Media & Publications
The Case for an International Court of Civil Justice
When multinational corporations cause mass harms to lives, livelihoods, and the environment in developing countries, it is nearly impossible for victims to find a court that can and will issue an enforceable judgment. In this work, Professor Maya Steinitz presents a detailed rationale for the creation of an International Court of Civil Justice (ICCJ) to hear such transnational mass tort cases.
Stanford Law Review: The Case for an International Court of Civil Justice
We live in a world in which the victims of cross-border mass torts de facto (not de jure) have no court to turn to in order to pursue legal action against American multinational corporations when they are responsible for disasters. The only way to provide a fair and legitimate process for both victims and corporations is to create an International Court of Civil Justice (ICCJ). This Essay seeks to start a conversation about this novel institutional solution. It lays out both a justice case, from the plaintiffs’ viewpoint, and an efficiency case, from a corporate defendant’s viewpoint, for why a world with an ICCJ would be a better place. The Essay also provides an initial blueprint for such an ICCJ. In so doing, it explains why an ICCJ is politically viable and may, specifically, appeal to rather than repel the least likely constituency: corporate America. The Essay concludes with a call for action and a research agenda.
Zombie Litigation: Claim Aggregation, Litigant Autonomy and Funders' Intermeddling
The main debate surrounding litigation funding in recent years has focused on the question of disclosure of funding agreements. While the issue is important, predominantly because of its effects on the course and outcome of individual cases, far more important are bigger, interrelated questions which have systemic effects on the civil justice system, the legal profession, and the nature of the rise of portfolio funding- which I here propose to view as a new form of undisclosed and unregulated claim aggregation- has broader-still effects including clients' potential, and at times actual, loss of autonomy over their cases as their lawyers become originators, brokers and/or managers of 'litigation assets.'