Skip to main content

Home/ Can Petroleum Aid development?/ Group items tagged kiobel

Rss Feed Group items tagged

Filter: All | Bookmarks | Topics Simple Middle
Arabica Robusta

Some good background reading while waiting for the Kiobel decision - Pipe(line)Dreams - 0 views

www.pipelinedreams.org/...aiting-for-the-kiobel-decision

petroleum industry development oil international extractive transparency curse resource nigeria kiobel shell corporations corruption exploitation multinational guatemala

shared by Arabica Robusta on 10 Apr 13 - No Cached
  • Amid severe repression, nine members of the movement, including Dr Barinem Kiobel, were arrested, charged with specious crimes, tortured and summarily hanged. Dr Kiobel’s widow Esther and 11 other plaintiffs, all either victims of torture or relatives of victims residing in the US brought a class action suit in the US District Court.
  • In its defence, Shell argued that “the law of nations” does not recognise corporate liability for human rights abuses and that the ATS does not apply extraterritorially. Legal observers expect a decision in the Kiobel case at any time.
  • In justifying its position against the extraterritorial application of US laws, Shell underscored the “adverse consequences to US trade and foreign policy of a liberal expansion of private causes of action against corporations under international law”. It also posited that the costs associated with potential liability “may lead corporations to reduce their operations in the less-developed countries from which these suits tend to arise, to the detriment of citizens of those countries who benefit from foreign investment”.
  • ...4 more annotations...
  • The US is not alone in grappling with the liability of transnational corporations for human rights abuses: in path-breaking litigation, Hudbay Minerals stands accused in Canadian courts of complicity in human rights abuses in Guatemala.
  • Complicating efforts to hold transnational corporations accountable is the fact that companies often construct a series of subsidiary companies that mask their true ownership, make it hard to impost corporate liability. Imposing corporate accountability is further impeded by other factors.
  • Logistically, many countries in the Global South where many transnational corporations operate lack the institutional and judicial capacity to manage complex litigation. Moreover, subsidiary companies often funnel profits to the parent corporations, leaving them with inadequate cash reserves to satisfy legal liabilities. Lastly, as noted above, governments may be reluctant to send a message of corporate accountability because those in power are often the most direct beneficiaries of corporate activity.
  • The corporations that voluntarily adhere to principles of Corporate Social Responsibility are likely not the vociferous opponents of accountability, and are arguably at a competitive disadvantage when others are permitted to violate human rights with impunity. Given corporate complicity in egregious abuses around the world, respect for human rights should not be a function of voluntary compliance but instead a matter of enforceable legal rights. The international community must demand accountability, and reinforce and reaffirm the practices of corporations that do take seriously the impact of their behaviour. The Supreme Court’s decision in the Kiobel case should advance global justice by categorically rejecting impunity for human rights abuses in which transnational corporations are complicit.
Arabica Robusta

Kiobel Ruling Undermines U.S. Leadership on Human Rights | Human Rights First - 0 views

www.humanrightsfirst.org/...u-s-leadership-on-human-rights

petroleum industry development oil international extractive transparency curse resource nigeria us legal kiobel shell

shared by Arabica Robusta on 21 Apr 13 - No Cached
  • Human rights abusers may be rejoicing today, but this is a major setback for their victims, who often look to the United States for justice when all else fails.  Now what will they do?”
Arabica Robusta

CorpWatch : Obama Admininstration Backs Shell in Supreme Court Case - 0 views

www.corpwatch.org/article.php

petroleum industry development oil international extractive transparency curse resource nigeria shell us intervention atca

shared by Arabica Robusta on 25 Aug 12 - No Cached
  • Lawyers at EarthRights International, a Washington-based human rights law nonprofit, say they suspect that a new legal submission  - which was signed only by the U.S. Justice Department - reflects tensions inside the government on how to deal with multinational corporations do business in the U.S. Significantly, neither the State nor the Commerce Department signed on to the brief, despite their key roles in the case.
  • Filartiga v. Peña-Irala set a precedent for U.S. federal courts to punish non-U.S. citizens for acts committed outside the U.S. that violate international law or treaties to which the U.S. is a party. ATCA has brought almost 100 cases of international (often state-sanctioned) torture, rape and murder to U.S. federal courts to date.
  • No plaintiff against a corporation has won on ATCA grounds, although some have settled or plea bargained.
  • ...3 more annotations...
  • Holder isn’t the only Justice Department staffer who defended a corporation in an ATCA case. Sri Srinivasan, recently nominated for the second highest position in the Justice Department, represented Exxon Mobil in a case brought against them by Indonesian villagers who survived alleged attacks, torture and murder by Indonesian military units hired by Exxon to provide security. Lower courts disagreed on Exxon’s liability under ATCA, and in 2011 an appeals court sent the case back to trial.
  • In February the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case to determine whether or not corporations - as opposed to private parties - could be sued under the ATCA. At that time the Justice Department, submitted a “friend of the court” brief that said they could.
  • EarthRights International filed three Freedom of Information Act requests in July to look for evidence showing whether or not corporate interests and lobbying influenced the government’s decision to back Shell. “If disclosed, this information will help reveal whether or not the business interests of Attorney General Eric Holder or Deputy Solicitor General Sri Srinivasan influenced the government’s position in Kiobel,” said Kaufman.
Arabica Robusta

U.S. Supreme Court: Shell Nigeria gets a boost from Obama administration | Pipe(line)Dr... - 0 views

www.pipelinedreams.org/...oost-from-obama-administration

petroleum industry development oil international extractive transparency curse resource nigeria

shared by Arabica Robusta on 18 Jun 12 - No Cached
  • Shell had asked the U.S. Supreme Court to rule the company can’t be sued by Nigerians seeking damages for torture and murders committed by the national government in the early 1990s. With a U.S. government brief that supports Shell’s position, where does this leave Nigerians? The U.S. brief suggests that the Nigerians should seek redress in their own courts, as the human rights abuses occurred in Nigeria and not the U.S. This is a chilling message.
  • Arabica Robusta on 18 Jun 12
     
    Earlier this year, the US government argued on the side of victims of human rights abuses at the US Supreme Court. In Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum (Shell), the government argued that corporations should not be exempt from responsibility for committing human rights abuses. But when the Supreme Court ordered a rehearing in the case, and asked whether human rights lawsuits could be brought when the abuses happened outside the US, we wondered whether the Obama administration would continue to side with the victims.
1 - 5 of 5
Showing 20▼ items per page