English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

The United States Supreme Court issued on 17 April 2013 an important precedent that served as a culmination to the well-known case brought by Esther Kiobel and other Nigerian plaintiffs against the oil giant Shell, Kiobel et al. v. Royal Dutch Petroleum et al.1 This case, on which large hopes were deposited by human rights activists worldwide to become a beacon of hope in relation to the involvement of corporations on human rights abuses, saw the plaintiffs file a civil case before U.S. federal courts under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS) for the alleged aiding & abetting by Shell of the Nigerian military in the commission of crimes against humanity, torture and arbitrary arrest and detention. This statute, passed in 1789 as part of the First Judiciary Act, sets forth that U.S. district courts have “original jurisdiction of any civil action by an alien for a tort only, committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States.”2 The issue of corporate responsibility for human rights violations, including their participation through aiding and abetting, saw lower courts divided

cuestiones constitucionales revista mexicana de derecho constitucional

The Kiobel precedent and its effects on universal jurisdiction and the business &amp; human rights agenda: a continuation to “a human rights forum in peril?”