国際環境義務と気候変動に対する企業の説明責任：新たな責任追及経路に関する教義的・比較法的分析
International Environmental Obligations and Corporate Accountability for Climate Change: A Doctrinal and Comparative Analysis of Emerging Accountability Pathways (原題)
A. N. Haq, Asmat Ullah Khan
🤖 gxceed AI 要約
日本語
本論文は、気候関連リスク・誤解を招く気候表示・企業プロセスの不備・サプライチェーン影響・物理的気候被害について企業が法的責任を負いうる範囲を検討する。気候開示、真実の環境コミュニケーション、取締役義務、人権・環境デューデリジェンス、司法的・行政的緩和措置、被害補償という6つの責任追及経路を特定し、国際規範が国内の企業義務へと転換される過程を分析する。2025年7月23日のICJ勧告的意見やUNGPs、OECDガイドラインを踏まえ、英・豪・加・印・パキスタンを比較し、開示・誤認行為・コーポレートガバナンス規制が現時点で最も執行可能な義務であると論じる。
English
This article examines how far corporations can be held legally liable for climate risks, misleading climate claims, process failures, supply-chain impacts and physical harm. It identifies six accountability pathways—disclosure, truthful communication, directors' duties, due diligence, mitigation measures and compensation—and traces how international norms translate into domestic corporate obligations. Drawing on the 2025 ICJ Advisory Opinion, UNGPs and OECD Guidelines, it compares the UK, Australia, Canada, India and Pakistan, arguing that disclosure, misleading-conduct and governance rules are currently the clearest enforceable duties, while compensation remains unsettled.
Unofficial AI-generated summary based on the public title and abstract. Not an official translation.
📝 gxceed 編集解説 — Why this matters
日本のGX文脈において
SSBJ基準・有価証券報告書での気候開示や虚偽表示リスク、取締役の善管注意義務を巡る議論が進む日本にとって、各国の責任追及経路と救済手段の比較は、開示規制の実効性と取締役の監督責任を設計する上で直接的な示唆を与える。
In the global GX context
As ISSB/CSRD disclosure regimes and greenwashing litigation expand, this paper maps how international norms (ICJ Opinion, UNGPs, OECD Guidelines) become enforceable domestic duties, offering a pathway-and-remedy framework relevant to global disclosure scholarship and the boundary between state responsibility and direct corporate liability.
👥 読者別の含意
🔬研究者:気候訴訟・企業責任の国際規範と国内法の接合を、義務・執行・救済の三層で整理する分析枠組みとして参照できる。
🏢実務担当者:気候開示・グリーンウォッシュ回避・デューデリジェンス体制の整備が、法的責任リスク低減に直結することを各国比較から確認できる。
🏛政策担当者:開示・誤認行為・ガバナンス規制が最も執行可能な経路であるとの知見は、国内の気候開示・責任法制の設計に有用。
📄 Abstract（原文）
This article examines the extent to which corporations can be held legally responsible for climate-related risks, misleading climate representations, failures of corporate process, supply-chain impacts and physical climate harm. It identifies six accountability pathways – climate disclosure, truthful environmental communication, directors’ duties, human-rights and environmental due diligence, judicial or administrative mitigation measures, and compensation for harm – and explores how international norms are translated into domestic corporate obligations. The analysis is doctrinal and comparative in nature and is informed by the International Court of Justice’s Advisory Opinion of 23 July 2025 on Obligations of States in Respect of Climate Change, the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, the 2023 OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises on Responsible Business Conduct, legislation, regulatory materials and reported cases. The comparison includes the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, India and Pakistan with specific reference to the distinction between State responsibility and direct corporate liability. The article argues that the 2025 ICJ Opinion solidifies the international-law foundation for domestic regulation of private operators, but does not establish a direct corporate cause of action before the Court. The clearest enforceable duties currently arise through disclosure, misleading-conduct and corporate-governance rules in the domestic systems examined. Supply-chain due diligence is developing through a mix of statute, soft law and contractual mechanisms. Compensation for climate-related physical harm remains doctrinally and procedurally unsettled. The article introduces a pathway-and-remedy framework that distinguishes legal obligation, enforcement mechanism, and available remedy, using Pakistan as a Global South case study to test the limits of transnational corporate climate accountability.
🔗 Provenance — このレコードを発見したソース
- semanticscholar https://internationallaw.jurisocial.org/index.php/JJIL/article/download/9/25first seen 2026-10-28 05:41:02 · last seen 2026-11-06 05:44:20
🔔 こうした論文の新着を逃したくない方は キーワードアラート に登録（無料・3キーワードまで）。
gxceed は公開メタデータに基づく研究支援データセットです。要約・翻訳・解説は AI 支援で生成されています。 最終的な解釈・検証は利用者が原典資料に基づいて行うことを前提とします。