Efforts to deter corporate crime have been thwarted by difficulties in
identifying and apprehending perpetrators, and in determining
appropriate terms for liability. Sara Seck's article, "Home State
Responsibility and Local Communities: The Case of Global Mining," offers
an important commentary on the question of corporate social responsibility
in a global era, and the corporation's relationship to state sovereignty,
international relations, and extraterritorial jurisdiction. Drawing on
Canada as a case study, Seck attempts to establish clear legal norms and
processes that would hold Canadian corporations accountable for human
rights violation. She argues that the implementation of home state
regulation in Canada (and elsewhere) will provide strong incentives for
Canadian mining companies to conduct their overseas business ventures in
socially and environmentally responsible ways.
In Part II, I will summarize Seck's argument, focusing on her proposal
to pursue corporate violations abroad through home state jurisdiction. In
Part III, I will evaluate Seck's proposal, considering the benefits and
drawbacks to this approach toward promoting accountability for corporate
crimes. In Part IV, I offer my own alternative to home state regulation: the
establishment of an international court that has jurisdiction over corporate
crimes. I conclude by proposing a realistic assessment of promoting
accountability for corporate crimes committed overseas. Because Seck's
argument is expansive, I will limit my focus of this response to the question
of jurisdiction over corporate crimes and what forum would most
effectively address them.
"Sara L. Seck, Home State Responsibility and Local Communities: The Case of Global Mining,"
Yale Human Rights and Development Journal:
1, Article 11.
Available at: http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/yhrdlj/vol11/iss1/11