Send a Tweet
Most Popular Choices
Share on Facebook 2 Share on Twitter Share on LinkedIn Share on Reddit Tell A Friend Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite View Favorites
OpEdNews Op Eds


By       Message Kevin Anthony Stoda       (Page 1 of 1 pages)     Permalink    (# of views)   9 comments

Related Topic(s): ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; , Add Tags
Add to My Group(s)

View Ratings | Rate It Headlined to H3 10/1/10

Author 5798
Become a Fan
  (9 fans)
- Advertisement -
"So long as they incorporate, businesses will now be free to trade in or exploit slaves, employ mercenary armies to do dirty work for despots, perform genocides or operate torture prisons for a despot's political opponents, or engage in piracy--all without civil liability to victims." This statement came from Judge Pierre Leval in his dissention to his own Second U.S. Court's decision on a case against Royal Dutch Shell in relationship to the murder and torture of many Nigerian activists over the past decades.

The decision was shared on Democracy Now yesterday but the case has already been discussed for several weeks on the internet. See an example of legal specialists' skewed discussions here:

Court Exempts Corporations from Alien Tort Law

"A federal appeals court has ruled US corporations can no longer be sued for human rights violations abroad under the longstanding Alien Tort Statute. Earlier this month, the Second US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Alien tort claims can only be brought against individuals, not corporations. The ruling dismissed a lawsuit accusing the oil giant Royal Dutch Shell of complicity in the murder and torture of Nigerian activists including Ken Saro-Wiwa. In a separate opinion, Second Circuit Judge Pierre Leval criticized the ruling, writing, "The majority opinion deals a substantial blow to international law and its undertaking to protect fundamental human rights" So long as they incorporate, businesses will now be free to trade in or exploit slaves, employ mercenary armies to do dirty work for despots, perform genocides or operate torture prisons for a despot's political opponents, or engage in piracy--all without civil liability to victims.'"

The reasons for the second circuit's negative decision in reviewing the Alien Torts statues in America are supposedly:

"(1) International Law governs the scope of liability for violations of international law, hence the question of whether a corporation is liable for violating international law is itself governed by international law."

- Advertisement -

"(2) Under Supreme Court precedent, the Alien Tort Statute requires courts to apply norms of international law, and not domestic law, to the scope of defendants' liabilities. Such norms must be "specific, universal, and obligatory.'

"(3) Under international law, corporations are not liable for violations, and any such norm of corporate liability is far from "specific, universal, and obligatory.'"

On the other hand, what the Second Court has ignored (and what many legal eagles fail to note) is that this issue dates back to 1789 US legislation, called the Alien Torts Statute. The ATS law apparently came into being after Europeans in America were initially unable to seek resort to American courts when beaten up, attacked or robbed-of-moneys-owed-them by Americans and American states.

- Advertisement -

The Supreme Court has supported the ATS on at least 2 occasions in the past few decades.

"In 1980 . . . the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit decided Filartiga v. Pena-Irala, which "paved the way for a new conceptualization of the ATS.' First, the Second Circuit held in Filartiga that the ATS, which allowed jurisdiction in the federal courts over a suit between two aliens, was constitutional, because "the law of nations...has always been part of the federal common law,' and thus the statute fell within federal-question jurisdiction. Filartiga then held that violations of contemporary international norms, including violations of modern international human rights, are actionable under the ATS."

"Since Filartiga, jurisdiction under the ATS has been upheld in dozens of cases. The only United States Supreme Court case directly addressing the ATS is the 2004 case Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain. The Sosa Court clarified that the ATS did not create a cause of action, but instead merely "furnish[ed] jurisdiction for a relatively modest set of actions alleging violations of the law of nations.' Noting that it must take "great caution in adapting the law of nations to private rights," the Court nonetheless upheld the applicability of the ATS to actions committed abroad that violate contemporary customary international law, but held that the recognition of new causes of action should be subject to "vigilant doorkeeping.'"


- Advertisement -

View Ratings | Rate It

KEVIN STODA-has been blessed to have either traveled in or worked in nearly 100 countries on five continents over the past two and a half decades.--He sees himself as a peace educator and have been-- a promoter of good economic and social development--making-him an enemy of my homelands humongous DEFENSE SPENDING and its focus on using weapons to try and solve global (more...)

Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon Share Author on Social Media   Go To Commenting

The views expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Writers Guidelines

Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

BED-INs and Other Protests Needed Now

GULF CIVIL SOCIETY FORUM calls for Gulf Monarchies to abandon absolutism and to adopt European-style Parliaments


A WORLD OF PRETENDERS: Partial Review of the Filipino Novel, THE PRETENDERS by F. Sionil Jose

PHILIPP ROESLER, of Vietnamese Descent. to Head the Health Ministry in Germany, as his own Party Plans to Push for more

Mitigation of Tsunami's and Earthquakes--Has JAPAN DONE ENOUGH?