Submitted by crinadmin on
Summary: The future of lawsuits brought in the U.S. and UK to address human rights abuses abroad is in jeopardy.
In both the United States and United Kingdom, where many of the world's largest corporations are headquartered, it may soon get a lot more difficult to hold companies responsible for international human rights violations. In the U.S., lawsuits are regularly brought under the Alien Tort Statute, which permits U.S. courts to hear human rights cases filed by foreign citizens in response to actions that took place outside U.S. territory. Until recently, it had been accepted that these cases could be brought against corporations, but this was called into question by a much publicised Court of Appeals ruling in February denying plaintiffs from Nigeria the chance to pursue their claims against Shell for using the Nigerian government and military to quell resistance against oil exploration. Since that time, other courts have begun to weigh in on the issue and largely refused to follow the Shell decision. Among several recent victories for human rights defenders, a separate Court of Appeals has revived a case against Exxon claiming that the company employed security forces who killed and tortured Indonesian villagers to protect a natural gas plant. Similarly, cases against Chiquita alleging complicity in torture and extrajudicial killing in Colombia and against Daimler alleging collaboration with Argentina's military to punish union activists during the country's “Dirty War” have been allowed to proceed. In a move that could empower children around the world to bring violations of their rights to U.S. courts, yet another Court of Appeals ruled that although claims brought against Firestone for using child labour on a Liberian rubber plantation should ultimately be dismissed, the children were certainly entitled to have raised them. The ground regained this year is far from solid, however, as the U.S. Supreme Court is now set to review the case against Shell and may offer a final pronouncement on the ability of U.S. courts to address human rights abuses committed abroad. Meanwhile, in the UK, a bill under consideration would make it significantly harder for victims of rights violations abroad to seek redress. The bill would severely restrict the legal costs that can be recovered from pursuing a successful case, making it virtually impossible for victims to find a law firm who can afford to represent them. According to a lawyer from Leigh Day, the UK firm that brought and won a settlement for victims of illegal toxic waste dumping in Côte d'Ivoire, "[t]he effects would be to drastically curb the availability of access to justice by individuals whose human rights are abused by British companies in their overseas operations". Fearing this result, the UN has now joined many other commentators in calling for the proposed legal aid bill to be reconsidered to ensure that UK companies can be held responsible at home for violations committed abroad.