corporate accountability — Online Journal — Columbia Undergraduate Law Review

Justice for Sale: Non-Prosecution Agreements as Instruments of Inequality

Recent high-profile sex crime cases such as the Bill Cosby case and Jeffrey Epstein case have catapulted the non-prosecution agreement into the public spotlight. Non-prosecution agreements (NPAs) are legally binding arrangements between government agencies such as the Department of Justice and companies or individuals facing a criminal or civil investigation. Under the agreement, the government refrains from filing further charges as long as the company or individual agrees to its demands, which typically requires that companies/individuals either pay a fine or cooperate with the government. [1] Given that NPAs are typically applied to cases dealing with corporate crime, the use of the non-prosecution agreement in the Cosby and Epstein cases was highly unprecedented.

Nestle USA v. Doe I and the Future of Corporate Accountability

An estimated 168 million children between the ages of 5-17 are presently engaged in some form of child labour or enslaved labor globally, with millions subjected to bonded labour, child soldiering, or sexual exploitation. Though this atrocity occurs within many spheres, the chocolate industry is an infamous perpetuator. Between 2013 and 2017, over 1,000 children working in cocoa agriculture in areas of medium and high cocoa production were victims of forced labour at the hands of someone outside their family. And this number fails to account for the hundreds of children forced to labor by their parents and other relatives. Working on plantations that annually supply 60% of all cocoa to transnational companies such as Nestle and Cargill, children in Ghana and Cote d’Ivoire are overworked, brutally treated, and deprived of their education.

Alison QiJanuary 17, 2021corporate accountability, child labour, labor law

Pitfalls and Promises of the Alien Tort Statute: In Pursuit of Corporate Accountability

Given the increasing magnitude of the U.S.-China relationship, it is worth examining the implications of these rulings, as well as the Court’s asserted interest in diplomacy, against the backdrop of the ongoing U.S.-China trade war. A closer look at this diplomatic breakdown suggests that whether the ATS retains its remaining strength or not, the federal government ought to be prudent in weakening legal means to enforce corporate accountability, especially when consequential bilateral relations are at stake.