that wants to abuse your rights?

想濫用你的權利？

In this episode, we'll show you how international law

在這一集裡，我們將向你展示國際法如何

keeps the world's biggest companies in line.

讓世界上最大的公司保持一致。

Coming up: Nike's big ticking off...

即將到來。耐克的大勾當...

A sweet victory for Cadbury's workers...

吉百利公司工人的甜蜜勝利...

And how Shell's oil spills in Africa are dealt with in UK courts...

以及英國法院如何處理殼牌在非洲的石油洩漏事件...

First up: is the law strong enough to stop companies breaking it?

首先是：法律是否足夠強大，以阻止公司違反法律？

Sometimes companies take it on themselves

有時公司會自己承擔這個責任

to look after their workers well.

照顧好他們的工人。

Chocolate makers Cadbury have sometimes been praised

巧克力製造商吉百利有時被稱讚為

for actively improving the lives of their plantation workers:

為積極改善其種植園工人的生活。

something called Corporate Social Responsibility, or CSR.

稱為企業社會責任的東西，或稱CSR。

But, without an international legal body to enforce rules,

但是，如果沒有一個國際法律機構來執行規則。

what can be done when companies don't choose to behave well?

當公司不選擇良好的行為時，可以做什麼？

Time for some clever legal work.

是時候進行一些巧妙的法律工作了。

In the early 2000s, Nike denied claims its workers

在21世紀初，耐克公司否認了對其工人的指控。

were being mistreated in foreign factories.

在外國工廠中受到虐待。

So, a man called Mark Kasky took Nike to court,

是以，一個叫馬克-卡斯基的人將耐克公司告上法庭。

using American advertising laws forbidding companies

利用美國廣告法，禁止公司

from making 'false and misleading' claims over those denials.

從對這些否認進行'虛假和誤導性'的索賠。

Nike defended themselves aggressively,

耐克公司為自己進行了積極的辯護。

going all the way to the country's top court

一直到國家的最高法庭

to argue that they could say what they liked

辯稱他們可以說自己喜歡的東西

under free speech rules.

根據言論自由規則。

Eventually, Nike lost and agreed to pay

最終，耐克公司敗訴，同意支付

to strengthen workplace monitoring.

加強對工作場所的監督。

We asked Mark whether he was worried about taking on Nike in court.

我們問馬克，他是否擔心在法庭上與耐克打交道。

The fact that it was Nike made... made no difference. In fact, there...

事實上，它是耐克公司製造的......沒有任何區別。事實上，有...

there was a level playing field, we felt,

我們認為，有一個公平的競爭環境。

in terms of the way the court would decide.

就法院的裁決方式而言。

Nike may have had a lot more money, but we felt we had the stronger case,

耐克公司可能有更多的錢，但我們覺得我們有更強的理由。

even though we had lost at the local Municipal and the Appeals level.

儘管我們在地方市政和上訴層面上都輸了。

And we felt that there was no way – Nike can't...

而我們覺得沒有辦法--耐克不能...

they can't use money to beat you; facts have to beat you.

他們不能用錢來打敗你，必須用事實來打敗你。

The... the logic of their case has to beat you.

他們的案件的邏輯必須擊敗你。

So, that shows that it doesn't matter how much money a company has;

是以，這表明，一個公司有多少錢並不重要。

you have to rely on facts to win in court.

你必須依靠事實才能在法庭上獲勝。

How did he actually sue Nike?

他究竟是如何起訴耐克的？

First of all, we sued at the... well, I...

首先，我們在......嗯，我......起訴了。

we sued at the Municipal Court level, which is local, and we lost there.

我們在市級法院起訴，這是當地的，我們在那裡輸了。

Then we appealed it to the Appeals Court and we lost there as well,

然後我們向上訴法院提出上訴，在那裡我們也輸了。

but we still felt we had a legitimate case

但我們仍然覺得我們有一個合法的案例

and so we appealed to the California Supreme Court and there we prevailed.

是以，我們向加州最高法院提出上訴，並在那裡取得了勝利。

What this tells us is that you can challenge a court's ruling

這告訴我們的是，你可以挑戰法院的裁決

and try to win your case again by going to a higher court.

並試圖通過向上級法院起訴來再次贏得你的案件。

So, what happened in the Supreme Court?

那麼，在最高法院發生了什麼？

When the California Supreme Court ruled in my favour, they were saying,

當加州最高法院作出有利於我的裁決時，他們在說。

'If you're making statements, factual statements,

'如果你要做聲明，就做事實的聲明。

about your product – where they're produced, how they're produced,

關於你的產品--它們是在哪裡生產的，是如何生產的。

what's in them –

其中有什麼 -

and your intention is to convince people to buy your product,

而你的目的是要說服人們購買你的產品。

those statements must be true.

這些聲明必須是真實的。

And if it... if they aren't true, you will be sued and you will lose.

如果......如果它們不是真的，你會被起訴，你會輸。

So, this tells us that if a company lies about how it behaves,

是以，這告訴我們，如果一家公司在其行為方式上撒謊。

it risks being found out in court.

它有被法庭發現的風險。

Mark used a clever tactic

馬克用了一個巧妙的策略

by fighting over Nike's statements, not their working conditions.

通過爭奪耐克的聲明，而不是他們的工作條件。

Conditions in other countries improved.

