A/HRC/4/35 page 10 against their nationals; and a few rely on “universal jurisdiction” to extend their laws, regardless of nationality links.22 Again, if they also permit criminal punishment of firms, those extraterritorial provisions could be extended to corporations. 26. Apart from national incorporation of international standards, a number of legal systems are evolving independently towards greater recognition of corporate criminal liability for violations of domestic law. Most common law countries have such provisions, at least for economic and some violent crimes. Many European civil law countries have moved beyond purely administrative regulation to adopt some form of criminal responsibility for corporations. 27. In this fluid setting, simple laws of probability alone suggest that corporations will be subject to increased liability for international crimes in the future. They may face either criminal or civil liability depending on whether international standards are incorporated into a State’s criminal code or as a civil cause of action (as under the United States Alien Torts Claims Act, or ATCA). Furthermore, companies cannot be certain where claims will be brought against them or what precise standards they may be held to, because no two national jurisdictions have identical evidentiary and other procedural rules. Finally, civil proceedings may be brought for related wrongs under domestic law, such as assault or false imprisonment.23 In short, the risk environment for companies is expanding slowly but steadily, as are remedial options for victims. 28. Adding to the uncertainty for corporations, significant national variations remain in modes of attributing corporate liability. Given the difficulty of establishing a corporate “mind and will” in criminal cases, a number of jurisdictions have adopted a “corporate culture” approach. In Australia, where a firm’s culture has been deemed expressly or tacitly to permit the commission of an offence by an employee, the firm may be held liable.24 In the United States, federal sentencing guidelines take corporate culture into account in assessing monetary penalties.25 22 Of the 16 countries in the Fafo survey, 11 provide for a nationality link, 5 rely on universal jurisdiction, and several do both; 9 of these provide for some form of corporate criminal liability in their domestic laws. 23 “Note on the work of the ICJ Expert Legal Panel on Corporate Complicity in International Crimes”, 22 January 2007 (on file with the Special Representative). 24 25 See Australian Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth), sections 12.3 (2) (c) and (d). The 2005 Federal Sentencing Guidelines permit judicial consideration of whether a corporation has an “organizational culture that encourages ethical conduct and a commitment to compliance with the law” §8B2.1 (a).