In recent decades, some jurisdictions have shown a growing trend of private claims alleging direct liability of parent companies for overseas human rights abuses (‘Tort Liability Claims’). These cases form part of an international effort aimed at establishing public control over the private operations of transnational corporations (‘TNCs’). Their success in addressing the challenges of cross-border operations of corporate groups, however, depends on the rules governing domestic courts’ power to adjudicate disputes. One of the consequences of globalisation is that the territorial focus of the adjudicative jurisdiction is often contrary to the transnational nature of the TNCs’ activities. The central purpose of this article is to demonstrate how jurisdictional issues arising in Tort Liability Claims challenge the traditional paradigm of private international law as an abstract and technical discipline by necessitating increasing involvement of domestic courts in the regulation of international business. The article focuses on the rules of jurisdiction applied by the English courts and, in particular, on the much-debated decisions in Lungowe v Vedanta and Okpabi v Shell.

中文翻译：

---

在英国法院针对跨国公司的侵权诉讼：管辖权的挑战

在最近的几十年中，一些司法管辖区显示出越来越多的私人索赔要求，这些索赔声称母公司对海外侵犯人权行为负有直接责任（“侵权责任索赔”）。这些案件构成了旨在建立对跨国公司（TNC）私人业务的公共控制的国际努力的一部分。但是，它们能否成功应对企业集团的跨境业务挑战，取决于管理国内法院裁决纠纷的权力的规则。全球化的后果之一是，审判管辖权的领土范围往往与跨国公司活动的跨国性质背道而驰。本文的主要目的是说明侵权责任索赔中出现的管辖权问题如何通过使国内法院越来越多地参与国际业务的监管，来挑战作为一种抽象和技术学科的传统国际私法范式。本文着眼于英国法院适用的管辖权规则，尤其是Lungowe诉Vedanta案和Okpabi诉Shell案中备受争议的裁决。