abusesaffiliationarrow-downarrow-leftarrow-rightarrow-upattack-typeburgerchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-upClock iconclosedeletedevelopment-povertydiscriminationdollardownloademailenvironmentexternal-linkfacebookfiltergenderglobegroupshealthinformation-outlineinformationinstagraminvestment-trade-globalisationissueslabourlanguagesShapeCombined Shapelocationmap-pinminusnewsorganisationotheroverviewpluspreviewprofilerefreshnewssearchsecurityPathtagticktooltiptwitteruniversalityweb
Article

Alien Tort Backup Plan

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]

Part of the following stories

BHP lawsuit (re Papua New Guinea)

Shell lawsuit (re Nigeria - Kiobel & Wiwa)

Trafigura lawsuits (re Côte d’Ivoire)

Unocal lawsuit (re Myanmar)

Cape/Gencor lawsuits (re So. Africa)