我想看一级黄色片_欧美性爱无遮挡电影_色丁香视频网站中文字幕_视频一区 视频二区 国产,日本三级理论日本电影,午夜不卡免费大片,国产午夜视频在线观看,18禁无遮拦无码国产在线播放,在线视频不卡国产在线视频不卡 ,,欧美一及黄片,日韩国产另类

首頁(yè) 500強(qiáng) 活動(dòng) 榜單 商業(yè) 科技 領(lǐng)導(dǎo)力 專(zhuān)題 品牌中心
雜志訂閱

意外!“奴役童工”案件,,巧克力巨頭們勝訴了

Vivienne Walt
2021-06-18

對(duì)多年以來(lái)一直就童工問(wèn)題與巧克力巨頭們抗?fàn)幍纳鐣?huì)活動(dòng)家來(lái)說(shuō),,這項(xiàng)裁決是當(dāng)頭一擊。

文本設(shè)置
小號(hào)
默認(rèn)
大號(hào)
Plus(0條)

長(zhǎng)期以來(lái),,美國(guó)巧克力巨頭都因?yàn)樯嫦觿兿魍さ膯?wèn)題而官司纏身。6月17日,,它們終于贏得了期盼已久的勝利:美國(guó)最高法院(U.S. Supreme Court)的大法官們以8比1裁定,,對(duì)于“強(qiáng)迫遠(yuǎn)在公司總部數(shù)千英里以外地方的兒童采摘可可豆,每天勞作高達(dá)14小時(shí),,而幾乎不給工資”的指控,,雀巢(美國(guó))公司(Nestlé USA)和嘉吉公司(Cargill)無(wú)需承擔(dān)法律責(zé)任。

這一裁決似乎讓六名馬里男孩提起的一項(xiàng)訴訟前景更加黯淡,,獲勝希望渺茫:該訴訟已經(jīng)在各個(gè)聯(lián)邦法院審理了15年以上,。男孩們——現(xiàn)在已經(jīng)20多歲——在其中報(bào)告說(shuō),他們被強(qiáng)行販賣(mài)到象牙海岸的可可農(nóng)場(chǎng),。在那里,,他們長(zhǎng)時(shí)間從事采摘豆子的工作,睡覺(jué)的時(shí)候還有武裝看守,,以防他們逃跑,。而除了一些基本的食物之外,他們幾乎沒(méi)有任何報(bào)酬,。

最高法院面臨的問(wèn)題是,,能否援引18 世紀(jì)的一項(xiàng)《外國(guó)人侵權(quán)法令》(Alien Tort Statute) 讓跨國(guó)公司對(duì)其供應(yīng)鏈的某些部分——包括那些發(fā)生在遙遠(yuǎn)的地方,、以及不在高管人員視線(xiàn)范圍內(nèi)的勞動(dòng)剝削行為負(fù)責(zé)。

最終,,法官裁定,,這些公司實(shí)際上無(wú)需對(duì)象牙海岸發(fā)生的事情承擔(dān)法律責(zé)任——盡管它似乎構(gòu)成了一種國(guó)際上禁止的童工奴役形式。他們說(shuō),,一個(gè)致命的弱點(diǎn)是,,該案未能證明,許多導(dǎo)致濫用童工的商業(yè)決策發(fā)生在美國(guó)本土,。

“雀巢(美國(guó))和嘉吉都是總部位于美國(guó)的公司,從事可可豆的購(gòu)買(mǎi),、加工和銷(xiāo)售業(yè)務(wù),。”由大法官克拉倫斯·托馬斯撰寫(xiě)的裁決中稱(chēng),。“它們?cè)谙笱篮0恫⑽磽碛谢蚪?jīng)營(yíng)農(nóng)場(chǎng)。但它們確實(shí)從那里的農(nóng)場(chǎng)購(gòu)買(mǎi)了可可豆,?!彼麑?xiě)道?!八鼈冞€向這些農(nóng)場(chǎng)提供技術(shù)和財(cái)政資源——例如培訓(xùn),、肥料、工具和資金——以換取購(gòu)買(mǎi)可可豆的獨(dú)家權(quán)利,?!钡幢闳绱耍€是認(rèn)為,,《外國(guó)人侵權(quán)法令》不適用于在美國(guó)境外發(fā)生的情況,。

對(duì)多年以來(lái)一直就童工問(wèn)題與巧克力巨頭們抗?fàn)幍纳鐣?huì)活動(dòng)家來(lái)說(shuō),這項(xiàng)裁決是當(dāng)頭一擊,。

