Placeholder Image

字幕列表 影片播放

自動翻譯
  • Can anything be done to stop a multinational company

    有什麼辦法能阻止一家跨國公司嗎?

  • 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 wayNike 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 productwhere 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。

Can anything be done to stop a multinational company

有什麼辦法能阻止一家跨國公司嗎?

字幕與單字
自動翻譯

影片操作 你可以在這邊進行「影片」的調整,以及「字幕」的顯示

B1 中級 中文 公司 法律 法院 尼日利亞 起訴 英國

公司是否在法律之上?BBC學習英語 (Are companies above the law? BBC Learning English)

  • 6 0
    林宜悉 發佈於 2021 年 10 月 12 日
影片單字