intends to The legal personality of their affiliates As cover To stay safe from pursuing local courts, Can be used The piercing the corporate veil rule to apply The jurisdiction of the court to the multinational corporation. At the same time, the courts can investigate crimes and violations of multinational corporations Based on violations of international human rights

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

  1. منابع:

    الف: منابع فارسی

    1. ابراهیمی، سید نصرالله، اعمال فراسرزمینی قوانین داخلی و آثار آن، با ارجاع ویژه به قوانین هلمز-برتون و داماتو، مجله مجتمع آموزش عالی قم، شماره ۷و ۸، ۱۳۷۹.
    2. باغبان، رحیم، تعهدات و مسئولیت شرکت های چند ملیتی و دولت مبدأ، پایان نامه مقطع کارشناسی ارشد حقوق دانشگاه علوم و تحقیقات، 1393.
    3. بریژیت استرن، ابراهیم بیگ زاده، تکاپو در جهت جهانی‌کردن حقوق؟ قانون هلمزـ برتون و داماتو ـ کندی، مجله حقوقی دادگستری، مقاله 2، دوره 14، شماره 20، پاییز و زمستان 1375.
    4. حسینائی خزان، مرضیه، ضوابط حقوقی حاکم بر فعالیت شرکت های فراملی، پایان نامه مقطع کارشناسی ارشد حقوق تجارت بین المللی دانشگاه شهید بهشتی تهران، 1389.
    5. خالقی، علی، مقدمه ای بر اصول حاکم بر صلاحیت کیفری در حقوق جزای بین المللی، مجله تحقیقات حقوقی، شماره، 1381.
    6. زراعت، عباس؛ شرح قانون مجازات اسلامی بخش کلیات(حقوق جزای عمومی)، تهران، انتشارات ققنوس، چاپ سوم، 1379.
    7. شیروانی، علی، اصول حاکم بر دیوان بین المللی کیفری، صلاحیت سرزمینی-صلاحیت شخصی-صلاحیت جهانی) قابل دسترس در constitutional.blog.ir (آخرین بازدید 23/01/95).
    8. ضیایی، سید یاسر، مبانی نظری صلاحیت فراسرزمینی دولت از منظر حقوق بین الملل عمومی، حقوقی دادگستری، زمستان 1390 - شماره 76.
    9. فرجیها، محمد؛ آقایی، امین؛ جنبه های منفی و مثبت اصل صلاحیت شخصی در حقوق جزای بین الملل، مجله: مطالعات بین المللی پلیس، شماره 9، بهار 1391.
    10. میرصادقی، حسین، دادگاه کیفری بین المللی، نشر دادگستر، تهران، 1383.

     

    ب: منابع خارجی

    1. Atwood J.and K. Brewster Antitrust and American Business Abroad, Colorado Springs, West Group; 3rd edition (1998).
    2. Bauer, Joseph P., The Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act: Do We Really Want to Return to American Banana? (September 19, 2012). 65 Maine Law Review, (2012),
    3. Brownlie, I, Principles of Public International Law, London, Oxford, 6th Ed (2003).
    4. Farrar, J, Furey, N, Hannigan, B, Farrar's Company Law, Butterworths, 4thEd, (1998).
    5. Geradin, Damien and Reysen, Marc and Henry, David, Extraterritoriality, Comity and Cooperation in EC Competition Law (July 2008). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1175003 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1175003
    6. Harris J., Cases and Materials on International Law, London, Thomson Sweet & Maxwell, 6th Ed, (2004).
    7. Lee, Buchheit, the Dilemma of Odious Debts, 56 DUKE L. J. 1201, 1248 (2007).
    8. Matheson, John H., The Modern Law of Corporate Groups: An Empirical Study of Piercing the Corporate Veil in the Parent-Subsidiary Context, North Carolina Law Review, Vol. 87, (2008).
    9. Meron, Theodor, Humanization of International Law, The Hague Academyof International Law, Martinus Nijhoff Publisher, Hague, (2006).
    10. Neale and Stephens, International Business and National Jurisdiction, Oxford: Clarendon Press, (1988).
    11. Nolan, Anthea, The Position of Unsecured Creditors of Corporate Groups: Towards a Group Responsibility Solution which gives Fairness and Equity a Role, 11 Company and Securities Law Journal 461, (1993).
    12. Trakman, Leon, 'Legal Traditions' and International Commercial Arbitration. American Review of International Arbitration, UNSW Law Research Paper No. 2007-29, Spring (2007).
    13. amsay, Ian, Noakes, David, Piercing the Corporate Veil in Australia, 19 Company and Securities Law Journal (2001)
    14. Shaw, Malcolm, International Law, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press; 8 edition (2017)
    15. Sornarajah, M, The Extraterritorial Enforcement of US Antitrust Law: Conflict and Compromise, The International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol. 31, No. 1 (1982),
    16. Third Restatement of the Law, Products Liability, the American Law Institute, (1998).
    17. Thompson, Robert, Piercing the Corporate Veil: An Empirical Study, 76 Cornell L. Rev. (1991).
    18. Whish, further, Competition Law, London, Lexis Nexis Butterworths, 5th Ed, (2003).

    ج: اسناد و معاهدات

    1. ICJ Reports, Case concerning Barcelona Traction, light and PowerCo. Ltd., 1970.
    2. Inter-American Juridical Committee, Resolution on The Opinion of The Inter.-American Juludical Committee In Fulfilment Of Resolution Ag/Doc. 3375/96 of The General Assembly of The Organization of American States, Entitled “Freedom of Trade and Invesrment In The Hemisphere”, CJI/RES.II-14/96 105.
    3. The Geneva Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone 1958 Art.24. (UKTS 3 (1965).
    4. UN Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982 Art. 33. (UN. Doc.A/CONF. 62/122); 21 ILM 1261 (1982).
    5. US Department of Justice, Anti-trust Division Anti-trust Enforcement Guidelines for International Operations (1995) s.3.1 available at www.usdoj.gov/atr. para.3.32.

    د: پرونده ها

    1. American Banana Company v United Fruit Co. 213 US 347 (1909).
    2. European Court of Human Rights, Bankovic and others v. Belgium and 16 other Contracting States, Application No. 52207/99, December 12, 2001.
    3. Hartford, Fire, Insurance Co et.al. V California509 US 764; 125 L. Ed. 2d 612; 113 S. Ct. 2891(1993).
    4. International Association of Machinists V the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries649 F. 2d 1354, Ninth Circuit, (1981).
    5. P.C.I.J. Rep., Lotus (France v. Turkey), 1927.
    6. United States v. Alcoa, 148 F.2d 416 (2d Cir. 1945).

                                  

     

Legal Research Quarterly
Volume 21, Issue 84
February 2019
Pages 139-163

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 18 November 2017
  • Revise Date: 22 March 2018
  • Accept Date: 23 April 2018

Share

How to cite

Statistics