This chapter introduces ideas and controversies in international law scholarship on business and human rights. Furthermore, it determines the legal limitations for the EU and its Member States when regulating and remedying rights violations committed by corporations from emerging and developing states. To begin, domestic measures with extraterritorial implications are discussed. Import-restrictive measures also appear an attractive solution for states that are increasingly expected (or obliged) to rein in ‘their’ corporate nationals when they violate rights in third states. Such measures allow states to create an artificial level playing field that enforces the same standards across all corporations that operate in its market. Linking rights to trade concessions is, however, contested. The International Labour Organization and World Trade Organization regimes are discussed. Finally, it is explained that each state has acted unilaterally in developing the rules governing the use of civil adjudicative jurisdiction. Support for local remedies by the extraterritorial state does not distinguish between local and foreign corporations. A cost-benefit critique of extraterritorial remediation over foreign corporations is also presented.

The limitations of subject matter jurisdiction present significant barriers to victims seeking a remedy for business-related human rights violations. Even if courts can assert personal jurisdiction over a corporate defendant, the government of any particular country may not give its courts permission to hear and adjudicate the types of claims that arise from human rights or severe environmental torts. In order to bring a lawsuit, a person has to be able to have a legal claim. Sometimes these claims, which are called causes of action, come from the parliament, legislature, or other legislative body, which decides what sort of claim its citizenry can bring before court. In some systems, typically the common law system, courts can also recognize a claim based on the common law.