Exploring the Limits of Ukrainian Tort Law from Business and Human Rights Perspective

This paper examines the capacity of Ukrainian tort law to address business-related human rights violations, using a model case to evaluate its effectiveness. It focuses on how the legal framework responds to challenges involving corporate misconduct, particularly in scenarios where direct and indirect actors are implicated in human rights abuses. The discussion highlights four critical issues: the interplay between tort law and human rights law, liability for indirect involvement, jurisdictional challenges, and mechanisms for collective redress. The analysis reveals several systemic shortcomings in Ukrainian tort law. The concept of wrongfulness is narrowly tied to explicit statutory breaches, limiting its applicability in cases of subtle or systemic violations. Rigid causation requirements and the conflation of fault and wrongfulness further impede the effective use of tort law in addressing complex cases involving multiple actors. The framework for vicarious liability and joint infliction remains underdeveloped, posing additional barriers to holding entities accountable for indirect involvement in human rights violations. Despite these limitations, Ukrainian procedural law offers some avenues for addressing collective harms, such as the joinder of multiple claims and representation by NGOs, although the absence of a formal class action mechanism undermines litigation efficiency. Jurisdictional provisions demonstrate flexibility, accommodating cases with international elements and cross-border implications. The paper concludes that while Ukrainian tort law faces significant doctrinal and procedural challenges, these are not insurmountable. Through creative legal strategies and ongoing reforms, the framework has the potential to evolve into a more robust mechanism for addressing corporate accountability in human rights contexts.