The Second Circuit Establishes the Non-Applicability of the Alien Tort Statute to Corporations for Customary International Law Violations

The Second Circuit Establishes the Non-Applicability of the Alien Tort Statute to Corporations for Customary International Law Violations

Introduction

In the landmark case of Esther Kiobel, indi v. Royal Dutch Petroleum, et al., decided on September 17, 2010, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit addressed a pivotal question concerning the jurisdictional reach of the Alien Tort Statute (ATS). Plaintiffs, residents of the Ogoni region in Nigeria, alleged that Royal Dutch Petroleum and its subsidiary, Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria (SPDC), aided and abetted the Nigerian government in committing egregious human rights abuses against the Ogoni people. The core issue revolved around whether the ATS allows corporations to be held liable for violations of customary international law, particularly crimes such as genocide, torture, and crimes against humanity.

Summary of the Judgment

The Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiffs' claims against the corporate defendants. The court held that the ATS does not provide jurisdiction over civil actions against corporations for violations of customary international law. The decision rested on the principle that customary international law, which the ATS invokes, recognizes liability for violations only against natural persons, not juridical entities like corporations. Thus, plaintiffs seeking remedies under the ATS must sue individuals who directly committed the violations, not the corporate entities themselves.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively referenced several key cases and legal principles that have shaped ATS jurisprudence:

These precedents collectively established that while the ATS allows for lawsuits against individuals for international law violations, it does not extend to corporations, as they are not recognized as direct perpetrators under customary international law.

Legal Reasoning

The court's reasoning was grounded in the nature of customary international law and the historical application of the ATS. It emphasized that customary international law identifies "hostis humani generis" (enemies of all mankind) as individuals, not corporations, who can be held liable for severe violations like genocide and torture. The ATS, drawing from this body of law, thus inherits the limitation of targeting natural persons. The court also highlighted that international tribunals have never imposed liability on corporations for such violations, reinforcing the principle that the ATS is not a tool for corporate accountability in this context.

Impact

This judgment has profound implications for future litigation involving corporations accused of human rights violations. By affirming that the ATS does not cover corporate defendants, the ruling narrows the scope of plaintiffs' ability to seek redress under this statute. Consequently, victims of corporate-facilitated abuses must pursue remedies through other legal avenues, potentially involving domestic laws or international treaties that may have different provisions regarding corporate liability.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Alien Tort Statute (ATS)

The ATS, codified at 28 U.S.C. § 1350, is a U.S. federal law that grants jurisdiction to U.S. courts over civil actions filed by foreign nationals for torts committed in violation of international law. It is historically significant as one of the earliest statutes recognizing international human rights violations within the U.S. legal framework.

Customary International Law

Customary international law consists of practices and norms that have become accepted as legal obligations by states over time, even in the absence of written treaties. It plays a crucial role in shaping international standards and expectations.

Hostis Humani Generis

A Latin term meaning "enemy of all mankind," it refers to individuals who commit crimes so severe and universally condemned (e.g., piracy, genocide) that they can be prosecuted by any state, irrespective of where the crime occurred or the nationality of the perpetrators.

Vicarious Liability

A legal principle where one party is held liable for the actions of another, typically used to hold employers accountable for the misconduct of their employees conducted within the scope of employment.

Conclusion

The Second Circuit's decision in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum sets a clear precedent limiting the application of the Alien Tort Statute to natural persons rather than corporations. This ruling underscores the court's adherence to the boundaries of customary international law, reinforcing that corporate entities do not bear direct liability under the ATS for international law violations. The judgment necessitates that victims of corporate-facilitated abuses seek alternative legal remedies, shaping the landscape of international human rights litigation by narrowing the pathways through which corporate actors can be held accountable in U.S. courts.

Case Details

Year: 2010
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Judge(s)

Jose Alberto CabranesPierre Nelson Leval

Attorney(S)

Paul L. Hoffman, Schonbrun DeSimone Seplow Harris Hoffman, LLP, Venice, CA (Stephen A. Whinston, Carey R. D'Avino, Keino R. Robinson, Berger Montague, P.C., Philadelphia, PA, on the brief), for Plaintiffs-Appellants-Cross-Appellees. Rowan D. Wilson (Rory O. Millson, Thomas G. Rafferty, Michael T. Reynolds, on the brief), Cravath, Swaine Moore LLP, New York, NY, for Defendants-Appellees-Cross-Appellants. Jeffrey J. Keyes, Briggs and Morgan, P.A., Minneapolis, MN (Mark Girouard, Halleland Lewis Nilan Johnson, Minneapolis, MN, on the brief), for amici curiae International Law Professors in support of Plaintiffs-Appellants. Naomi Roht-Arriaza, San Francisco, CA, for amici curiae International Law Scholars Cherif Bassiouni, et al. in support of Plaintiffs-Appellants. Judith Brown Chomsky (Jennifer M. Green, on the brief), Center for Constitutional Rights, New York, NY (Marcos Simons, Richard Herz, Earthrights International, Washington, DC, on the brief), for amici curiae Wiwa Plaintiffs in support of Plaintiffs-Appellants. William Aceves, California Western School of Law, San Diego, CA, for amici curiae International Law Scholars in support of Plaintiffs-Appellants.

Comments