“它們決定了預(yù)算,,決定了計(jì)劃,決定了業(yè)務(wù)——這所有的事項(xiàng)都是在美國(guó)完成的,?!蔽挥谌A盛頓的國(guó)際權(quán)利倡導(dǎo)者組織(International Rights Advocates)的執(zhí)行董事特里·科林斯沃思說(shuō),2005年,,該組織代表六個(gè)馬里男孩對(duì)這兩家巧克力公司提起訴訟,。他告訴《財(cái)富》雜志,他的法律團(tuán)隊(duì)打算重寫(xiě)訴訟案,,在其中聲明,,正是雀巢和嘉吉在美國(guó)做出的大部分決定,,為遠(yuǎn)在象牙海岸的兒童奴役鋪平了道路?!拔覀兛吹搅艘痪€(xiàn)希望,,就將繼續(xù)追尋它?!彼f(shuō),。

超過(guò)100萬(wàn)童工

因?yàn)樵诜侵薜目煽赊r(nóng)場(chǎng)造成嚴(yán)重的童工奴役問(wèn)題,巧克力巨頭們正在面臨越來(lái)越多的負(fù)面新聞,。盡管世界上最大的幾家巧克力公司于2000年達(dá)成了一項(xiàng)消除童工的非強(qiáng)制協(xié)議,,但童工的數(shù)量卻一直在穩(wěn)步增長(zhǎng)——社會(huì)活動(dòng)人士說(shuō),這是因?yàn)樵谵r(nóng)場(chǎng)使用童工的經(jīng)濟(jì)優(yōu)勢(shì)對(duì)跨國(guó)公司來(lái)說(shuō)實(shí)在太有吸引力了,,尤其是在那些幾乎不受監(jiān)管的國(guó)家,。

去年10月,據(jù)一份受美國(guó)勞工部(U.S. Department of Labor)委托發(fā)布的報(bào)告估計(jì),,約有156萬(wàn)兒童,,其中一些年僅5歲,在象牙海岸和加納從事可可豆的采摘工作,,這兩個(gè)國(guó)家為全球提供了很大一部分可可,。更令人震驚的是,與十年前的估計(jì)相比,,可可采摘行業(yè)的童工數(shù)量增加了約14%,。

因此在去年,當(dāng)巧克力巨頭們向最高法院請(qǐng)?jiān)?,為自己辯護(hù)稱(chēng),,不能根據(jù)《外國(guó)人侵權(quán)法令》起訴它們時(shí),也不得不小心翼翼,。

在6月17日的裁決發(fā)布后,,雀巢(美國(guó))公司也發(fā)表了一份聲明,表示該公司“從未參與過(guò)這起訴訟中指控的奴役童工的惡劣行徑,,我們?nèi)匀粓?jiān)定不移地致力于打擊可可行業(yè)的童工現(xiàn)象,。”它表示將繼續(xù)關(guān)注奴役童工的“根本原因”,,并投入數(shù)百萬(wàn)美元用于可可產(chǎn)地的教育計(jì)劃,。

并未否認(rèn)童工面臨的“恐怖”

在去年12月關(guān)于此案的聽(tīng)證會(huì)上,巧克力巨頭們強(qiáng)調(diào),,雖然它們譴責(zé)一切形式的奴隸制,,但自己不會(huì)對(duì)此負(fù)責(zé)?!拔覀円蟮牟皇窃诠拘袨椴划?dāng)時(shí),,能夠以任何形式逃避懲罰,。”這些巨頭公司的首席律師尼爾·卡蒂爾辯稱(chēng),?!拔覀兪窃谡f(shuō),要追究的是那些應(yīng)該對(duì)此負(fù)責(zé)的個(gè)人,?!?/p>

科林斯沃思告訴《財(cái)富》雜志,他仍然希望,,在可可種植園做苦役的兒童可以在美國(guó)法院獲得賠償,,尤其是在越來(lái)越多的消費(fèi)者和激進(jìn)組織開(kāi)始抨擊巧克力罪惡產(chǎn)業(yè)鏈的情況下?!皼](méi)有任何一個(gè)大法官,、任何一方否認(rèn),像原告這樣的兒童仍然面臨著被販賣(mài)和奴役的恐怖,。”他說(shuō),。

他說(shuō),,他和其他人權(quán)律師將努力尋找除1789年《外國(guó)人侵權(quán)法令》以外的其他司法途徑。今年2月,,他代表象牙海岸可可農(nóng)場(chǎng)的童奴提起了新的訴訟,,這次針對(duì)的公司更加廣泛:雀巢、嘉吉,、百樂(lè)嘉利寶(Barry Callebaut),、瑪氏(Mars)、奧蘭(Olam),、好時(shí)(Hershey)和億滋(Mondelēz),。該案在華盛頓特區(qū)的聯(lián)邦法院審理,其司法依據(jù)是2017年的一項(xiàng)旨在根除人口販運(yùn)的法律,。(財(cái)富中文網(wǎng))

