hide message

Welcome to the Resource Centre

We make it our mission to work with advocates in civil society, business and government to address inequalities of power, seek remedy for abuse, and ensure protection of people and planet.

Both companies and impacted communities thank us for the resources and support we provide.

This is only possible because of your support. Please make a donation today.

Thank you,
Phil Bloomer, Executive Director

Donate now hide message

This piece of content is part of multiple stories. We recommend you read this content in the context of one of the following stories:

Alien Tort Backup Plan

Author: Michael Goldhaber, American Lawyer, Published on: 1 January 2013

On the off chance that business interests prevail in the U.S. Supreme Court reargument of Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum, alien tort plaintiffs may wish to review the record of corporate human rights litigation in English courts. This author's study…suggests that companies might find themselves missing alien tort law. In the mid-1990s, activist lawyers on both sides of the Atlantic sought a way to hold companies liable for human rights and environmental abuse committed in other nations. U.S. lawyers primarily chose the Alien Tort Statute. U.K. lawyers began to file old-fashioned common law tort suits. Notwithstanding the rivers of ink devoted to alien tort, common law theory has been surprisingly effective. [also refers to Unocal, Trafigura, BHP, Cape plc]

Read the full post here

Related companies: BHP Billiton Cape PLC Chevron Shell Trafigura Beheer Unocal (part of Chevron)