The Castro Alfaro Case Convenience and Justice -- Lessons for Lawyers in Transcultural Litigation
The dissenters argue that it is inconvenient and unfair for farmworkers allegedly suffering permanent physical and mental injuries, including irreversible sterility, to seek redress by suing a multinational corporation in a court three blocks away from its world headquarters.... The "doctrine" they advocate has nothing to do with fairness and convenience and everything to do with immunizing multinational corporations from accountability for their alleged torts causing injury abroad.1
Proclamations of a "new world order"; the signing of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) Uruguay Round pact; controversy over the Maastricht Treaty; recent international summit conferences on ecology and development in Río de Janeiro, on population and development in Cairo, on sustainable development in Stockholm, and most recently on women in Beijing, are all indicators of a fundamental shift toward a more systematic integration of the global economy. Before this shift, global trade patterns developed with minimal planning or regulation at the international level. Instead, national governments set tariffs and otherwise managed their trade interests. There was virtually no supranational "lawmaking" or other form of regulation of multinational enterprise.
The "legalization" of this integration of capital at the international level through various trade agreements is now provoking demands for regulation of global economic activity from advocates for those interests