Çok Uluslu Şirketlerin Sınır Ötesi Faaliyetleri ve Haksız Fiil Sorumluluğu: Vedanta v Lungowe ve Okpabi v Shell Kararları Çerçevesinde İngiliz Mahkemelerinin Milletlerarası Yetkisi

Öz

Küreselleşme ile beraber çok uluslu şirketlerin özellikle gelişmekte olan ülkelerdeki sınır ötesi faaliyetleri arttıkça bu şirketlerin sınır ötesi insan hakları ihlallerine ilişkin tartışmalar da yoğunlaşmıştır. Uluslararası hukuk doktrinindeki farklı görüşler karşısında çok uluslu şirketlerin insan hakları ihlallerinden doğrudan sorumlu tutulması henüz mümkün görünmemektedir. Buna bağlı olarak, çok uluslu şirketlerin sınır ötesi insan hakları ihlallerinden doğan zararın giderilmesinde şirketlerin haksız fiil sorumluluğuna dayanılması gündeme gelmiştir. Hâkim şirketin merkezinin İngiltere’de bulunduğu, bağlı şirketin ise yabancı bir ülkede tescil edildiği çok uluslu şirketlerde, bağlı şirketin faaliyetlerinden zarar gören kişiler İngiliz mahkemelerinde hem bağlı şirkete hem de hâkim şirkete karşı haksız fiile dayalı tazminat talepleri ileri sürebilmektedir. Bu çalışmada söz konusu ihtilaflar kapsamında İngiliz mahkemelerinin milletlerarası yetkisi incelenmiştir. Bu kapsamda, öncelikle çok uluslu şirketlerin sorumluluğuna ilişkin uluslararası hukuktaki tartışmalara kısaca değinilmiş, ardından İngiliz Medeni Usul Kuralları ele alınmış ve son olarak Vedanta v Lungowe ve Okpabi v Shell kararları incelenerek İngiliz mahkemelerinin bu tür uyuşmazlıklardaki yetkiye ilişkin yaklaşımı incelenmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Çok uluslu şirket
• milletlerarası yetki
• Uygulama Talimatı 6B
• özen yükümlülüğü
• forum non conveniens

Cross-Border Activities of Multinational Companies and Tort Liability: International Jurisdiction of English Courts within the Framework of Vedanta v Lungowe and Okpabi v Shell Decisions

Öz

The increase in overseas activities of multinational corporations due to globalisation has also augmented the discussions over overseas human rights violations of such corporations. According to the discussions under international law, holding corporations directly liable for human rights violations remains yet a disputed issue. Against the backdrop of debates under international law, the liability of multinational corporations arising from tort law has become an alternative legal ground for holding multinational corporations accountable for their overseas wrongs. In a dispute where the parent company is domiciled in England and its subsidiary is domiciled in a foreign country, victims who suffer from the activities of the subsidiary may file compensatory claims against both the subsidiary and the parent company before English courts based on principles of tort law. This article examines civil jurisdiction of English courts about such disputes. In this context, initially the debates in international law regarding the human rights liabilities of multinational companies are briefly touched upon, then the Civil Procedure Rules are examined followed by an analysis of the Vedanta v Lungowe and Okpabi v Shell decisions. 

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Multinational Corporations
• Practice Direction 6B
• international jurisdiction
• duty of care
• forum non conveniens

Kaynakça

1. Akgün Tekgün C, ‘Brüksel 1 bis Tüzüğü ile Avrupa Birliği Genel Veri Koruma Tüzüğü Çerçevesinde Kişisel Verilerin İhlaline İlişkin Özel Hukuk Uyuşmazlıklarında Milletlerarası Yetki Kuralları’ (2019) 9(1) Hacettepe HFD 232, 242
2. Alvarez J E, ‘Are Corporations “Subjects” of International Law?’ (2011) 9 Santa Clara Journal of International Law, 1
3. Aristova E, ‘Tort Litigation against Transnational Corporations in the English Courts: The Challenge of Jurisdiction’ (2018) 14(2) Utrecht Law Review (Special Issue: Accountability of Multinational Corporations for Human Rights Abuses) 6
4. Arslan İ, Avrupa İnsan Hakları Sözleşmesinin Milletlerarası Hukuka Etkisi (Adalet Yayınevi 2019)
5. Arzandeh A, Forum (Non) Conveniens in England: Past, Present, and Future (Bloomsbury Publishing 2018)
6. Augenstein D and Dziedzic L, ‘State Obligations to Regulate and Adjudicate Corporate Activities under the European Convention on Human Rights’ (European University Institute Working Paper, 2017/15) Erişim Tarihi 30 January 2021
7. Ayata Z, ‘Birleşik Krallık’ın Avrupa Birliği Üyeliğinden Çıkmasının Rekabet Hukuku ve Uygulaması Bakımından Sonuçları ve Açmazları’ (2019) 77 (2) İstanbul Hukuk Mecmuası 925
8. Baran D, Çok Uluslu Şirketlerin Uluslararası Hukuk Kişiliği (On İki Levha Yayıncılık 2020)

9. Başaran Z, ‘Değişen/Dönüşen Uluslararası Hukuk’ (2019) 50 The Turkish Yearbook of International Relations 19
10. Bayraktaroğlu Özçelik G, Milletlerarası Usul Hukukunda Paralel Davalar (Yetkin Yayınları 2016)
11. Bradshaw C, ‘Corporate Liability for Toxic Torts Abroad: Vedanta v Lungowe in the Supreme Court’ (2020) 32(1) Journal of Environmental Law 139
12. Briggs A, Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments (6th edn, Informa Law from Routledge 2015)
13. Bright C, Marx A, Pineau N and Wouters J, ‘Toward a Corporate Duty for Lead Companies to Respect Human Rights in Their Global Value Chains?’ (2020) 22(4) Business and Politics 667
14. Brownlie I, Principles of Public International Law (4th edn, Oxford University Press 1995)
15. Charney J I, ‘Transnational Corporations and Developing Public International Law’ (1983) 32(4) Duke Law Journal 748
16. Choudhury B and Petrin M, Corporate Duties to the Public (Cambridge University Press 2019) Clapham A, Human Rights Obligations of Non-State Actors (Oxford University Press 2006)
17. Colangelo A, ‘The Alien Tort Statute And The Law of Nations In Kiobel and Beyond’ (2013) 44 Georgetown Journal of International Law, 1329
18. Crawford J, Brownlie's Principles of Public International Law (Oxford University Press, 2015)
19. Cuniberti G, ‘Forum Non Conveniens and the Brussels Convention’ (2005) 54(4) The International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 973
20. Çelikoğlu C T, ‘Medeni Usul Hukuku Açısından Türk Hukukunda Avukatın Bilgi ve Delil Toplama Yetkı̇sı̇’ (2012) 100 Türkiye Barolar Birliği Dergisi, 282
21. de Schutter O, ‘The Accountibility of Multinationals for Human Rights Violations in European Law’ in Philip Alston (ed) Non-State Actors and Human Rights (Oxford University Press 2005)
22. Dickinson A, ‘Walking Solo – A New Path for Conflict of Laws in England’ (Oxford Business Law Blog, 19 Jan 2021) Erişim Tarihi 30 January 2021.
23. Dunoff J L, Steven R. Ratner and David Wippman, International Law Norms, Actors, Process: A Problem Oriented Approach (2d edn, Aspen Publishers 2006)
24. Duruigbo E, ‘Corporate Accountability and Liability for International Human Rights Abuses: Recent Changes and Recurring Challenges’ (2008) 6(2) Northwestern Journal of International Human Rights 222
25. Folkard J, ‘Jurisdiction and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments After Brexit’ (4 New Square, 27 Jan 2020) < https://www.4newsquare.com/publications/jurisdiction-and-the-recognition-and-enforcement-of-judgments-after-brexit/ > Erişim Tarihi 1 September 2020)
26. Harris J, ‘Stays of Proceedings and the Brussels Convention’ (2005) 54(4) The International and Comparative Law Quarterly 933
27. Harrison J, ‘Significant International Environmental Law Cases 2017-18’ (2018) 30(3) Journal of Environmental Law 527
28. Higgins R, Problems and Process: International Law and How We Use It (Clarendon Press 1994)
29. İspirli Armağan M, ‘Uluslararası Hukukta Çok Uluslu Şirketler ve İnsan Hakları Yükümlülükleri’ (LLM Thesis, İstanbul University Institute of Social Sciences 2019)
30. Joseph S, Corporations and Transnational Human Rights Litigation (Hart Publishing 2004)
31. Khoury S, ‘Transnational Corporations and the European Court of Human Rights: Reflections on the Indirect and Direct Approaches to Accountability’ (2010) 4(1) Oñati Journal of Emergent Socio-legal Studies 68
32. Koebele M, Corporate Responsibility under the Alien Tort Statute: Enforcement of International Law through US Torts Law, (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 2009)
33. Koh H H, ‘Transnational Public Law Litigation’ (1991)100 Yale Law Journal 2347
34. Koh H H, ‘Trasnational Legal Process’ (1996) 75(1) Nebraska Law Review 181
35. Leader S, ‘Parent Company Liability and Social Accountibility: Innovation from the United Kingdom’ in Amine Ghenim, Charley Hannoun, Patrick Henriot, Elsa Peskine, Fiodor Rilov and Stephane Vernac (ed), Groupes des Societe et Droit du Travail (Dalloz, 2019)
36. Leczykiewicz D, ‘Horizontal Application of the Charter of Fundamental Rights’ (2013) 4 European Law Review 479
37. Malanczuk P, Akehurst’s Modern Introduction to International Law (8th edn, Routledge 2007) Miller N J, ‘Human Rights Abuses as Tort Harms: Losses in Translation’ (2016) 46(361) Seton Hall Law Review 506
38. Nygh P, ‘The Liability of Multi-national Corporations for the Torts of their Subsidiaries’ (2002) 3(1) European Business Organization Law Review 55
39. Oppenheim L, International Law: A Treatise (H. Lauterpacht ed., 8th edn, Longmans, Green & Co. 1955)
40. Oral E, ‘Legal Grounds For Holding Transnational Corporations Directly Responsible For Human Rights Violations Under Public International Law’ (Doctorate Thesis, Galatasaray University Social Sciences Institute 2015)
41. Palombo D, ‘The Duty of Care of the Parent Company’: A Comparison Between French Law, UK Precedents and the Swiss Proposals’ (2019) 4 Business and Human Rights Journal, 265
42. Palombo D, Business and Human Rights: The Obligations of the European Home States (Hart Publishing, 2020)
43. Perkins J, ‘A Good Arguable Case about What?’ (1994) 53(2) The Cambridge Law Journal 244.
44. Pradhan A, ‘Introductory Note to the European Court of Human Rights (Gc): Al-Jedda v. United Kingdom and Al-Skeini & Others v. United Kingdom’ (2011) 50(6) International Legal Materials 947
45. Rooney J, ‘Extraterritorial Corporate Liability for Environmental Harm: Okpabi v Royal Dutch Shell’ (2019) 70(1), Northern Ireland Legal Quarterly 157
46. Ruggie J G, ‘Protect, Respect and Remedy: A United Nations Policy Framework For Business and Human Rights’ (2009) 103 Proceedings of the American Society of International Law (ASIL) Annual Meeting 282, 282
47. Shaw M N, International Law (5th edn, Cambridge University Press 2003)
48. Sirmen S, ‘Uluslararası Havacılık Davalarında Forum Non Conveniens Doktrininin Uygulanmasında Emsal Karar: Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno Davası’ (2014) 63(1) AÜHFD 199 Spiro E, ‘Forum non conveniens’ (1980) 13(3) The Comparative and International Law Journal of Southern Africa 333
49. van Dam C, ‘Tort Law and Human Rights: Brothers in Arms on the Role of Tort Law in the Area of Business and Human Rights’ (2011) 3 JETL 221
50. Varvastian S and Kalunga F, ‘Transnational Corporate Liability for Environmental Damage and Climate Change: Reassessing Access to Justice after Vedanta v Lungowe’ (2020) 9(2) Transnational Environmental Law 323
51. Weller M and Patoy A, ‘Local parents as ‘anchor defendants’ in European courts for claims against their foreign subsidiaries in human rights and environmental damages litigation: recent case law and legislative trends’ (2018) 23 Unif. L. Rev. 397
52. Yıldırım E, ‘Birleşmiş Milletler İş Hayatı ve İnsan Hakları Rehber İlkelerinin Eleştirel Bir Değerlendirmesi’ (2014) VI. Sosyal İnsan Hakları Ulusal Sempozyumu Kitabı, Erişim Tarihi 30 January 2021, 3, 21
53. Zuckerman A, Zuckerman on Civil Procedure: Principles of Practice, (3rd edn, Sweet&Maxwell 2013)