The Normative Framework of Extraterritorial Jurisdiction in International Law: From the Lotus Paradigm to Transnational Climate Accountability

Marcel Vitor de Magalhães e Guerra

Résumé


This article proposes a coherent jurisdictional framework for transnational corporate climate liability through the integration of public and private international law. It identifies a persistent institutional failure: the separation of prescriptive legitimacy (public international law) from adjudicatory operability (private international law) generates substantive regulatory rights without accessible courts—exemplified most acutely in the EU Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD), which establishes compensation entitlements whilst remaining jurisdictionally silent on many third-country claims. Methodologically, the article combines critical legal dogmatics with functional comparison of US and EU jurisdictional frameworks, drawing on primary sources (treaties, legislation, and case law) and specialist literature. Substantively, it contends that (i) extraterritorial jurisdiction has evolved from the Lotus paradigm toward a genuine-connection/legitimate-interest standard; (ii) the US constitutional model exemplifies institutional “gatekeeping” that may externalize access-to-justice costs, whilst the EU model demonstrates substantive regulatory ambition unaccompanied by procedural avenues; and (iii) a workable integrated standard remains available. The article operationalizes “genuine connection” through four cumulative judicial criteria—foreseeability, material contribution, effective control, and remedial necessity—conditioned by safeguards of subsidiarity, reasonable connection, defendant protection, and multilateral enforcement. The analysis reflects legislative and judicial developments through early 2025, notably the CSDDD, the ECtHR’s KlimaSeniorinnen judgment, and the German Lliuya v. RWE AG decision. It characterizes the CSDDD’s jurisdictional silence as a structural design failure—predictable under public/private compartmentalization—rather than a mere legislative oversight.

Mots-clés


Extraterritorial jurisdiction; transnational climate accountability; genuine connection; forum necessitatis; corporate sustainability due diligence; access to justice.

Texte intégral :

PDF (English)

Références


ALBUQUERQUE, G.; FAGUNDEZ, G. T.; FABRE, R. Climate emergency and human rights: the Climate Fund case in Brazil and obligations under international law. Revista de Direito Internacional, Brasília, v. 19, n. 1, 2022. DOI: 10.5102/rdi.v19i1.7931.

AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE. Restatement (Fourth) of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States. Philadelphia: ALI, 2018.

AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE. Restatement (Third) of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States. Philadelphia: ALI, 1987.

ANGHIE, Antony. Imperialism, sovereignty and the making of international law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005.

ANGHIE, Antony; CHIMNI, B. S.; MICKELSON, Karin; OKAFOR, Obiora (eds.). The Third World and international order: law, politics and globalization. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff, 2003.

ARAUJO, Nadia de. Private international law: Brazilian theory and practice. 9th ed. São Paulo: Thomson Reuters, 2024.

ARAUJO, Nadia de; MARQUES, Frederico V. M. International judicial cooperation in Brazil: recognition and enforcement of foreign decisions at the Superior Court of Justice. In: NOODT TAQUELA, María Blanca (ed.). Prevention and settlement of disputes in international transactions. Paris: ICC, 2014.

ARISTOVA, Ekaterina. The future of tort litigation against transnational corporations in the English courts. Business and Human Rights Journal, v. 6, n. 3, 2021.

ASADIP. Principles on transnational access to justice (TransJus). Buenos Aires: ASADIP, 2016.

BRADFORD, Anu. The Brussels effect: how the European Union rules the world. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2020.

BRAZIL. Superior Court of Justice (STJ). Special appeal No. 2.139.860/SP. 3rd Panel, Rapporteur Justice Marco Aurélio Bellizze, decided on Nov. 14, 2023.

CANÇADO TRINDADE, Antônio Augusto. International law for humankind: towards a new jus gentium. Recueil des Cours, v. 316, p. 9–312, 2005.

CARVALHO RAMOS, André de. General theory of human rights in the international order. 7th ed. São Paulo: Saraiva, 2020.

CARVALHO RAMOS, André de; ROLAND, Manoela Carneiro. From forum necessitatis to a binding treaty: the saga of transnational access to justice for victims of transnational corporate activities. Revista de Direito Internacional, Brasília, v. 19, n. 2, p. 1–30, 2022. DOI: 10.5102/rdi.v19i2.8749.

CHIMNI, B. S. Third World approaches to international law: a manifesto. International Community Law Review, v. 8, n. 1, p. 3–27, 2006.

