In this Fox News article, the Supreme Court will, through judicial review, more exactly define what a corporation is as regards human rights issues. In question is the 223 year old Alien Tort Act. Cases have been successfully argued using this law against individual perpetrators of human rights crimes, but can multinational corporations be held similarly accountable if they are doing business where the atrocities occur and are complicit in such crimes? Such is the case with Royal Dutch Shell which, it is claimed, in protection of its interests, was complicit in Nigerian government crimes against its people which culminated in the brutal hanging of 9 activists, including author Saro-Wiwa.
Corporations are lucrative targets of such claims, but he question still remains as to whether they cannot be considered individuals for the sake of human rights violations, but yet are considered individuals (based on the 2010 ruling in the Citizens United Supreme Court case) for the sake of influencing elections through expenditures and voicing support. The court must deliberate and rule on this potential paradox.
The Supreme Court in 2004 guardedly endorsed some usage of the Alien Tort Act to hold corporations accountable in this way, but the outcome of this case will be much more definitive due to the appeal by the multinational Rio Tinto, which argues that the 1789 law was never intended to apply to a foreign government within its borders against it people. If that appeal is won then all cases under this law pertaining to corporations will be wiped out.
The Torture Victim Protection Act of 1992, also pertains to human rights crimes, but in the case being argued here is specific to those atrocities perpetrated by a government entity. However, in both cases the question for victims is if the American court cannot hear these cases and allow for justice and accountability, where can victims go?
There is a risk to entertaining such arguments pertaining to foreign crimes occurring on foreign soil regarding a foreign people, in that the courts may appear "imperialistic" in their judgments, which has serious foreign policy implications for the United States. In addition, such rulings would discourage foreign investments by such giants as Shell as well as Exxon and Chevron, who are part of a 15 member corporate conglomerate supporting Shell in this case.
The dynamics and implications of this case are complex and its outcome is far reaching. It certainly has the oil giants, as well as other multinationals, at the edge of their seats.
Should the court rule favorably for the victims, what new liability considerations would this have for corporations/entities worldwide? Will corporate investors be forced to hold foreign governments to a higher moral standard because the outcome speaks in dollars and cents? If so, how much impact could corporations have in foreign countries that violate human rights?
These concerns are paramount in my mind when the failing or success of the judicial system plays such a pivotal role in the outcome of human rights issues such as these.
Nigerian
No comments:
Post a Comment