Putting the "Corporate" Back into Corporate Personhood.

The Supreme Court has been wrestling with the doctrinal premises of corporate personhood on several occasions in recent years. The Court follows a long history of jurisprudence that has been criticized as cryptic or nebulous at best by many scholars. Especially since the recent economic crisis, the doctrine of corporate personhood has had polarizing effects on the public debate about the role of corporations in society. At a policy level, the debate revolves around questions about the scope of regulatory reach of the state over business; at a sociological level, the issue presents itself as an oxymoron, whether "corporations have human rights, " as the Wall Street Journal postulated. The article provides an important insight into what is wrong with the majority opinion in Citizens United. The paper argues that corporate legal theory (about the nature of the jirm) should inform the debate on corporate constitutional rights in order to avoid intra-corporate conflicts with competing interests of shareholders and-- depending on the prevailing corporate theory in a national context--its other stakeholders. In essence, we should put the "corporate" back into corporate personhood. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Northwestern Journal of International Law & Business is the property of Northwestern University School of Law and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)