No abstract

Despite some modest progress, corporate responsibility for human rights abuses in domestic courts remains elusive. In U.S. federal courts, Alien Tort Statute (ATS) litigation is now more precarious than ever before. While there have been some potentially important developments in English courts, judges are reluctant to extend responsibility to parent corporations for harm caused by the operations of foreign subsidiaries. Although U.S. and English courts have been concerned with distinct doctrinal issues, the overall picture appears to be one of deference to the corporation and its anatomized form, and to the goal of promoting investment abroad.

This paper is divided into three parts. First, it considers the human rights implications of the European Arrest Warrant (EAW). Second, it considers how we reached these concerns by tracing the development of the EAW as a criminal measure driven in response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks and as an instrument to fight the "war on terrorism." Third, it considers the judicial concerns over the EAW and how the judicial structure of the European Union (EU) is not sufficient to ensure that individuals' human rights do not fall through the cracks when policy is dictated by overwhelming external situations such as terrorist attacks.

TWO decisions of the Supreme Court – Benkharbouche v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs [2017] UKSC 62, [2017] 3 W.L.R. 957, and Reyes v Al-Malki [2017] UKSC 61, [2017] 3 W.L.R. 923 – demonstrate the limitations of state and diplomatic immunity in employment disputes, and raise important questions concerning the interaction between immunity and other rules of international law.

No abstract