其他國家的情況有所改善。

So, how do you challenge a foreign multinational

那麼，你如何挑戰一個外國跨國公司呢？

who's doing something wrong in your country?

誰在你的國家做錯了什麼？

Let's go to Nigeria now, where the Bodo community live,

現在讓我們去尼日利亞，那裡是波多族人居住的地方。

relying on fishing and farming.

依靠捕魚和耕作。

In 2008, two massive oil spills from a Shell oil pipeline

2008年，殼牌石油管道發生了兩起大規模石油洩漏事件

polluted their land and killed much of the marine life they relied on.

汙染了他們的土地，殺死了他們所依賴的大部分海洋生物。

Shell initially offered only food as compensation.

殼牌公司最初只提供食物作為補償。

The Bodo community took legal action in UK courts,

波多社區在英國法院採取了法律行動。

even though the spills were in Nigeria.

儘管洩漏是在尼日利亞發生的。

In 2014, four months before the case was due to be heard in court,

2014年，在該案即將開庭審理的四個月前。

the case was settled for £55 million.

該案以5,500萬英鎊和解。

British law firm Leigh Day worked on the case.

英國律師事務所Leigh Day參與了此案。

Daniel Leader, from Leigh Day, explained

來自Leigh Day的Daniel Leader解釋說

why this case was not heard in a Nigerian court.

為什麼此案沒有在尼日利亞法院審理。

The case was heard in the UK because we decided

該案件在英國審理，因為我們決定

to sue the UK-registered parent company

起訴在英國註冊的母公司

for the failures of its Nigerian subsidiary,

為其尼日利亞子公司的失敗承擔責任。

and the law in the UK is that if you can demonstrate

而英國的法律是，如果你能證明

the parent company was involved in some way

母公司以某種方式參與其中

in the failures of its subsidiary,

在其子公司的失敗中。

then there's no reason why you can't hold it to account

那麼你就沒有理由不追究它的責任。

for those failures in the UK courts.

對於那些在英國法庭上的失敗。

And the rule, broadly, is that the country

而廣義的規則是，國家

where the harm occurred

傷害發生的地點

is the system of law that the courts will apply.

是法院將適用的法律體系。

So, if you are a Nigerian fishermen suing Shell in the UK,

是以，如果你是一個尼日利亞漁民，在英國起訴殼牌公司。

the UK judge will apply Nigerian law

英國法官將適用尼日利亞法律

and get expert evidence as to what the relevant Nigerian law is.

並獲得專家證據，以瞭解尼日利亞的相關法律是什麼。

You can sometimes sue a parent company in one country

你有時可以在一個國家起訴一個母公司

for the actions of its subsidiary in another country.

為其在另一個國家的子公司的行為負責。

You need to show the parent was controlling the subsidiary.

你需要證明母公司在控制子公司。

What problems do multinational companies present lawyers?

跨國公司給律師帶來哪些問題？

The fundamental issue is that

根本問題是

they will not only hide behind their corporate structure

他們不僅會躲在他們的公司結構後面

but they'll also argue that they should be held to account locally,

但他們也會爭辯說，他們應該在當地被追究責任。

in the local jurisdictions,

在當地的管轄範圍內。

and the problem with that is actually you can't get justice

這方面的問題是，實際上你無法獲得公正。

if you are a poor community in Nigeria, or Kenya, or Zambia,

如果你是尼日利亞，或肯亞，或尚比亞的一個貧困社區。

because you simply don't have the resources to take on

因為你根本沒有足夠的資源來承擔

multinational companies within those legal systems.

在這些法律體系內的跨國公司。

Multinational companies can argue cases should be heard locally

跨國公司可以辯稱案件應在當地審理

to make it easier for them to win, rather than going to foreign courts,

以使他們更容易獲勝，而不是到外國法院去。

which may be more affordable for poor communities.

這對貧困社區來說可能更容易負擔。

So, do multinationals have to follow international human rights laws?

那麼，跨國公司是否必須遵守國際人權法律？

So, the answer is increasingly they... they do,

是以，答案是越來越多的人......他們這樣做。

following the creation of something called

在創建了一個叫做

the UN general principles on business and human rights,

聯合國關於商業和人權的一般原則。

which everyone agreed to internationally –

大家都同意在國際上 -

all countries and corporations agreed to internationally –

所有國家和公司都同意在國際上-

about ten years ago, which applies human rights norms to companies.

大約十年前，它將人權規範應用於公司。

At the moment, they do not have the force of law: they are voluntary.

目前，它們不具有法律效力：它們是自願的。

But, there are moves afoot to give them legal standing.

但是，正在醞釀給予他們法律地位的行動。

There are voluntary rules on human rights for companies,

對公司來說，有自願的人權規則。

called the UN Guiding Principles.

稱為 "聯合國指導原則"。

Many countries and organisations accept them.

許多國家和組織接受它們。

Campaigners are pushing for them to be binding.

競選者們正在推動使其具有約束力。

We've seen how using law internationally can mean

我們已經看到在國際上使用法律如何意味著

you can fight cases in courts that suit you better.

你可以在更適合你的法院打官司。

Sometimes this means companies can't hide from the law.

有時這意味著公司不能躲避法律。

Mark Kasky's case showed us how using national law cleverly

馬克-卡斯基的案件向我們展示瞭如何巧妙地利用國家法律

can have a big, and positive, international impact.

可以產生巨大的、積極的國際影響。