Abstract

The paper, after outlining the non-neutral role of private international law in the strategy of exter-nalization of risks and release from civil liability put in place by transnational corporations, initially highlights the overall usefulness of art. 19 which is part of a process aimed at reversing the aforemen-tioned non-neutral role. In the following, an attempt is made to interpret the very general content of art. 19 in the light of the doctrinal debate, transnational case-law and legislative evolution. At the end of the investigation, private international law rules governing non-contractual liability are identified as a potentially useful tool for directing the private subjects of international economic relations to-wards a behavior respectful of human rights. In particular, the so-called corporate foreign direct liability makes it possible to overcome corporation’s impunity for violations of human rights by en-hancing the unifying function of lead firm governance of the value chain. Lastly, a further study of the problem is hoped, highlighting that, currently, private international law rules for torts are inade-quate to the characteristics of transnational production centered on global value chains. In this re-gard, the opportunity of introducing connecting factors and jurisdictional criteria focused on the place of adoption of the corporate policy, as the center of gravity of transnational tort litigations arising from value chain externalities, is supported. Furthermore, the adoption of conflict-of-law rules for torts that rebalance the position of the victims, by giving them the right to choose between applicable laws that the lead firm has often exercised ex ante, thanks to the outsorcing of production based on forum shopping, is also advocated