COMMITTEE ON THE RIGHTS OF PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES (UN). General comment No. 1 on article 12: equal recognition before the law. UN Doc. CRPD/C/GC/1, 19 May 2014.

EUROPEAN COMMISSION. Amicus curiae brief in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co. United States Supreme Court, Docket No. 10-1491, 4 June 2012.

HAGUE CONFERENCE ON PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW. Convention of 2 July 2019 on the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in civil or commercial matters. The Hague: HCCH, 2019.

HAGUE CONFERENCE ON PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW. Convention on choice of court agreements. The Hague: HCCH, 30 June 2005.

UNITED NATIONS FRAMEWORK CONVENTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE. Paris Agreement. 12 Dec. 2015, UNTS 3156.

INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS. Juridical condition and rights of undocumented migrants. Advisory opinion OC-18/03, 17 Sept. 2003.

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE. Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company, Limited (Belgium v. Spain). ICJ Reports, 1970.

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE. Corfu Channel case (United Kingdom v. Albania). ICJ Reports, 1949.

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE. Nottebohm case (Liechtenstein v. Guatemala). ICJ Reports, 1955.

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE. Questions relating to the obligation to prosecute or extradite (Belgium v. Senegal). ICJ Reports, 2012.

PERMANENT COURT OF INTERNATIONAL JUSTICE. S.S. Lotus (France v. Turkey). PCIJ Reports, Series A, No. 10, 7 Sept. 1927.

DERANI, Cristiane; NOSCHANG, Patricia Grazziotin. The jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice in cases of territorial damage caused to states by climate change. Revista de Direito Internacional, Brasília, v. 19, n. 1, 2022. DOI: 10.5102/rdi.v19i1.7947.

ECUADOR. Provincial Court of Justice of Sucumbíos. Aguinda v. ChevronTexaco Corp. Case No. 2003-0002, 14 Feb. 2011.

EUROPEAN GROUP ON PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW (GEDIP). Comments on the proposal for a directive on corporate sustainability due diligence. Brussels: GEDIP, 2022.

EUROPEAN UNION. Regulation (EU) No. 1215/2012… Official Journal of the European Union, L 351, p. 1–32, 20 Dec. 2012.

GANGULY, Geetanjali; SETZER, Joana; HEYVAERT, Veerle. If at first you do not succeed: suing corporations for climate change. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, v. 38, n. 4, p. 841–868, 2018.

GOLDSMITH, Jack L.; POSNER, Eric A. The limits of international law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005.

GUZMAN, Andrew T. A compliance-based theory of international law. California Law Review, v. 90, n. 6, p. 1823–1887, 2002.

HEEDE, Richard. Tracing anthropogenic carbon dioxide and methane emissions to fossil fuel and cement producers, 1854–2010. Climatic Change, v. 122, p. 229–241, 2014.

HÖSLI, Andreas; REHMANN, Meret. Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and others v. Switzerland: the European Court of Human Rights’ answer to climate change. Climate Law, v. 14, n. 3–4, p. 263–284, 2024.

KAMMINGA, Menno T. Extraterritoriality. In: Max Planck encyclopedia of public international law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2020.

KANTER, Arlene. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and its implications for the rights of elderly people under international law. Georgia Journal of International and Comparative Law, 2014.

MARJANAC, Sabin; PATTON, Lucy. Extreme weather event attribution science and climate change litigation: an essential step in the causal chain? Journal of Energy and Natural Resources Law, v. 36, n. 3, p. 265–298, 2018.

MICHAELS, Ralf; SOMMERFELD, Giesela. Jurisdiction and the corporate sustainability due diligence directive. Rabels Zeitschrift für ausländisches und internationales Privatrecht, v. 87, n. 3, p. 610–658, 2023.

MILANOVIC, Marko. Extraterritorial application of human rights treaties. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011.

MILLS, Alex. The confluence of public and private international law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009.

MILLS, Alex. Rethinking jurisdiction in international law. British Yearbook of International Law, v. 84, n. 1, p. 187–239, 2014.

MOSCHEN, Valesca Raizer Borges; BARBOSA, Samuel Rodrigues. ASADIP principles on transnational access to justice and the new private international law legislation in Brazil. Revista de Direito Internacional, Brasília, v. 16, n. 2, 2019.

NUYTS, Arnaud. Study on residual jurisdiction. Brussels: European Commission, 2007.

OBERLANDESGERICHT HAMM. Lliuya v. RWE AG. Case No. I-5 U 15/17, 2025.

