corporate personhood around the world
January 22, 2010 7:15 PM Subscribe
The story of how Corporations became legal people using the 14th amendment is pretty famous. But that's a US phenomenon. How did it work out in other countries? Are corporations legal people in the UK, France, Germany, Japan, Canada, Australia etc?
I'm wondering because people are suggesting this Supreme Court decision was a huge mistake... but as far as I can see, there's not that much of a qualitative difference in corporate power in America verses other developed countries.
I'm wondering because people are suggesting this Supreme Court decision was a huge mistake... but as far as I can see, there's not that much of a qualitative difference in corporate power in America verses other developed countries.
Are corporations legal people in the UK, France, Germany, Japan, Canada, Australia etc?
Just to make an important point here: the French, German and Japanese legal systems are not based on English common law, but the English, Canadian, Australian, and American ones are...
posted by dfriedman at 8:25 PM on January 22, 2010
Just to make an important point here: the French, German and Japanese legal systems are not based on English common law, but the English, Canadian, Australian, and American ones are...
posted by dfriedman at 8:25 PM on January 22, 2010
but the English, Canadian, Australian, and American ones are...
True, though the split between English and American common law predated modern company law, which was, as Pinback notes, was created to reflect the economic transformation of the Industrial Revolution.
The jurisprudential (and political) issue isn't so much the existence of corporate persons as distinct legal entities; it's which rights accorded to natural persons extend to them.
posted by holgate at 8:34 PM on January 22, 2010
True, though the split between English and American common law predated modern company law, which was, as Pinback notes, was created to reflect the economic transformation of the Industrial Revolution.
The jurisprudential (and political) issue isn't so much the existence of corporate persons as distinct legal entities; it's which rights accorded to natural persons extend to them.
posted by holgate at 8:34 PM on January 22, 2010
The word "incorporation" comes from the root 'corpus' which means body. To a certain extent corporations have always been people, mainly for the purpose of entering into contracts. The decision you're referring to suggests these legal bodies have rights in the freedom of speech sense.
posted by pwnguin at 8:59 PM on January 22, 2010
posted by pwnguin at 8:59 PM on January 22, 2010
Take into account though that the absolute primacy of the constitution is a uniquely American phenomenon. Corporations in most countries have the rights that they do solely due to statute law, so the recognition of corporate personhood doesn't necessarily have any of the same consequences that it does in the USA.
posted by atrazine at 1:13 AM on January 23, 2010
posted by atrazine at 1:13 AM on January 23, 2010
Take into account though that the absolute primacy of the constitution is a uniquely American phenomenon
Not that I believe it has anything to do with the discussion of corporate 'personhood', but as an Australian, let me assure you that this is not the case.
posted by pompomtom at 3:11 AM on January 23, 2010 [2 favorites]
Not that I believe it has anything to do with the discussion of corporate 'personhood', but as an Australian, let me assure you that this is not the case.
posted by pompomtom at 3:11 AM on January 23, 2010 [2 favorites]
Take into account though that the absolute primacy of the constitution is a uniquely American phenomenon.
Wikipedia's description of the Australian Constitution: "The Constitution of Australia is the supreme law under which the Australian Commonwealth Government operates."
The primacy accorded the Australian Constitution doesn't sound that different from the primacy accorded the American one. It may be that other country's constitutions are similarly placed.
posted by dfriedman at 4:56 AM on January 23, 2010
Wikipedia's description of the Australian Constitution: "The Constitution of Australia is the supreme law under which the Australian Commonwealth Government operates."
The primacy accorded the Australian Constitution doesn't sound that different from the primacy accorded the American one. It may be that other country's constitutions are similarly placed.
posted by dfriedman at 4:56 AM on January 23, 2010
You might have a look at the book Unequal Protection: The Rise of Corporate Dominance and the Theft of Human Rights by Thom Hartmann (author of the great book Last Hours of Ancient Sunlight ). Although focused primarily on the US, the depth of research is good. (Note: An updated edition is due June 2010.)
posted by fairmettle at 5:08 AM on January 23, 2010
posted by fairmettle at 5:08 AM on January 23, 2010
Joel Bakan's The Corporation includes a good overview of the history of companies and how companies came to acquire separate legal personality.
In England, at least, the concept was cemented by the House of Lords' judgment in the landmark case of Salomon v Salomon [1897] AC 22, and then spread throughout the Commonwealth nations.
I've not read The Company: A Short History of a Revolutionary Idea, but it looks like a good book to read on the subject.
posted by hellopanda at 8:51 AM on January 23, 2010
In England, at least, the concept was cemented by the House of Lords' judgment in the landmark case of Salomon v Salomon [1897] AC 22, and then spread throughout the Commonwealth nations.
I've not read The Company: A Short History of a Revolutionary Idea, but it looks like a good book to read on the subject.
posted by hellopanda at 8:51 AM on January 23, 2010
I think the point is not that companies have a separate legal personality, which is pretty universal, but that in the U.S. they have all the rights of a natural person, which strikes me and many others as very odd. This is an interesting question, and if anyone can give a brief summary of what's said about it in those books I'll never read, I'd be grateful.
posted by languagehat at 1:55 PM on January 23, 2010
posted by languagehat at 1:55 PM on January 23, 2010
The primacy accorded the Australian Constitution doesn't sound that different from the primacy accorded the American one. It may be that other country's constitutions are similarly placed.
Most often they are not, though I stand corrected when it comes to Australia. My own experience in Europe is that judical review of primary legislation is extremely rare, and certainly does not match the scope of what happens in the US. Certainly European supreme courts do not tend to discover new rights. This means that a court in most European countries would never come to the conclusion that a corporation had certain rights as a person.
posted by atrazine at 4:41 AM on January 24, 2010
Most often they are not, though I stand corrected when it comes to Australia. My own experience in Europe is that judical review of primary legislation is extremely rare, and certainly does not match the scope of what happens in the US. Certainly European supreme courts do not tend to discover new rights. This means that a court in most European countries would never come to the conclusion that a corporation had certain rights as a person.
posted by atrazine at 4:41 AM on January 24, 2010
This thread is closed to new comments.
In fact, the US is the odd one out here - having sort of missed its introduction in the UK due to timing & the War of Independence, the concept wasn't established in law or the Constitution until 50~100 years after England had already codifed the concept.
posted by Pinback at 8:04 PM on January 22, 2010