編譯:陳聰聰

長(zhǎng)期以來(lái),,美國(guó)巧克力巨頭都因?yàn)樯嫦觿兿魍さ膯?wèn)題而官司纏身。6月17日,,它們終于贏得了期盼已久的勝利:美國(guó)最高法院(U.S. Supreme Court)的大法官們以8比1裁定,,對(duì)于“強(qiáng)迫遠(yuǎn)在公司總部數(shù)千英里以外地方的兒童采摘可可豆,每天勞作高達(dá)14小時(shí),,而幾乎不給工資”的指控,,雀巢(美國(guó))公司(Nestlé USA)和嘉吉公司(Cargill)無(wú)需承擔(dān)法律責(zé)任。

這一裁決似乎讓六名馬里男孩提起的一項(xiàng)訴訟前景更加黯淡,,獲勝希望渺茫:該訴訟已經(jīng)在各個(gè)聯(lián)邦法院審理了15年以上,。男孩們——現(xiàn)在已經(jīng)20多歲——在其中報(bào)告說(shuō),,他們被強(qiáng)行販賣(mài)到象牙海岸的可可農(nóng)場(chǎng)。在那里,,他們長(zhǎng)時(shí)間從事采摘豆子的工作,,睡覺(jué)的時(shí)候還有武裝看守,以防他們逃跑,。而除了一些基本的食物之外,,他們幾乎沒(méi)有任何報(bào)酬。

最高法院面臨的問(wèn)題是,,能否援引18 世紀(jì)的一項(xiàng)《外國(guó)人侵權(quán)法令》(Alien Tort Statute) 讓跨國(guó)公司對(duì)其供應(yīng)鏈的某些部分——包括那些發(fā)生在遙遠(yuǎn)的地方,、以及不在高管人員視線(xiàn)范圍內(nèi)的勞動(dòng)剝削行為負(fù)責(zé)。

最終,,法官裁定,,這些公司實(shí)際上無(wú)需對(duì)象牙海岸發(fā)生的事情承擔(dān)法律責(zé)任——盡管它似乎構(gòu)成了一種國(guó)際上禁止的童工奴役形式。他們說(shuō),,一個(gè)致命的弱點(diǎn)是,,該案未能證明,許多導(dǎo)致濫用童工的商業(yè)決策發(fā)生在美國(guó)本土,。

“雀巢(美國(guó))和嘉吉都是總部位于美國(guó)的公司,,從事可可豆的購(gòu)買(mǎi)、加工和銷(xiāo)售業(yè)務(wù),?!庇纱蠓ü倏死瓊愃埂ね旭R斯撰寫(xiě)的裁決中稱(chēng)?!八鼈?cè)谙笱篮0恫⑽磽碛谢蚪?jīng)營(yíng)農(nóng)場(chǎng),。但它們確實(shí)從那里的農(nóng)場(chǎng)購(gòu)買(mǎi)了可可豆?!彼麑?xiě)道,。“它們還向這些農(nóng)場(chǎng)提供技術(shù)和財(cái)政資源——例如培訓(xùn),、肥料,、工具和資金——以換取購(gòu)買(mǎi)可可豆的獨(dú)家權(quán)利?!钡幢闳绱?,他還是認(rèn)為,《外國(guó)人侵權(quán)法令》不適用于在美國(guó)境外發(fā)生的情況,。

對(duì)多年以來(lái)一直就童工問(wèn)題與巧克力巨頭們抗?fàn)幍纳鐣?huì)活動(dòng)家來(lái)說(shuō),,這項(xiàng)裁決是當(dāng)頭一擊。

“它們決定了預(yù)算,,決定了計(jì)劃,,決定了業(yè)務(wù)——這所有的事項(xiàng)都是在美國(guó)完成的,。”位于華盛頓的國(guó)際權(quán)利倡導(dǎo)者組織(International Rights Advocates)的執(zhí)行董事特里·科林斯沃思說(shuō),,2005年,,該組織代表六個(gè)馬里男孩對(duì)這兩家巧克力公司提起訴訟。他告訴《財(cái)富》雜志,,他的法律團(tuán)隊(duì)打算重寫(xiě)訴訟案,,在其中聲明,正是雀巢和嘉吉在美國(guó)做出的大部分決定,,為遠(yuǎn)在象牙海岸的兒童奴役鋪平了道路,。“我們看到了一線(xiàn)希望,,就將繼續(xù)追尋它,。”他說(shuō),。

