Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Vedanta Resources Plc and Another v. Lungowe and Others

  • Tara Van Ho (a1)
  • View HTML
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      Vedanta Resources Plc and Another v. Lungowe and Others
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      Vedanta Resources Plc and Another v. Lungowe and Others
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      Vedanta Resources Plc and Another v. Lungowe and Others
      Available formats
      ×

Abstract

  • An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided below. To view the full text please use the links above to select your preferred format.

Copyright

References

Hide All

1 As businesses do not have obligations under international law, the leading authority on business responsibilities for human rights under international law, the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, have adopted the term “impacts” rather than “abuses” or “breaches.” UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, Principles 3(d), 11, 13, UN Doc. A/HRC/17/31 (2011), and the official Commentary to these Principles. This leads to complex questions about what constitutes an “impact.” For an extensive examination of that issue, see David Birchall, Any Act, Any Harm, to Anyone: The Transformative Potential of “Human Rights Impacts” Under the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, 1 U. Oxford Hum. Rts. Hub J. 120 (2019).

2 Technically, each defendant brought its own appeal, but the Court concluded that the two appeals should be treated as one (para. 15).

3 The judgment also addresses two legal issues that are internal to either the European Union (EU) or Zambia: how to reconcile English common law standards with EU rules on jurisdiction; and the potential for a statutory duty under Zambia's mining laws. This note sets these two issues aside.

4 Guiding Principles, supra note 1.

5 Recast Brussels Regulations, EU 1215/2012 on Jurisdiction and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, Arts. 4(1), 8.

6 European Court of Justice, Owusu v. Jackson, C-281/02 (2005).

7 Civil Procedure Rules, Practice Direction 6B.

8 Civil Procedure Rules, Practice Direction 6.37(3).

9 See Guiding Principles, supra note 1, Principle 1.

10 Id., Principle 11.

11 Id., Principle 13.

12 Id., Principle 14.

13 See Lorna McGregor, Activating the Third Pillar of the UNGPs on Access to an Effective Remedy, EJIL:Talk! (Nov. 23, 2018), at https://www.ejiltalk.org/activating-the-third-pillar-of-the-ungps-on-access-to-an-effective-remedy.

14 For an extensive examination of this issue, see Gwynne Skinner, Rethinking the Limited Liability of Parent Corporations for Foreign Subsidiaries’ Violations of International Human Rights Law, 72 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 1769 (2015).

15 28 U.S.C. § 1350.

16 For more on the limitations of the ATS, see Agora: Reflections on Kiobel, 107 AJIL Unbound (2013), at https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-journal-of-international-law/ajil-unbound-by-symposium/agora-reflections-on-kiobel.

17 133 S. Ct. 1659 (2013).

18 138 S. Ct. 1386 (2018). See also Rebecca J. Hamilton, Jesner v. Arab Bank, 112 AJIL 720 (2018).

19 For other examples, see, for example, Court of Appeal, Chandler v. Cape Plc [2012] EWCA Civ 525; Court of Appeal, AAA & Others v. Unilever Plc and Unilever Tea Kenya Ltd. [2018] EWCA Civ 1532; Court of Appeal, Okpabi and Others v. Royal Dutch Shell Plc and Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria Ltd. [2018] EWCA Civ 191 (right to appeal granted by the UK Supreme Court on September 2, 2019).

20 LOI n° 2017–399 du 27 mars 2017 relative au devoir de vigilance des sociétés mères et des enterprises donneuses d'order.

21 See, e.g., Anil Yilmaz-Vastardis & Sheldon Leader, Improving Paths to Business Accountability for Human Rights Abuses in the Global Supply Chains, Essex Bus. & Hum. Rts. Project, at 7 (2017), available at https://www1.essex.ac.uk/ebhr/documents/Improving-Paths-to-Accountability-for-Human%20Rights-Abuses-in-the-Global-Supply-chains-A-Legal-Guide.pdf.

22 For an argument that this duty of care already exists and should be recognized, see Tara Van Ho & Carolijn Terwindt, Assessing the Duty of Care for Social Auditors, 27 Eur. Rev. Private L. 379 (2019).

23 The trial court awarded legal aid for the claimants upon a finding that they were more likely than not to succeed at trial.

24 For an English overview of the case, see KiK: Paying the Price for Clothing Production in South Asia, ECCHR, at https://www.ecchr.eu/en/case/kik-paying-the-price-for-clothing-production-in-south-asia.

Keywords

Vedanta Resources Plc and Another v. Lungowe and Others

  • Tara Van Ho (a1)

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed