![handle is hein.journals/crimlfm29 and id is 1 raw text is: Criminal Law Forum (2018) 29:1-24 c The Author(s). This article is an open access publication 2017
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10609-017-9330-y
CEDRIC RYNGAERT* CrossMark
ACCOUNTABILITY FOR CORPORATE HUMAN RIGHTS
ABUSES: LESSONS FROM THE POSSIBLE EXERCISE OF
DUTCH NATIONAL CRIMINAL JURISDICTION OVER
MULTINATIONAL CORPORATIONS
ABSTRACT. In the implementation of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and
Human Rights, little emphasis has been put on the criminal law as a mechanism to hold
corporations to account. From a doctrinal perspective, the main stumbling block for a
more intensive use of the criminal law appears to be how to establish jurisdiction and
liability with regard to corporate involvement in human rights violations in transnational
supply-chains. On closer inspection, however, domestic criminal law offers surprising,
although largely untested opportunities in this respect. Criminal liability could notably
be based on violations of a corporate duty of care violation, whereas jurisdiction could,
relatively non-controversially, be grounded on the principles of territoriality, nationality,
and universality. The Dutch criminal law system is used as a case-study in this article.
Since the adoption of the UN Guiding Principles (UNGPs) on Business
and Human Rights in 2011,1 states have taken a number of measures to
hold multinational corporations to account for human rights abuses.
They have adopted national action plans on business and human rights
(BHR),2 opened their courts for tort litigation in 'foreign direct liability'
cases,3 and imposed trade measures on the importation of 'human rights-
* Professor of Public International Law, Utrecht University, 3512HT Utrecht,
The Netherlands. E-mail: C.M.J.Ryngaert@uu.nl.
1 UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, UN Guiding Principles
on Business and Human Rights (2011), HR/PUB/11/04, http://www.ohchr.org/Docu
ments/Publications/GuidingPrinciplesBusinessHREN.pdf (last visited 13 June 2017).
2 The UN Working Group on Business and Human Rights maintains a list of
national action plans here: http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Business/Pages/Natio
nalActionPlans.aspx (last visited 13 June 2017).
3 E.g., Kesabo v African Barrick Gold Plc, Queen's Bench Division [2013] EWHC
3198 (QB) (23 October 2013); Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 133 S.Ct. 1659
(2013). See on foreign direct liability: L. Enneking, Foreign Direct Liability and
Beyond (The Hague, Eleven, 2012).](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.journals/crimlfm29&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)
What Is HeinOnline?
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most