超過(guò)100萬(wàn)童工

因?yàn)樵诜侵薜目煽赊r(nóng)場(chǎng)造成嚴(yán)重的童工奴役問(wèn)題,,巧克力巨頭們正在面臨越來(lái)越多的負(fù)面新聞。盡管世界上最大的幾家巧克力公司于2000年達(dá)成了一項(xiàng)消除童工的非強(qiáng)制協(xié)議,,但童工的數(shù)量卻一直在穩(wěn)步增長(zhǎng)——社會(huì)活動(dòng)人士說(shuō),,這是因?yàn)樵谵r(nóng)場(chǎng)使用童工的經(jīng)濟(jì)優(yōu)勢(shì)對(duì)跨國(guó)公司來(lái)說(shuō)實(shí)在太有吸引力了,尤其是在那些幾乎不受監(jiān)管的國(guó)家,。

去年10月,,據(jù)一份受美國(guó)勞工部(U.S. Department of Labor)委托發(fā)布的報(bào)告估計(jì),,約有156萬(wàn)兒童,,其中一些年僅5歲,在象牙海岸和加納從事可可豆的采摘工作,,這兩個(gè)國(guó)家為全球提供了很大一部分可可,。更令人震驚的是,與十年前的估計(jì)相比,,可可采摘行業(yè)的童工數(shù)量增加了約14%,。

因此在去年,當(dāng)巧克力巨頭們向最高法院請(qǐng)?jiān)?,為自己辯護(hù)稱(chēng),,不能根據(jù)《外國(guó)人侵權(quán)法令》起訴它們時(shí),也不得不小心翼翼,。

在6月17日的裁決發(fā)布后,,雀巢(美國(guó))公司也發(fā)表了一份聲明,表示該公司“從未參與過(guò)這起訴訟中指控的奴役童工的惡劣行徑,,我們?nèi)匀粓?jiān)定不移地致力于打擊可可行業(yè)的童工現(xiàn)象,?!彼硎緦⒗^續(xù)關(guān)注奴役童工的“根本原因”,并投入數(shù)百萬(wàn)美元用于可可產(chǎn)地的教育計(jì)劃,。

并未否認(rèn)童工面臨的“恐怖”

在去年12月關(guān)于此案的聽(tīng)證會(huì)上,,巧克力巨頭們強(qiáng)調(diào),雖然它們譴責(zé)一切形式的奴隸制,,但自己不會(huì)對(duì)此負(fù)責(zé),。“我們要求的不是在公司行為不當(dāng)時(shí),,能夠以任何形式逃避懲罰,。”這些巨頭公司的首席律師尼爾·卡蒂爾辯稱(chēng),?!拔覀兪窃谡f(shuō),要追究的是那些應(yīng)該對(duì)此負(fù)責(zé)的個(gè)人,?!?/p>

科林斯沃思告訴《財(cái)富》雜志,他仍然希望,,在可可種植園做苦役的兒童可以在美國(guó)法院獲得賠償,,尤其是在越來(lái)越多的消費(fèi)者和激進(jìn)組織開(kāi)始抨擊巧克力罪惡產(chǎn)業(yè)鏈的情況下?!皼](méi)有任何一個(gè)大法官,、任何一方否認(rèn),像原告這樣的兒童仍然面臨著被販賣(mài)和奴役的恐怖,?!彼f(shuō)。

他說(shuō),,他和其他人權(quán)律師將努力尋找除1789年《外國(guó)人侵權(quán)法令》以外的其他司法途徑,。今年2月,他代表象牙海岸可可農(nóng)場(chǎng)的童奴提起了新的訴訟,,這次針對(duì)的公司更加廣泛:雀巢,、嘉吉、百樂(lè)嘉利寶(Barry Callebaut),、瑪氏(Mars),、奧蘭(Olam)、好時(shí)(Hershey)和億滋(Mondelēz),。該案在華盛頓特區(qū)的聯(lián)邦法院審理,,其司法依據(jù)是2017年的一項(xiàng)旨在根除人口販運(yùn)的法律。(財(cái)富中文網(wǎng))

編譯:陳聰聰

Big Chocolate won a long-awaited victory on June 17 in its legal battle over child labor when the U.S. Supreme Court justices ruled, 8 to 1, that Nestlé USA and Cargill could not be held responsible for young children forced to pick cocoa beans up to 14 hours a day for little or no pay, thousands of miles from corporate headquarters.

