A steel plant belonging to Formosa Plastics Group (FPG) discharged a combination of toxic chemicals along 193km of coastline in central Vietnam, causing a mass fish death in April and poisoning locals.
Last week, Formosa Ha Tinh, an FPG subsidiary, apologized and admitted responsibility for the disastrous leak. It reached an agreement with the Vietnamese government and pledged to pay US$500 million for compensation and environmental restoration.
The company’s steel plant is one of the largest investments by a foreign company in Vietnam, but FPG has a notorious record of environmental scandals around the world. In 2009, the Ethecon Foundation presented FPG with the Black Planet Award — given for actions deemed to be destructive to the world — for its ruthless approaches to ecology, human rights and legal orders.
The toxic spill raised the concerns of Ethecon and triggered protests in Vietnam and in Taiwan calling for regulations to prevent overseas investment scandals and to ensure greater corporate environmental responsibility.
While multinationals wield growing economic and social power, traditionally only states are legally subject to international law. Therefore, international environmental law cannot directly apply to private enterprises, notwithstanding a wide array of initiatives and “soft” laws that attempt to create voluntary and non-voluntary mechanisms.
However, under existing rules, the home states of multinationals have a responsibility to exert control over their corporations operating abroad and to ensure overseas investments do not act to the detriment of host states. This is based on a general duty in international law that requires states not to cause harm to other states, and international environmental obligations can be incorporated into domestic law by states to regulate their corporations abroad.
Examples of treaty acceptance of such responsibility are readily found, especially in the environmental sphere. The treaties controlling the transport of hazardous waste impose a duty on states to prevent such transport to other jurisdictions. Also, in a case regarding pulp mills on the Uruguay River, the International Court of Justice unequivocally recognized the customary status of the requirement to undertake environmental impact assessments whenever there is a risk of pollution that might have trans-boundary effects.
There is also a trend in North American and European jurisdictions, in which certain countries are exploring measures to enshrine notions of “foreign direct liability” and “corporate accountability” for environmental damages or human rights violations in their regulatory regimes. For instance, the recent cases under both the US’ Alien Tort Statute and tort of negligence in the UK clearly demonstrate that corporations and company directors may be held directly liable in domestic courts for violating customary international norms or for tort of negligence.
The Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts of the International Law Commission continues this trend and regards such solutions as a necessary and exciting step forward for sustainable development.
Taiwan’s government should not avoid its regulatory and management responsibilities, as 25 percent of Formosa Ha Tinh is held by China Steel Corp, a largely state-owned company.
As Taiwan is refocusing on a “new southbound policy” and expanding its exchanges with ASEAN members, it needs to work on the integration of environmental and social considerations into economically focused national corporate and foreign investment law regimes.
Yang Chung-han is a doctoral candidate at the University of Cambridge and a member of the Taipei Bar Association.
China’s supreme objective in a war across the Taiwan Strait is to incorporate Taiwan as a province of the People’s Republic. It follows, therefore, that international recognition of Taiwan’s de jure independence is a consummation that China’s leaders devoutly wish to avoid. By the same token, an American strategy to deny China that objective would complicate Beijing’s calculus and deter large-scale hostilities. For decades, China has cautioned “independence means war.” The opposite is also true: “war means independence.” A comprehensive strategy of denial would guarantee an outcome of de jure independence for Taiwan in the event of Chinese invasion or
A recent Taipei Times editorial (“A targeted bilingual policy,” March 12, page 8) questioned how the Ministry of Education can justify spending NT$151 million (US$4.74 million) when the spotlighted achievements are English speech competitions and campus tours. It is a fair question, but it focuses on the wrong issue. The problem is not last year’s outcomes failing to meet the bilingual education vision; the issue is that the ministry has abandoned the program that originally justified such a large expenditure. In the early years of Bilingual 2030, the ministry’s K-12 Administration promoted the Bilingual Instruction in Select Domains Program (部分領域課程雙語教學實施計畫).
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) earlier this month said it is necessary for her to meet with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and it would be a “huge boost” to the party’s local election results in November, but many KMT members have expressed different opinions, indicating a struggle between different groups in the party. Since Cheng was elected as party chairwoman in October last year, she has repeatedly expressed support for increased exchanges with China, saying that it would bring peace and prosperity to Taiwan, and that a meeting with Xi in Beijing takes priority over meeting
Philippine Department of Foreign Affairs spokesman for maritime affairs Rogelio Villanueva on Monday said that Manila’s claims in the South China Sea are backed by international law. Villanueva was responding to a social media post by the Chinese embassy alleging that a former Philippine ambassador in 1990 had written a letter to a German radio operator stating that the Scarborough Shoal (Huangyan Island, 黃岩島) did not fall within Manila’s territory. “Sovereignty is not merely claimed, it is exercised,” Villanueva said. The Philippines won a landmark case at the Permanent Court of Arbitration in 2016 that found China’s sweeping claim of sovereignty in
RSS