Home > All journals > International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations > 40(1) >
$15.00 - Rental (PDF) *
$29.00 - Article (PDF) *
Maxim Usynin
International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations
Volume 40, Issue 1 (2024) pp. 1 – 36
https://doi.org/10.54648/ijcl2024004
Abstract
Forced labour is a widespread risk for workers in the shipping industry. Traditional approaches to tackling the problem rely on the rules of flag state and port state jurisdiction, leaving a significant margin of political discretion in dealing with violations of labour rights. This article examines whether private enforcement mechanisms in the form of tort actions can play a role in securing the labour rights of workers and providing them with access to remedies. Following recent case law, it examines the possibility of enforcing the duty of care as stated in the company materials, in particular the growing number of corporate annual reports. The article relies on empirical material, consisting of the statements published by shipping companies under the UK Modern Slavery Act [MSA]. In addition to the descriptive observations on compliance, the study carries out a content analysis of the statements, seeking to identify the patterns of reporting and industry best practices. The final part of the article examines whether corporate undertakings as laid down in modern slavery statements can serve as grounds for tort liability. Based on the empirical data, the study concludes that the statements provide insufficient grounds for holding companies liable for labour rights violations.
Keywords
Modern Slavery, Forced Labour, Liner Shipping, Annual Reports, Published Materials, Private Enforcement, Supply Chain Liability
Extract
Obtaining evidence from third parties poses a unique problem in international arbitration. Unlike litigation, the consensual and private nature of arbitration means that tribunals lack the authority to compel third-party disclosure given to many State courts. Yet even if they are not subject to the tribunal’s jurisdiction, third parties to the proceedings may still possess valuable evidence.
This article considers the practical options for obtaining evidence from third parties, whether through requests by the arbitral tribunal itself or judicial assistance from State courts. In the latter case, national laws must balance the interest of supporting arbitration against the risks of judicial interference and the potential burden of disclosure on third parties, and resolve this dilemma in very different ways. Given the lack of uniformity on judicial assistance, and the fact that evidence is frequently located in a different jurisdiction to the arbitral seat, practitioners may make strategic use of procedures such as those under US federal law to gain the benefit of third-party evidence
Journal of International Arbitration