Global Private International Law
Show Less

Global Private International Law

Adjudication without Frontiers

Edited by Horatia Muir Watt, Lucia Bíziková, Agatha Brandão de Oliveira and Diego P. Fernandez Arroyo

Providing a unique and clearly structured tool, this book presents an authoritative collection of carefully selected global case studies. Some of these are considered global due to their internationally relevant subject matter, whilst others demonstrate the blurring of traditional legal categories in an age of accelerated cross-border movement. The study of the selected cases in their political, cultural, social and economic contexts sheds light on the contemporary transformation of law through its encounter with conflicting forms of normativity and the multiplication of potential fora.
Buy Book in Print
Show Summary Details
You do not have access to this content

Chapter 11: Global supply chains: Doe v. Nestle

Tomaso Ferrando and Samuel Fulli-Lemaire


This is a (purported) child slavery case involving cocoa farms in the Ivory Coast. Such farms supply the cocoa which is transformed and ultimately marketed worldwide by the defendant(s) (Nestle USA, Archer Daniels Midland and Cargill), powerful multinational actors in the agro-food industry. It was alleged that the defendant corporations aided and abetted child slavery by providing assistance to Ivorian farmers. First filed in 2005 as a class action in federal court, in the name of the (purported) child slaves, the case raised two sets of jurisdictional issues under the Alien Tort Statute. One was the geographical scope of that statute. On this point the question, shrouded in controversy since the Kiobel case, is whether the situation in dispute ‘touches and concerns’ the territory of the United States. But for the purposes of this chapter, it is the second issue concerning the material scope of the statute which elicited from the Ninth Circuit the most remarkable response. According to the Alien Tort Statute, federal courts have jurisdiction over torts committed by aliens in violation of the law of nations. Jurisdiction depended therefore on whether or not there had been a violation of the law of nations on the part of the defendants. While the law of nations forbids aiding and abetting a crime (that is, providing assistance or other forms of support towards its commission), the question arose as to whether the defendants had acted, as required by the rule of international law, with ‘knowledge’ or (more stringently) ‘purpose’ of facilitating the criminal act.

You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.

Elgaronline requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals. Please login through your library system or with your personal username and password on the homepage.

Non-subscribers can freely search the site, view abstracts/ extracts and download selected front matter and introductory chapters for personal use.

Your library may not have purchased all subject areas. If you are authenticated and think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.

Further information

or login to access all content.