Outsourced jobs just recieved new perks

[Khalil]

It's like a cop fining the driver and the car.

Your analogy was correct till you mentioned car.

[guartz]

You are right. It's like a cop fining you and your nickname.

[Kuya]

But what if your nickname is a person independent of you?

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

Ok so the opinion is 138 pages long but I think I get the gist of the opinion w/o reading all 138.

It basically says this, corporation's are not liable for human rights violations, under this act alone, only the individual actor's within the corporation.

That reasoning is partly based on the fact that no nation has ever held a corp. liable for a violation of international law.

[guartz]

Pssh, see I knew that swamp and I'm not even a lawyer, nor do I understand big words.

[notorious bum]

I always get stuck on the random use of latin/greek/jew/italian words in legal docs.

Besides the important ones you learn on Judge Judy or freshman law and ethics course, I still have to google every other damn foreign word I see when trying to be smart and read legislation/legal docs for myself.

[Kuya]

I think that i am going to put you in jail, guartz, and then fine your nickname.

On a different note:

Should private companies be held liable for violation of international law?

[guartz]

I think individuals should be held liable for breaking laws.

[Kuya]

I think individuals should be held liable for breaking laws.

What about ficticious individuals?

[Khalil]

I think that i am going to put you in jail, guartz, and then fine your nickname.

On a different note:

Should private companies be held liable for violation of international law?

They should be. If companies are involved in slavery and such, why should the CEO only be held liable while the company is untainted? Technically, the company will be smeared by what the CEO did but in the end, the CEO is only held responsible.

[notorious bum]

Could shareholders ever be considered liable for funding/profiting off of human rights violations?

edit: or on a lesser note, investigated for massive profiting off "put options" or other questionable trades? I assume there are laws against trade fraud, but you never hear about shareholders getting charged.

[*Shinzon*]

Just since it seems some people are overlooking it, this deals with more than just who can be sued and the definition of what a corporation and an individual is. They are talking about the Alien Tort Claims Act, which already had very specific rules under which liability is defined.

The ATCA asserts that, "The district courts shall have original jurisdictions of any civil action by an alien for a tort only, committed in violation of the laws of nations or a treaty with the United States." It basically means that American Federal courts have jurisdiction over suits brought by foreigners for violations of international law. The issue is that I guess based on the case, the courts found an entire company could not be responsible, though separate individuals could still be under the ruling, this would also only result in monetary reparation, and wouldn't actually have any criminal consequences, since murder is a domestic issue.

Dolly Filartiga v. Americo Norberto Pena-Irala.

[guartz]

They should be. If companies are involved in slavery and such, why should the CEO only be held liable while the company is untainted? Technically, the company will be smeared by what the CEO did but in the end, the CEO is only held responsible.

The truth is, this corporate veil is nothing but a remnant of the bygone era of mercantile protectionism. The sooner it's gone, the better. Whether you understand what is happening or not, is not relevant.