Since the mid-1980s, U.S. and foreign parties have filed more than 100,000 lawsuits in U.S. federal courts asking for adjudication of disputes arising from transnational activity. These lawsuits raise a fundamental question of global governance: Who governs? Should the United States assert its authority to adjudicate a transnational dispute, or should it defer to the adjudicative authority of a foreign state that also has connections with the underlying activity? Should the United States assert its authority to prescribe the rules governing that activity, or should it defer to foreign prescriptive authority? U.S. district courts routinely face these questions in transnational litigation, and by answering them they help allocate governance authority among states. To shed light on the role of domestic courts in global governance, this dissertation asks: How often and under what circumstances do U.S. district courts defer to foreign authority to govern transnational activity rather than asserting domestic authority? Drawing on private international law scholarship and theories of international relations, judicial behavior, and bounded rationality, I develop a series of hypotheses about the legal and political factors that influence judicial allocation of governance authority. I then statistically test these hypotheses using original data on U.S. district court decisionmaking in two transnational litigation settings: the allocation of adjudicative authority under the forum non conveniens doctrine, and the allocation of prescriptive authority under various choice-of-law methods. Contrary to the conventional wisdom that U.S. judges are reluctant to defer to foreign authority, I find that they defer at a rate of approximately 50% in both settings. And notwithstanding claims that legal doctrine does not significantly affect judicial decisionmaking, I present evidence suggesting that the forum non conveniens doctrine and choice-of-law doctrine both influence judicial allocation of governance authority. There is evidence of both direct doctrinal effects, as contemplated by legalist theory, and indirect doctrinal effects, resulting from the use of judicial heuristics which allow judges to conserve scarce decisionmaking resources while making decisions that achieve acceptable levels of legal quality. Significant political factors include whether the foreign state is a liberal democracy, the domestic political environment, and U.S. parties' preferences. / Dissertation

Alors que la question de la responsabilité juridique des entreprises multinationales (EMNs) est sujette à de nombreuses controverses sur la sphère internationale, les victimes collatérales et directes des activités des EMNs sont engagées dans une tout autre bataille. En effet, de quels recours disposent les victimes de pollution environnementale causée par les activités d’une entreprise minière, ou les employés victimes de violations des droits fondamentaux du travail au sein d’une chaîne de production par les sous-traitants d’une très respectable EMN? Telles sont les interrogations animant la présente étude qui se focalise essentiellement sur la mise en oeuvre du droit à la réparation consacrée par le troisième pilier des Principes directeurs adoptés par l’ONU en 2011. Retraçant les fondements du droit à la réparation en droit international, elle met en évidence l’impossibilité de poursuivre les EMNs devant les instances internationales du fait de l’irresponsabilité juridique internationale découlant du statut actuel des EMNS. En l’absence de législation extraterritoriale et d’harmonisation juridique au niveau régional, l’analyse aborde ainsi en profondeur les opportunités et les limites de la mise en oeuvre du droit à réparation devant les instances judiciaires nationales les plus courues du moment par les victimes qui cherchent à obtenir des réparations pour les violations des droits humains par les EMNs. Si les obstacles rencontrés par les victimes devant le prétoire américain n’ont eu de cesse de se multiplier ces dernières années, l’émergence d’un principe de diligence raisonnable sous-tendant l’idée d’une responsabilité civile des EMNS devant le juge européen et canadien peut offrir une base adéquate pour asseoir l’encadrement d’un droit à réparation par les acteurs transnationaux à l’échelle locale. Les Principes directeurs privilégiant également l’implication des EMNs dans la mise en oeuvre du droit à réparation, la recherche se clôt avec l’étude du cas pratique de la réponse apportée par les EMNs aux victimes bangladaises de la tragédie du Rana Plaza survenue en 2013 à Dacca. L’analyse permet ainsi de conclure que de ce combat aux allures de David contre Goliath opposant les EMNs à leurs victimes, il est impératif que les mécanismes judiciaires nationaux soient renforcés et que l’encadrement juridique de la responsabilité internationale des EMNs sorte enfin des sentiers battus afin de remédier à l’asymétrie causée par la poursuite des intérêts économiques sur la protection effective des droits humains. / While the legal issue of multinational companies (MNCs) liability is subject to a large controversy in the international sphere, the collateral and direct victims of the MNCs’ activities are engaged in a different battle. Indeed, what remedies are available to victims of environmental pollution caused by a mining company, or employees who are victims of human rights violations of labour within a production chain managed by the subcontractors of a very respectable MNC? These are the mains questions of this study which focuses primarily on the implementation of the right to remedy enshrined in the third pillar of the UN Guidelines adopted in 2011. Tracing the foundations of the right to remedy under international law, it highlights the impossibility to prosecute MNCs in international forums due to the international legal irresponsibility resulting from the current status of MNCs. In the absence of extraterritorial legislation and legal harmonization at the regional level, the analysis proposes an in depth discussion of the opportunities and limitations of the implementation of the right to remedy in the main national courts used by victims seeking redress for human rights violations committed by MNCs. If the barriers faced by victims before the American courts have not ceased to grow in recent years, the emergence of due diligence obligation behind the idea of a civil liability of MNCs presented before European judges can provide an adequate basis to establish the framework of a right to compensation by transnational actors at the local level. As the Guidelines also emphasize the involvement of MNCs in the implementation of the right to compensation, the study concludes with the practical case study of the response give by MNCs to the Bangladeshi victims of the 2013 Rana Plaza tragedy that occurred in Dhaka. The analysis allows to conclude that this struggle between MNCs and their victims is similar to the battle between David and Goliath. It is thus imperative to strengthen national judicial mechanisms and ensure that the legal framework for the international responsibility of MNCs finally gets out of the beaten tracks to address the asymmetry between the pursuit of economic interests and the effective protection of human rights.