Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-rvbq7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-08T13:48:34.505Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Regulating environmental responsibility for the multinational oil industry: continuing challenges for international law

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 May 2015

David M. Ong*
Affiliation:
Professor of International and Environmental Law, Nottingham Law School, Nottingham Trent University. Email: [email protected]

Abstract

States utilise international law to create opportunities within global markets for private transnational economic actors, such as multinational oil companies, to invest and/or operate within foreign jurisdictions. However, there is a lack of directly enforceable international mechanisms against these private actors when they cause environmental damage abroad. International law responses to this problem range from the establishment of international compulsory compensation schemes, the proposed expansion of the doctrine of state responsibility to include liability for private actors, and more recently through litigation in the home states of multinational oil companies. However, both international jurisprudence and US, Dutch and British domestic case-law reveal an ambivalence towards holding such private transnational economic actors legally accountable in their home state jurisdictions for violations committed abroad. Certain states (the US and France) that have suffered environmental damage from the activities of multinational oil companies have responded by reasserting their domestic regulatory powers to require immediate clean up and compensation, prior to domestic judicial litigation. Other states (Nigeria) are unable to achieve the same level of effective enforcement due to their weaker political and economic bargaining positions.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abeyratne, Ruwantissa (2010) ‘The Deepwater Horizon Disaster – Some Liability Issues’, Tulane Maritime Law Journal 35 (Winter, 2010): 125152.Google Scholar
Amnesty International (2011) ‘Shell Accused Over Misleading Figures on Nigeria Oil Spills’, UK Press Release on 25 January, 2011. Online: <http://www.amnesty.org.uk/press-releases/shell-accused-over-misleading-figures-nigeria-oil-spills>..>Google Scholar
Bekker, Pieter (2013) ‘Landmark Ruling by Dutch Court Against Shell Nigeria’, Centre for Energy, Petroleum, and Mineral Law and Policy (CEPMLP), University of Dundee. Online: <http://www.dundee.ac.uk/cepmlp/gateway/index.php?news=32271>..>Google Scholar
Blitt, Robert C. (2012) ‘Beyond Ruggie's Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights: Charting an Embracive Approach to Corporate Human Rights Compliance’, Texas International Law Journal, 48(1): 3362.Google Scholar
BOEMRE (2011) ‘Final Investigation Report of the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management Regarding the Causes of the April 20, 2010 Macondo Well Blowout’, released 14 September, 2011. Online: <http://www.boemre.gov/pdfs/maps/DWHFINAL.pdf>..>Google Scholar
Cameron, Peter (2012) ‘Liability for Catastrophic Risk in the Oil and Gas Industry’, International Energy Law Review 6: 207219.Google Scholar
French, Duncan (2011) ‘From the Depths: Rich Pickings of Principles of Sustainable Development and General International Law on the Ocean Floor: The Seabed Disputes Chamber's 2011 Advisory Opinion’, International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 26(4): 525568.Google Scholar
Iriekpen, Davidson (2010) ‘Oil Spill: Rights Group Hails Court Ruling against Shell’, This Day Live, 13 July 2010. Online: <www.thisdaylive.com/articles/oil-spill-rights-group-hails-court-ruling-against-shell/83519/>..>Google Scholar
Koh, Harold Hongju (2004) ‘Separating Myth from Reality in Corporate Responsibility Litigation’, Journal of International Economic Law 7(2): 263274.Google Scholar
Leigh day and Co (2011) ‘Shell Accepts Responsibility for Oil Spill in Nigeria’, 3 August 2011. Online: <http://www.leighday.co.uk/News/2011/August-2011/Shell-accepts-responsibility-for-oil-spill-in-Nigeria>..>Google Scholar
Maritime Executive (2010) ‘French Oil Company Guilty but Not Responsible for ERIKA Oil Spill’, 1 April 2010. Online: <www.maritime-executive.com/article/french-oil-company-guilty-not-responsible-erika-oil-spill>..>Google Scholar
Meeran, Richard (2011) ‘Tort Litigation Against Multinational Corporations for Violation of Human Rights: An Overview of the Position Outside the United States’, City University of Hong Kong Law Review 3(1): 141.Google Scholar
Oecd (2011) OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises, 2011 Edition. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
Reuters (2013) ‘US Judge Okays BP Plea, $4 Billion Penalty in Gulf Oil Spill’, 29 January 2013. Online: <http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/01/29/uk-bp-spill-idUKBRE90S0WN20130129>..>Google Scholar
Richotte, Julien (2012) ‘Towards an International Regulation of Offshore Oil Exploitation, Report of the Experts Workshop Held in Paris Oceanographic Institute on March 30th 2012, IDDRI Working Paper 15 (July, 2012).Google Scholar
Slawotsky, Joel (2011) ‘The Conundrum of Corporate Liability under the Alien Tort Statute’, Georgia Journal of International and Comparative Law 40(1): 175218.Google Scholar
Vidal, John (2010) ‘Nigeria's Agony Dwarfs the Gulf Oil Spill. The US and Europe Ignore It: The Deepwater Horizon Disaster Caused Headlines Around the World, Yet the People Who Live in the Niger Delta Have Had to Live with Environmental Catastrophes for Decades’, The Observer, Sunday 30 May 2010.Google Scholar
Vidal, John (2011) ‘Shell Accepts Liability for Two Oil Spills in Nigeria’, The Guardian, 3 August 2011. Online: <http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/aug/03/shell-liability-oil-spills-nigeria?INTCMP=SRCH>..>Google Scholar
Wuerth, Ingrid (2013) ‘Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co.: The Supreme Court and the Alien Tort Statute’, American Journal of International Law 107(3): 601621.Google Scholar