•  
  •  
 

Abstract

Global supply chains in the agribusiness sector have long been associated with abhorrent slave-like conditions. Although transnational corporations have acknowledged that these extraterritorial abuses exist, they have largely evaded legal responsibility for the human rights harms suffered by victims overseas. Against this backdrop, the European Court of Human Rights represents an intriguing venue for future claimants, as its Article 4 jurisprudence has expanded the scope of prohibitions on slavery and forced labor under the European Convention of Human Rights. This Article accordingly considers whether the Court might interpret Article 4 such that it places a positive obligation on Council of Europe Member States to ensure that transnational corporations located in their borders do not commit extraterritorial harms in their supply chains. Since many of the world’s largest chocolate corporations maintain operations in Africa and Latin America but are headquartered across Europe, the chocolate industry serves as a representative case study. This analytical exercise begins with an evaluation of the challenges of Article 1 jurisdiction, followed by a consideration of potential positive Article 4 obligations given analogous case law, as well as recent corporate liability and human rights due diligence trends. An inquiry into the deplorable overseas working conditions associated with cocoa farms will then illuminate how Member States could face Article 4 liability in the future. Ultimately, I contend that even if the European Court of Human Rights remains an ambitious venue for addressing global supply chain harms, there are reasons for measured optimism



Share

COinS