The UK civil service is generally literate, and has been following corporate heirarchies longer than the US has existed. Finding the CEO of a publicly held multinational corporation is not difficult.
> Shouldn't they be dealing with Facebook UK ceo?
Facebook UK doesn't seem to be the source of the issue they are concerned with.
> Zuckerberg is a private US citizen as far as UK is concerned, no?
And...so, what? While the UK Parliament may not have legal authority to issue compulsory summons in this case [0], that's not what they’ve done. They’ve asked him to testify, not issued notional compulsory demand. (The US Congress has occasionally done the same thing in the past to foreign CEOs.)
Of course, there is the implicit threat that if their concerns aren't allayed, there may be legislative actions directed at curbing the capacity of Facebook to undertake actions which raise similar concerns in the future.
> Facebook UK is the only entity UK law should know of
This is simply wrong. UK law needs to be cognizant of not only the officers but also the owners of Facebook UK, Ltd., and Facebook, Inc., is the dominant owner of Facebook, UK Ltd.
And, Facebook, Inc. not being a natural person, UK law and government needs to be cognizant of the officers, etc., of that firm, as well. It simply is not the case that foreign persons and entities are non-existent from the perspective of the law of the UK (or any other nation, generally.)
Heck, the US not only criminally indicts foreign citizens for violations of US domestic law outside of the US, it has used that as the basis for armed invasions (see, notably, the case of Manuel Noriega.) The UK merely inviting a foreign CEO to a parliamentary inquiry is comparatively routine.
[0] well, okay, they actually do, because parliamentary sovereignty, but they may lack practical enforcement powers.
IANAL, but I'm curious - Can Parliament issue a Crown Court Bench Warrant compelling a non-UK subject to appear? And if that gets ignored, presumably the person can't ever enter the country unless it's to respond to the warrant. But what about a Commonwealth Nation - would that person have to avoid entering Canada?
It's incredibly rare that warrants are issued at all; since the late 18th century, it's a Speaker's Warrant that's used (and enforced by the Serjeant-at-Arms of the House; prior to that no warrant was needed at all). They are formally issued by the House, and not Parliament as a whole.
Non-subjects can be compelled, most recently Rupert Murdoch in 2011 (wrt the News International wiretapping scandal), which along with his son James was AFAIK the last time a Speaker's Warrant to summon witnesses was issued.
There's nothing to stop a person who has been summoned from entering the country. Unlike an arrest warrant, the Speaker's warrant is more 'bark' without 'bite'. Because the coercive powers of Parliament are seldom used, it's unclear just where those powers derive from or how they can be practicably exercised and enforced.
As for Commonwealth countries... they have judiciaries independent* of the UK. If the subject was to visit an EU member state, the execution of a European Arrest Warrant would be a more feasible possibility, although I would think it's fairly remote (I mention it to put the Commonwealth point into perspective).
*Some Commonwealth realms (two or three, off the top of my head?) retain the Privy Council as part of their constitutional and judicial arrangements.
The UK civil service is generally literate, and has been following corporate heirarchies longer than the US has existed. Finding the CEO of a publicly held multinational corporation is not difficult.
> Shouldn't they be dealing with Facebook UK ceo?
Facebook UK doesn't seem to be the source of the issue they are concerned with.
> Zuckerberg is a private US citizen as far as UK is concerned, no?
And...so, what? While the UK Parliament may not have legal authority to issue compulsory summons in this case [0], that's not what they’ve done. They’ve asked him to testify, not issued notional compulsory demand. (The US Congress has occasionally done the same thing in the past to foreign CEOs.)
Of course, there is the implicit threat that if their concerns aren't allayed, there may be legislative actions directed at curbing the capacity of Facebook to undertake actions which raise similar concerns in the future.
> Facebook UK is the only entity UK law should know of
This is simply wrong. UK law needs to be cognizant of not only the officers but also the owners of Facebook UK, Ltd., and Facebook, Inc., is the dominant owner of Facebook, UK Ltd.
And, Facebook, Inc. not being a natural person, UK law and government needs to be cognizant of the officers, etc., of that firm, as well. It simply is not the case that foreign persons and entities are non-existent from the perspective of the law of the UK (or any other nation, generally.)
Heck, the US not only criminally indicts foreign citizens for violations of US domestic law outside of the US, it has used that as the basis for armed invasions (see, notably, the case of Manuel Noriega.) The UK merely inviting a foreign CEO to a parliamentary inquiry is comparatively routine.
[0] well, okay, they actually do, because parliamentary sovereignty, but they may lack practical enforcement powers.