America's path to curbing
corporate abuse abroad
LINCOLN CAPLAN
, IHT, March 6, 2012 Tuesday
ABSTRACT
The
need to hold multinational corporations accountable for human rights violations
abroad is more urgent than ever.
FULL TEXT
Should
foreigners be allowed to use American courts to sue foreign corporations for
human rights atrocities committed abroad?
The
Supreme Court heard arguments last week on this question in a case brought by
Nigerian citizens against the Royal Dutch Petroleum Company and other firms,
charging gross violations of human rights in Nigeria. Four conservative
justices expressed skepticism about the federal courts having the reach to deal
with such disputes.
But
an arcane 1789 law, called the Alien Tort Statute, permits just such lawsuits
to be heard in federal courts if brought against individual defendants. The
same should hold true for corporations accused of such offenses abroad,
provided they have contact with the United States, say, by selling products
there. In a world where multinational corporations are primary actors, the need
for a way to hold them accountable for extreme abuses is more urgent than ever.
When corporations do business in America, they have to operate under American
law. Providing a forum for victims seeking justice against corporate bad actors
is appropriate to America's history and role in the international community.
The
aim of the statute - which allows suits for ''any civil action by an alien for
a tort only, committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the
United States'' - was to help enhance this role. The law was passed as part of
the new nation's efforts to show the world respect for the law of nations by
opening its courts to foreign claimants. The statute lay dormant for 170 years,
but the principle is just as important today.
It
was not until 1980 that the law was unearthed and employed in a watershed case
that led to a $10.4 million judgment against a former official of Paraguay (who
was visiting the United States) for the torture and murder of a young man in
Paraguay. Since then, federal courts have heard over a hundred cases brought by
foreign nationals against foreign individuals, and since 1997, against
corporations as well.
Human
rights lawyers realized that suing only individuals was often inadequate
because multinational firms were among those violating international law.
Offenses growing out of companies' operations (for example, the brutal use of
forced labor) contributed to their profits, so it made sense to seek damages
from them for ill-gotten gains.
It
was not until 2004 that the Supreme Court took up a case applying this law. In
a 6-to-3 ruling, it confirmed that the law allows foreigners to sue for
violations of a limited category of universally accepted rights. It also held
that those rights and violations should reflect the law when a case is brought.
In
1789, the violations concerned piracy, mistreatment of ambassadors and
violations of safe passage. Today, federal courts have found that such
violations include torture, genocide, slavery and other crimes against
humanity.
The
statute does not explicitly say who can be sued. But even in 1789, corporations
could be sued for damages for their actions and those of their employees. Under
American law, corporations are granted rights like the ability to shield their
investors from liability, and in exchange, they are legally accountable for
wrongdoing.
Four
federal appeals courts have ruled since 2005 that corporations can be held
liable under the Alien Tort Statute. Only the Second Circuit Court of Appeals,
in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum, the case now before the Supreme Court, has
rejected that concept on grounds that international tribunals have not held
corporations liable for human rights violations.
The
Nigerian plaintiffs are seeking monetary damages for a brutal campaign in the
mid-1990s by three oil companies and the military dictatorship in Nigeria to
silence protesters against environmental damage caused by oil operations.
Scores were allegedly killed. Many others, including the plaintiffs, said they were
captured and beaten. The conduct alleged includes torture, crimes against
humanity and executions.
Royal
Dutch Petroleum argues that the Supreme Court must look to the law of nations
on the question of corporate liability and that no such provision exists in
international law. It also contends that finding liability could create international
tension.
That
stance is wrong on law and policy. International law defines the violations,
but enforcement is up to each nation's domestic law, and under American law,
corporations have been subject to suits for centuries. Worries about international
repercussions are also overblown. As the Supreme Court decided in 2004, the
statute applies only to the most abhorrent conduct, and federal courts have
carefully rejected suits for infringing on American foreign policy-making as
well as for evidentiary reasons.
There
is no good justification for a categorical rule against corporate liability. As
the economist Joseph Stiglitz said in an amicus brief, these lawsuits can be an
efficient way to enforce human rights in countries where court systems and
other means of policing violations are ineffective. Potential civil liability
gives corporations an incentive to improve their conduct. If a multinational
company commits an offense like torture, the fact that it is a corporation and
not an individual is immaterial in the pursuit of justice.
