Zambia Resident V. UK Vedanta Company And Zambia KCM Company Environmental Tort Case Study

With the development of economic globalization,multinational companies have developed rapidly in recent years,and their position in the international economic system is increasingly significant.Because of the high environmental standards of developed countries,multinational corporations transfer many high-risk industries to developing countries with low environmental standards.Although they promote the economic development of the host country,they also pollute the environment of the host country.When investigating the environmental tort liability of the parent company,the parent company often defends the infringement of the subsidiary company with its independent corporate personality,and refuses to take responsibility for the infringement of the subsidiary company.The court of the home country of investment often rejects the claim from the victim of the host country of investment based on the principle of inconvenient court.In the past few years,the European Court of justice has accepted a number of environmental tort lawsuits brought by victims from other countries against their parent companies.One of them is the case of environmental tort brought by Lungowe v.Vedanta Resources Plc and Konkola Copper Mines Plc.This case has great influence in Europe and is of great research significance.Based on the detailed analysis of the focus of the case,this paper puts forward some reform suggestions in dealing with the objection of jurisdiction of environmental tort of transnational corporations and the responsibility of environmental tort of transnational corporations.In addition to the introduction and conclusion,this paper is divided into four chapters.The first chapter focuses on the case of environmental tort brought by Lungowe v.Vedanta Resources Plc and Konkola Copper Mines Plc.This paper summarizes the background and progress of the case,and sums up two controversial focuses of the case.The second chapter mainly analyzes whether the British court should exercise jurisdiction over the case.The author analyzes in turn whether the British courts have jurisdiction over the two defendants,and concludes that the British courts have full jurisdiction over the case.The third chapter mainly analyzes whether Vedanta company should beresponsible for the environmental tort caused by KCM company.Based on the analysis of the duty of care under the principle of common law and the theory of corporate social responsibility,the author comes to the conclusion that Vedanta company needs to take responsibility for the environmental tort caused by KCM company.The fourth chapter mainly studies the Enlightenment of this case to our country.Through the problems in the focus of case disputes,combined with the current legislative and judicial deficiencies in China,this paper discusses the Enlightenment of the case to China in dealing with the objection of jurisdiction of environmental tort of transnational corporations and the responsibility of environmental tort of transnational corporations.