Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co.
621 F.3d 111 (2010)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Alien Tort Statute does not confer subject matter jurisdiction over civil actions brought against corporations, because the customary international law of human rights does not recognize corporate liability for violations of its norms.
Facts:
- Royal Dutch Petroleum Company and Shell Transport and Trading Company PLC (Shell), through their Nigerian subsidiary SPDC, engaged in oil exploration in the Ogoni region of Nigeria starting in 1958.
- In response to SPDC's activities, Ogoni residents organized the 'Movement for Survival of Ogoni People' (MOSOP) to protest the environmental effects of the oil exploration.
- In 1993, Shell allegedly enlisted the aid of the Nigerian government to suppress the Ogoni resistance to its oil operations.
- Throughout 1993 and 1994, Nigerian military forces are alleged to have shot, killed, beaten, raped, and arrested Ogoni residents, as well as destroyed or looted their property.
- The plaintiffs allege that Shell aided and abetted these actions by providing transportation to Nigerian forces, allowing its property to be used as a staging ground for attacks, providing food for soldiers, and compensating those soldiers.
Procedural Posture:
- Residents of Nigeria filed a putative class action complaint against Royal Dutch Petroleum Company and Shell Transport and Trading Company PLC in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
- The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing it failed to state a claim under the standards set by the Supreme Court in Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain.
- The District Court granted the motion to dismiss in part, but denied it with respect to the claims for aiding and abetting arbitrary arrest and detention, crimes against humanity, and torture.
- Recognizing the importance of the issues, the District Court certified its entire order for an interlocutory appeal.
- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit granted both parties' petitions to hear the interlocutory appeal.
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 the jurisdiction granted by the Alien Tort Statute extend to civil actions brought against corporations for violations of the law of nations?
Opinions:
Majority - Cabranes, J.
No, the jurisdiction granted by the Alien Tort Statute (ATS) does not extend to civil actions brought against corporations for violations of the law of nations. The ATS provides jurisdiction only over torts committed in violation of the law of nations, also known as customary international law. Therefore, whether a defendant is liable under the ATS depends entirely on whether that defendant is subject to liability under customary international law. An examination of the sources of international law—including the Nuremberg trials, the charters for the International Criminal Tribunals for Yugoslavia and Rwanda, and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court—reveals that liability for violations of human rights has been consistently limited to natural persons, not juridical persons like corporations. The Nuremberg tribunal famously stated, 'Crimes against international law are committed by men, not by abstract entities.' Because customary international law has steadfastly rejected the notion of corporate liability, there is no international norm for a U.S. court to enforce against a corporation under the ATS, and such claims must be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Concurring - Leval, J.
Although the complaint should be dismissed, the majority's reasoning is incorrect and creates a dangerous rule that shields corporations from liability for heinous human rights abuses. The majority's conclusion that international law immunizes corporations from liability is illogical and unsupported by precedent. International law establishes norms of prohibited conduct (like genocide or slavery) but generally leaves the method of enforcement, including the availability of civil remedies, to individual nations. The United States, through the ATS, has chosen to provide a civil remedy for violations of these norms, and there is no principle in international or domestic law that distinguishes between natural persons and corporations for this purpose. The correct reason to dismiss this case is that the plaintiffs failed to plead specific facts supporting a plausible inference that Shell acted with the purpose of bringing about the alleged human rights abuses, as required for aiding and abetting liability, rather than merely knowing such abuses might occur while seeking protection for its business operations.
Analysis:
This decision established a bright-line rule in the Second Circuit that corporations are categorically immune from suit under the Alien Tort Statute. By grounding its holding in the lack of an affirmative norm of corporate liability in customary international law, the court significantly narrowed the scope of the ATS, which had previously been a primary vehicle for human rights litigation against multinational corporations in U.S. courts. This ruling created a circuit split and forced future plaintiffs to pursue claims against individual corporate officers or employees, a much more difficult undertaking, rather than against the corporate entity that may have profited from the alleged abuses. The Supreme Court would later take up this exact issue.
Unlock the full brief for Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co.