bigger even than some countries.

甚至比一些國家還大。

But does that mean they're more powerful than a country?

但這是否意味著他們比一個國家更強大？

We'll show you how the law keeps things balanced.

我們會告訴你法律是如何保持平衡的。

How can countries stop multinational companies if they break the law?

如果跨國公司違反法律，各國如何阻止它們？

And why do they end up fighting each other in court?

而為什麼他們最終會在法庭上互相爭吵？

And... let's find out how companies structure themselves

還有......讓我們來看看公司是如何構建自己的。

to limit the power of a state.

來限制一個國家的權力。

They're used to getting away with it.

他們已經習慣於逍遙法外了。

For decades, no one's held them to account.

幾十年來，沒有人追究他們的責任。

They've never been subject to any serious pressure.

他們從來沒有受到過任何嚴重的壓力。

So, as these companies grow, is the law keeping up?

那麼，隨著這些公司的發展，法律是否跟上了？

Do countries or companies have more power, legally?

在法律上，國家或公司是否有更大的權力？

Let's look at Canada, one of the most sued countries in the world.

讓我們來看看加拿大，世界上起訴最多的國家之一。

Canada has been sued lots, because of something called

加拿大已經被起訴了很多次，因為有一種叫做

the North American Free Trade Agreement: NAFTA.

北美自由貿易協定。NAFTA。

NAFTA was the free trade deal between Canada, the USA and Mexico.

北美自由貿易區是加拿大、美國和墨西哥之間的自由貿易協議。

But, it also made it easier for investors to sue governments

但是，它也使投資者更容易起訴政府

if they thought the deal was broken.

如果他們認為交易已經破裂。

  Canada soon became the most sued developed country in the world –

with 35 claims against it.

有35項針對它的索賠。

Foreign companies forced changes in Canadian law on toxic waste imports

外國公司迫使加拿大修改關於有毒廢物進口的法律

and sued for millions of dollars over oil drilling regulations.

並因石油鑽探條例而被起訴，索賠數百萬美元。

Campaigners were unhappy and it was eventually replaced

競選者不滿意，最終被取代。

by the United States-Mexico-Canada agreement,

由美國-墨西哥-加拿大協議。

which limited the power of multinational companies

這限制了跨國公司的權力

to take countries to court.

將國家告上法庭。

Maude Barlow campaigned against the trade agreement,

莫德-巴洛參加了反對貿易協定的活動。

which she saw as deeply unfair.

她認為這是很不公平的。

She explained how she thinks companies got to be so powerful.

她解釋了她認為公司是如何變得如此強大的。

These corporations just expanded out

這些公司剛剛擴張出去

so that their production is in this country,

是以，他們的生產是在這個國家。

and their tax haven's in this country,

和他們在這個國家的避稅天堂。

and their administration's here, and so on...

和他們的管理在這裡，等等......

their head office might be somewhere else.

他們的總部可能在其他地方。

And so they truly are global corporations:

是以，他們確實是全球性的公司。

they really don't belong to nations... nation states.

他們真的不屬於民族......民族國家。

And they want to influence law –

而且他們想影響法律 --

both nation-state law, but international law,

既有民族國家的法律，也有國際法。

or lack of international law – so that they can do what they want.

或缺乏國際法--這樣他們就可以做他們想做的事。

Maude thinks some multinational companies use their size and spread

莫德認為一些跨國公司利用其規模和分佈

to influence and avoid the law.

以影響和規避法律。

She explained whether she thought laws

她解釋說，她是否認為法律

helped countries or companies more.

幫助國家或公司更多。

And here's the important thing: that what...

重要的一點是：那什麼...

the kind of laws that corporations get, in free trade agreements,

在自由貿易協定中，公司得到的那種法律。

give them legal right to sue governments

賦予他們起訴政府的法律權利

if they don't like their laws, if they can...

如果他們不喜歡他們的法律，如果他們能...

if they show that their laws can... are affecting their...

如果他們表明他們的法律可以......正在影響他們的......。

their right to profit – negatively affecting their right to make money.

他們的獲利權--對他們賺錢的權利產生負面影響。

Whereas there's nothing currently internationally, at the...

而目前國際上沒有什麼，在...

at the treaty level, at the UN level,

在條約層面，在聯合國層面。

that really does impose restrictions on these corporations.

這確實是對這些公司的限制。

Maude says corporations can get rights from trade agreements,

莫德說，企業可以從貿易協定中獲得權利。

but aren't limited as much by treaties.

但並不像條約那樣受到限制。

She thinks companies have ended up with more power than countries.

她認為公司最終比國家擁有更多的權力。

She explained how:

她解釋瞭如何。

That's the interesting thing: it's not that all the countries got together

這就是有趣的事情：不是說所有國家都聚在一起了

and said, 'Let's give these corporations legal rights that we don't have.'

並說，'讓我們給這些公司以我們所沒有的合法權利。

It happened piece by piece by piece.

它是一塊一塊地發生的。

It started with this North American Free Trade Agreement,

它始於這個北美自由貿易協定。

but since then there are more than 3,000 bilateral investment agreements

但從那時起，有超過3000個雙邊投資協議

between countries – so, that's between any two countries and they...

國家之間 - 所以，這是在任何兩個國家之間，他們...

then the corporation of this country can sue that government,

那麼這個國家的公司就可以起訴這個政府。

and the corporations of that country can sue that government.

而這個國家的公司可以起訴這個政府。

Maude says companies have gradually gained power

莫德說公司已逐漸獲得權力

through lots of trade agreements.

通過大量的貿易協定。

So, some strong opinions there from the campaigner, Maude Barlow.

是以，運動家莫德-巴洛的一些強烈意見。

States and multinationals often disagree.

國家和多國公司往往有不同意見。

Does the way the companies are made protect them from the law?