The ruling seemed to narrow the prospects of a lawsuit brought by six Malian boys, which has wound its way through various federal courts for more than 15 years. In it, the boys—now in their 20s—report being forcibly trafficked to cocoa farms in Ivory Coast, where they worked long hours picking beans and sleeping under armed guard to prevent them from escaping, and, in return, were paid little beyond basic food.

At stake in the Supreme Court was whether an 18th-century law called the Alien Tort Statute, or ATS, could be used to hold multinationals to account for rampant labor abuses committed in some parts of their supply chain—including those occurring far away, and out of sight of top executives.

In the end, the justices decided companies were not, in fact, legally liable for what happened in Ivory Coast—even though it appeared to constitute a form of child slavery, which is outlawed internationally. The key weakness, they said, was that the case failed to show that a lot of the business decisions leading to child labor happened on U.S. soil.

“Nestlé USA and Cargill are U.S.-based companies that purchase, process, and sell cocoa,” said the decision, written by Justice Clarence Thomas. “They did not own or operate the farms in Ivory Coast. But they did buy cocoa from farms located there,” he wrote. “They also provided those farms with technical and financial resources—such as training, fertilizer, tools, and cash—in exchange for the exclusive right to purchase cocoa.” Even so, he argued that the ATS could not be used outside the U.S.

To child-labor activists who have fought giant chocolate companies for years, the ruling came as a blow.

“They decided on the budgets, they decided on the planning, on the business aspects—all those things were done from the U.S.," said Terry Collingsworth, executive director of International Rights Advocates in Washington, which brought the lawsuit in 2005 against the two companies on behalf of the six Malian boys. He told Fortune his legal team intended rewriting the lawsuit, arguing that much of Nestlé and Cargill's decisions made in the U.S. paved the way to the use of child slaves in Ivory Coast. "We see a path out, and we are going to pursue it," he said.

More than 1 million kids

Chocolate giants face mounting bad publicity over the harsh treatment on African cocoa farms. Even though the world’s biggest chocolate companies agreed in a nonbinding deal in 2000 to eliminate child labor, the numbers have steadily grown—because, say activists, the economic advantages of using underage farmworkers are simply too attractive to multinational companies, especially in countries with minimal oversight.

Last October, a report commissioned by the U.S. Department of Labor estimated that about 1.56 million children, some as young as five, worked picking cocoa beans in Ivory Coast and Ghana, which supplies a good portion of the world’s cocoa. Astonishingly, the number of child cocoa workers had increased about 14% since the previous estimates a decade earlier.

As such, Big Chocolate had to tread a fine line when it petitioned the Supreme Court last year, arguing that they could not be sued under the ATS.

Nestlé USA said in a statement after June 17’s ruling that the company “never engaged in the egregious child labor alleged in this suit, and we remain unwavering in our dedication to combating child labor in the cocoa industry.” It said it would continue focusing on “the root causes” of child labor, investing millions in education programs in the cocoa region.

No denial of "the horrors"

In a hearing about the case last December, the companies stressed that while they condemned all forms of slavery, but were not responsible for it. “We are not seeking any sort of corporate impunity,” the companies’ lead attorney Neal Katyal argued. “We are saying you have to go after individuals.”

Collingsworth told Fortune he still hopes that children toiling in the cocoa plantations might still find redress in U.S. courts, especially with a growing chorus of consumer and activist groups assailing the conditions in producing chocolate. "None of the Justices and none of parties deny that children like the plaintiffs continue to suffer the horrors of trafficking and slavery," Collingsworth said.

He says he and other human-rights lawyers will work to find alternative paths to justice, other than the 1789 Alien Tort Statute. In February, he filed a new lawsuit on behalf of child slaves on cocoa farms in Ivory Coast, this time against Nestlé, Cargill, Barry Callebaut, Mars, Olam, Hershey and Mondelēz. The case, in federal court in Washington D.C., was brought under a 2017 law designed to eradicate human trafficking.

財(cái)富中文網(wǎng)所刊載內(nèi)容之知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)為財(cái)富媒體知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)有限公司及/或相關(guān)權(quán)利人專(zhuān)屬所有或持有。未經(jīng)許可,,禁止進(jìn)行轉(zhuǎn)載,、摘編、復(fù)制及建立鏡像等任何使用,。
0條Plus
精彩評(píng)論
評(píng)論

撰寫(xiě)或查看更多評(píng)論

請(qǐng)打開(kāi)財(cái)富Plus APP

前往打開(kāi)
熱讀文章