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 badly misread Japan. It sought to intimidate Tokyo into silence on Taiwan. Instead, it has achieved the opposite by hardening Japanese resolve. By trying to bludgeon a major power like Japan into accepting its “red lines” — above all on Taiwan — China laid bare the raw coercive logic of compellence now driving its foreign policy toward Asian states. From the Taiwan Strait and the East and South China Seas to the Himalayan frontier, Beijing has increasingly relied on economic warfare, diplomatic intimidation and military pressure to bend neighbors to its will. Confident in its growing power, China appeared to believe
After more than three weeks since the Honduran elections took place, its National Electoral Council finally certified the new president of Honduras. During the campaign, the two leading contenders, Nasry Asfura and Salvador Nasralla, who according to the council were separated by 27,026 votes in the final tally, promised to restore diplomatic ties with Taiwan if elected. Nasralla refused to accept the result and said that he would challenge all the irregularities in court. However, with formal recognition from the US and rapid acknowledgment from key regional governments, including Argentina and Panama, a reversal of the results appears institutionally and politically
In 2009, Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) made a welcome move to offer in-house contracts to all outsourced employees. It was a step forward for labor relations and the enterprise facing long-standing issues around outsourcing. TSMC founder Morris Chang (張忠謀) once said: “Anything that goes against basic values and principles must be reformed regardless of the cost — on this, there can be no compromise.” The quote is a testament to a core belief of the company’s culture: Injustices must be faced head-on and set right. If TSMC can be clear on its convictions, then should the Ministry of Education
The Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) provided several reasons for military drills it conducted in five zones around Taiwan on Monday and yesterday. The first was as a warning to “Taiwanese independence forces” to cease and desist. This is a consistent line from the Chinese authorities. The second was that the drills were aimed at “deterrence” of outside military intervention. Monday’s announcement of the drills was the first time that Beijing has publicly used the second reason for conducting such drills. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) leadership is clearly rattled by “external forces” apparently consolidating around an intention to intervene. The targets of
RSS