公司的製造方式是否能保護他們不受法律約束？

For instance, a company is based in the United States,

例如，一家公司設在美國。

but it owns several 'subsidiary companies' in another country,

但它在另一個國家擁有幾個 "子公司"。

like China and Russia, that are registered in those countries.

像中國和俄羅斯，在這些國家註冊的。

This kind of structure means the main company is protected from being sued

這種結構意味著主要公司受到保護，不會被起訴。

because it's harder to sue a parent company

因為起訴母公司比較困難

for the actions of a subsidiary in another country.

為在另一個國家的子公司的行動。

So, what does that actually mean in reality?

那麼，這在現實中究竟意味著什麼？

Daniel Leader has taken major companies to court.

丹尼爾-利德曾將大公司告上法庭。

He explains how hard it is to punish a parent company

他解釋了懲罰母公司有多難

for the actions of a subsidiary.

為子公司的行為負責。

It is hard. We've had long legal battles

這很難。我們經歷了漫長的法律鬥爭

that have gone all the way to the Supreme Court,

這些案件一直延續到最高法院。

where parent companies try to limit

其中母公司試圖限制

the principle of parent company liability.

母公司責任的原則。

But, happily, the Supreme Court now has twice rejected

但是，令人高興的是，最高法院現在已經兩次駁回了

the company's attempt to narrow parent company liability,

該公司試圖縮小母公司的責任。

and has in fact unanimously expanded the scope

並在事實上一致擴大了範圍。

of parent company liability,

承擔母公司的責任。

and gone so far as to say if a parent company makes a public commitment

甚至於說，如果一個母公司公開承諾

about supervising or assisting its subsidiary and it fails to do so,

關於監督或協助其子公司，它沒有這樣做。

that in itself can give rise to legal liability.

這本身就可以引起法律責任。

It is hard to punish a parent company, but some courts,

要懲罰母公司是很難的，但有些法院。

like the UK Supreme Court,

如英國最高法院。

are doing more to hold parent companies responsible.

正在做更多的工作來追究母公司的責任。

How effective is the law in dealing with companies that break the rules?

法律在處理違反規則的公司方面的效果如何？

It's getting more effective. It's...

它越來越有效了。這是...

the fundamental problem is you've had corporate impunity for decades,

根本問題是，幾十年來，你們的企業一直逍遙法外。

if not longer: corporations have not been held to account

如果不是更長時間：公司沒有被追究責任

for very serious human rights and environmental abuses.

對非常嚴重的侵犯人權和環境的行為。

But what's increasingly happening is the courts in many jurisdictions

但現在越來越多的情況是，許多司法管轄區的法院

are saying this is no longer acceptable and they are indicating that

他們說這不再是可以接受的，他們表示

they are willing to hold parent companies to account

他們願意追究母公司的責任

for the harms that their subsidiaries have caused.

為其子公司所造成的傷害負責。

Daniel thinks for many years companies have avoided being punished

丹尼爾認為多年來公司一直在避免受到懲罰

for very serious things, but that is changing.

對於非常嚴重的事情，但這正在改變。

So, how does a company use its structure to avoid legal responsibility?

那麼，公司如何利用其結構來避免法律責任？

Well, historically what they've done is

嗯，從歷史上看，他們所做的是

they've hidden behind what's called the 'corporate veil'.

他們隱藏在所謂的 "公司面紗 "後面。

They've said that the subsidiary is the one that's legally responsible

他們已經說了，子公司才是法律上的責任者

and the parent company should have no legal liability

而母公司不應承擔任何法律責任

at all for what happened.

對所發生的事情，我沒有任何意見。

But that is what we were unable...

但這正是我們無法...

we were able to unpick with the Supreme Court,

我們能夠與最高法院解開這個問題。

where the Supreme Court said, 'Absolutely not.

其中最高法院說，'絕對不行。

We are not going to allow corporations

我們不會允許公司

to hide behind their structures,

躲在他們的結構後面。

if the parent company itself has been involved

如果母公司本身已經參與其中

in the harm that has been committed.'

在已經發生的傷害中，'。

Something called the 'corporate veil'

稱為 "公司面紗 "的東西

meant subsidiary companies were the only ones responsible

這意味著子公司是唯一負責任的公司

if they broke the law and were the only ones punished.

如果他們違反了法律，並且是唯一受到懲罰的人。

How is this actually changing?

這究竟是如何變化的？

Historically, companies have sat back:

從歷史上看，公司一直坐在後面。

they haven't really concerned themselves too much

他們還沒有真正關心自己的問題

about what the working conditions are in factories or in...

關於工廠的工作條件是什麼，或者在...

within their subsidiaries. They've just let it happen.

在他們的子公司內。他們只是讓它發生。

And they've certainly never felt that they could be held to account.

他們當然也從來沒有覺得他們會被追究責任。

But what we are seeing is a real change in attitude:

但我們看到的是態度上的真正改變。

you're getting more and more lawyers willing to take cases,

你會發現越來越多的律師願意接案。

more and more organisations that are monitoring compliance.

越來越多的組織正在監測合規性。

He says where once companies felt they could do what they liked,

他說，曾經公司覺得他們可以做他們喜歡的事情。

now more and more lawyers are willing to fight for your rights

現在越來越多的律師願意為你的權利而戰

against these big companies.

反對這些大公司。

We've seen how multinational companies can try to use the law

我們已經看到跨國公司如何試圖利用法律

to force countries to do what they want.

迫使國家做他們想做的事。

But this episode has also shown the power of the law –

但這一事件也顯示了法律的力量---

and the determination of lawyers –

和律師的決心 -

to make sure even these huge corporations follow the rules

以確保即使這些巨大的公司也能遵守規則

that keep us all safe.

確保我們所有人的安全。