OTTO, Friederike E. L. Attribution of extreme events to climate change. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, v. 48, p. 813–828, 2023. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-environ-112621-083538.

PARRISH, Austen. The effects of the fourth restatement on extraterritoriality. American Journal of International Law Unbound, v. 112, p. 10–16, 2018.

PARLIAMENT AND COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION. Directive (EU) 2024/1760… Official Journal of the European Union, 2024.

PEEL, Jacqueline; OSOFSKY, Hari M. Climate change litigation: regulatory pathways to cleaner energy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015.

PERRONE, Nicolás. Civil accountability for human rights abuses in transnational litigation. International and Comparative Law Quarterly, v. 72, n. 2, p. 311–341, 2023.

UNITED NATIONS ENVIRONMENT PROGRAMME. Global climate litigation report: 2025 status review. Nairobi: UNEP, 2025.

RADJAS, Racha; AKIN, Seniha Irem. Strengthening the efficacy of the CSDDD through private international law. European Review of Private Law, v. 32, n. 4, 2024.

REGIONAL AGREEMENT ON ACCESS TO INFORMATION, PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND JUSTICE IN ENVIRONMENTAL MATTERS IN LATIN AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN (Escazú Agreement). Escazú, 4 Mar. 2018.

RICCIARDI, Pablo Pellon. Lliuya v. RWE: a leap forward for private climate litigation? Climate Law, 2025.

RYNGAERT, Cedric. Jurisdiction in international law. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015.

SCHIRMER, Jan-Erik. The Lliuya v. RWE decision and its implications for climate causation. Journal of Environmental Law, 2025.

SETZER, Joana; HIGHAM, Catherine. Global trends in climate change litigation: 2023 snapshot. London: Grantham Research Institute, 2023.

STUART-SMITH, Rupert et al. Filling the evidentiary gap in climate litigation. Nature Climate Change, v. 11, p. 651–655, 2021. DOI: 10.1038/s41558-021-01086-7.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM. Lungowe and others v. Vedanta Resources Plc and Konkola Copper Mines Plc. [2019] UKSC 20.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. Daimler AG v. Bauman. 571 U.S. 117 (2014).

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown. 564 U.S. 915 (2011).

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. International Shoe Co. v. Washington. 326 U.S. 310 (1945).

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. Jesner v. Arab Bank, PLC. 584 U.S. 241 (2018).

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co. 569 U.S. 108 (2013).

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. Nestlé USA, Inc. v. Doe. 593 U.S. 628 (2021).

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain. 542 U.S. 692 (2004).

COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION. Intel Corporation Inc. v. European Commission. Case C-413/14 P, 6 Sept. 2017.

DISTRICT COURT OF THE HAGUE. El-Hojouj v. unnamed Libyan officials. Case No. C-09-456689, 21 Mar. 2012.

DISTRICT COURT OF THE HAGUE. Milieudefensie et al. v. Royal Dutch Shell plc. Case No. C/09/571932 / HA ZA 19-379, 26 May 2021.

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE HAGUE. Milieudefensie et al. v. Royal Dutch Shell plc. Case No. 200.302.680, 12 Nov. 2024.

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS. Naït-Liman v. Switzerland. Application No. 51357/07, Grand Chamber, 15 Mar. 2018.

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS. Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and others v. Switzerland. Application No. 53600/20, Grand Chamber, 9 Apr. 2024.

EUROPEAN UNION. Regulation (EU) No. 1215/2012… Official Journal of the European Union, L 351, p. 1–32, 20 Dec. 2012.

UNITED NATIONS ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR EUROPE. Convention on access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters (Aarhus Convention). Aarhus, 25 June 1998.

VAN AAKEN, Anne. To do away with international law? Some limits to “The limits of international law”. European Journal of International Law, v. 17, n. 1, p. 289–308, 2006.

VAN HO, Tara. Access to justice and transnational corporate accountability: Vedanta Resources plc and Konkola Copper Mines. Human Rights Law Review, v. 20, n. 4, p. 698–720, 2020.

WATT, Horatia Muir. Private international law beyond the schism: from politics to technique back to politics. Transnational Legal Theory, v. 2, n. 3, p. 347–428, 2011.




DOI: https://doi.org/10.5102/rdi.v23i1.10578

ISSN 2236-997X (impresso) - ISSN 2237-1036 (on-line)

Desenvolvido por:

Logomarca da Lepidus Tecnologia