Flores v. Southern Peru Copper Corp.
414 F.3d 233 (2003)
Rule of Law:
For a tort to be actionable under the Alien Tort Claims Act as a violation of the law of nations, it must violate a norm of customary international law that is clear, specific, universally recognized, and based on the practices of states acting out of a sense of mutual legal obligation. Vague, aspirational principles, such as a general "right to life" or "right to health," are insufficiently definite to constitute such a norm.
Facts:
- Since 1960, Southern Peru Copper Corporation (SPCC), a U.S. corporation, has operated copper mining, refining, and smelting facilities in and around Ilo, Peru.
- These operations emitted large quantities of sulfur dioxide and fine particles of heavy metals into the local air and water.
- Rodolfo Ullonoa Flores and other residents of Ilo, Peru, alleged that these emissions caused them or their deceased family members to suffer from severe lung and respiratory illnesses.
- The government of Peru regulated SPCC's operations, conducted environmental reviews, and imposed fines and restitution requirements for environmental damage.
- Peru's Ministry of Energy and Mines required SPCC to conduct environmental impact studies and meet emission levels set by Peruvian environmental laws.
Procedural Posture:
- Rodolfo Ullonoa Flores and other Peruvian residents filed a lawsuit against Southern Peru Copper Corporation (SPCC) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York under the Alien Tort Claims Act.
- SPCC filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim, arguing that the alleged pollution did not violate the law of nations.
- The District Court granted SPCC's motion to dismiss, holding that the plaintiffs had failed to allege a violation of any cognizable principle of customary international law.
- The District Court also issued an alternative holding that the case would be dismissed on grounds of forum non conveniens.
- Flores and the other plaintiffs (appellants) appealed the District Court's dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does severe, intranational environmental pollution that allegedly causes personal injury violate a well-established, universally recognized norm of customary international law, such as the 'right to life' or 'right to health,' giving rise to a claim under the Alien Tort Claims Act?
Opinions:
Majority - Cabranes, J.
No, severe intranational environmental pollution does not violate a well-established norm of customary international law actionable under the Alien Tort Claims Act (ATCA). Customary international law is composed only of those clear and unambiguous rules that states universally abide by out of a sense of legal obligation and mutual concern, not several, domestic concern. The asserted 'right to life' and 'right to health' are vague, aspirational principles, not specific and universally-accepted legal norms. The sources plaintiffs presented, including non-binding UN declarations, unratified treaties, and academic affidavits, fail to demonstrate that intranational pollution is a universally proscribed wrong that states consider a violation of binding international law. To be actionable, a norm must be specific and universally obligatory, a standard which pollution, unlike acts such as official torture or genocide, does not meet.
Analysis:
This decision significantly constrains the scope of the Alien Tort Claims Act (ATCA) by establishing a high and rigorous standard for what constitutes a violation of customary international law. The court's rejection of vague, aspirational rights and its strict reliance on concrete state practice and legal obligation makes it much more difficult to bring novel human rights claims, particularly those involving environmental torts by corporations. This ruling emphasizes judicial restraint in defining international law, signaling that federal courts should not recognize new international norms based on academic theories or non-binding declarations. It solidifies a more conservative interpretation of the ATCA, focusing on a narrow list of historically recognized violations like piracy and genocide, and pushing back against its expansion into new areas of international concern.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Flores v. Southern Peru Copper Corp. (2003)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"