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.
With its passing of Hong Kong’s new National Security Law, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) continues to tighten its noose on Hong Kong. Gone is the broken 1997 promise that Hong Kong would have free, democratic elections by 2017. Gone also is any semblance that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) plays the long game. All the CCP had to do was hold the fort until 2047, when the “one country, two systems” framework would end and Hong Kong would rejoin the “motherland.” It would be a “demonstration-free” event. Instead, with the seemingly benevolent velvet glove off, the CCP has revealed its true iron
At the end of last month, Paraguayan Ambassador to Taiwan Marcial Bobadilla Guillen told a group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators that his president had decided to maintain diplomatic ties with Taiwan, despite pressure from the Chinese government and local businesses who would like to see a switch to Beijing. This followed the Paraguayan Senate earlier this year voting against a proposal to establish ties with China in exchange for medical supplies. This constituted a double rebuke of the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) diplomatic agenda in a six-month span from Taiwan’s only diplomatic ally in South America. Last year, Tuvalu rejected an
US President Donald Trump’s administration on Friday last week announced it would impose sanctions on the Xinjiang Production and Construction Corps, a vast paramilitary organization that is directly controlled by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and has been linked to human rights violations against Uighurs and other ethnic minorities in Xinjiang. The sanctions follow US travel bans against other Xinjiang officials and the passage of the US Hong Kong Autonomy Act, which authorizes targeted sanctions against mainland Chinese and Hong Kong officials, in response to Beijing’s imposition of national security legislation on the territory. The sanctions against the corps would be implemented
US President Donald Trump on Thursday issued executive orders barring Americans from conducting business with WeChat owner Tencent Holdings and ByteDance, the Beijing-based owner of popular video-sharing app TikTok. The orders are to take effect 45 days after they were signed, which is Sept. 20. The orders accuse WeChat of helping the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) review and remove content that it considers to be politically sensitive, and of using fabricated news to benefit itself. The White House has accused TikTok of collecting users’ information, location data and browsing histories, which could be used by the Chinese government, and pose