Shell lawsuit (re Nigeria - Kiobel & Wiwa)
Para la versión en español de este perfil de las demandas judiciales contra Shell por actividades en Nigeria, haga clic acá.
Pour la version française de ce profil, cliquez ici.
C русской версией описания этого дела можно ознакомиться здесь.
Proceedings in the USA
In 2002, Royal Dutch/Shell was sued in US federal court by Esther Kiobel, the wife of Dr. Barinem Kiobel- an Ogoni activist who was member of the Movement for the Survival of the Ogoni People (MOSOP) and eleven other Nigerians from the Ogoni region. MOSOP campaigned against the environmental damage caused by oil extraction in the Ogoni region of Nigeria and for increased autonomy for the Ogoni ethnic group. Barinem Kiobel and other members of MOSOP were detained illegally in 1994, held incommunicado in military custody, then tried by a special court established by the military government using procedures in violation of international fair trial standards, convicted of murder and executed. The suit alleges that Shell, through its Nigerian subsidiary Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria (SPDC), provided transport to Nigerian troops, allowed company property to be used as staging areas for attacks against the Ogoni and provided food to the soldiers and paid them. The plaintiffs claimed the defendant companies were complicit in the commission of torture, extrajudicial killing and other violations pursuant to the Alien Tort Claims Act (ATCA).
In March 2008, the district court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. On 16 November 2009, the plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration was granted asking the court to re-examine the issue of jurisdiction. The court said in the motion that a direct business relationship between the USA and SPDC must be established in order for ATCA to apply. On 21 June 2010, the district court ruled that the plaintiffs had not shown that this direct business relationship had existed, and the judge dismissed the suit against SPDC. The plaintiffs appealed this ruling, and on 17 September 2010 the court of appeals issued a sweeping opinion addressing ATCA lawsuits involving corporate defendants. The majority opinion affirmed lower court’s dismissal of the lawsuit, and it also stated that ATCA could not be used to sue corporations for violations of international law. A separate opinion was written by the third judge from the appeals court panel, who concurred with the majority in judgment only. This judge vigorously disagreed with the majority’s reasoning; he wrote that the majority’s opinion dealt a “substantial blow to international law and its undertaking to protect fundamental human rights.” On 14 October 2010, the plaintiffs filed a petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc with the court. The court of appeals, on 4 February 2011, refused to rehear the case. The plaintiffs petitioned the Supreme Court in June 2011 asking it to hear an appeal of the lower court's ruling. On 17 October 2011 the Supreme Court announced that it would hear the plaintiffs' appeal in this case. Oral arguments were held on 28 February 2012. On 5 March the Supreme Court announced that it would not rule on the case in the current term. It has asked the parties to submit supplemental briefs and will rehear the case in the next term. The Court asked the parties to submit briefs on whether the Alien Tort Claims Act allows federal courts to hear lawsuits alleging violations of international law which occur outside the United States. The Court reheard the case on 1 October 2012. On 17 April 2013 the Supreme Court handed down its decision finding that ATCA does not apply to conduct outside of the United States. The Court affirmed the dismissal of the case. A special page with all of the documents related to the Supreme Court review of this case is available here.
Proceedings in the Netherlands
In October 2016, Esther Kiobel filed an application with a New York District Court under the US Foreign Legal Assistance Statute to gain access to important documents from the original US case, to be used in a lawsuit against Shell in the Netherlands. The documents are in the possession of Shell’s lawyers, Cravath Swaine & Moore LLP.
On 24 January 2017, Cravath Swaine & Moore were ordered to turn over the documents. On 13 February, the law firm appealed the decision arguing that it will suffer because foreign companies will be disinclined from hiring US lawyers if such wide discovery requests are granted. A US court of appeals reversed the decision. Esther Kiobel asked the US Supreme Court to review the decison. On 7 January 2019, the US Supreme Court denied her petition.
In June 2017, Esther Kiobel and three other women launched a civil case against Shell in the Netherlands. They claim the company was complicit in the 1995 killings of their husbands, part of the Ogoni 9 activists who contested Shell's operations and the Nigerian Government over the effects of oil pollution. Shell has denied any involvement in their executions. On 1 May 2019, a Dutch court said it has jurisdiction to hear the case and ruled that Shell should hand over confidential internal documents to the claimants.
- "Nigeria: Widows of Ogoni Leaders Killed By Abacha Sue Shell in Netherlands", Oladeinde Olawoyin, Premium Times (Nigeria), 29 Jun 2017
- "Companies Shielded as U.S. Court Cuts Human-Rights Suits", Greg Stohr, Bloomberg, 17 Apr 2013
- "Views on Kiobel v. Shell", Salil Tripathi, Institute for Human Rights and Business, 9 Oct 2012
- "Alien torts in America's courts", Editorial, Los Angeles Times, 8 Oct 2012
- "Shell, Corporate Responsibility and Respect for the Law", Amol Mehra & Katie Shay, International Corporate Accountability Roundtable, 3 Oct 2012
- "Argument recap: In search of an [Alien Tort Statute] compromise", Lyle Denniston, SCOTUSblog, 1 Oct 2012
- "Supreme Court may narrow law in human rights cases", Jonathan Stempel, Reuters, 1 Oct 2012
- "The U.S. Supreme Court must preserve the Alien Tort Statute for international corporate human rights cases", Marco Simons, EarthRights International, 13 Jun 2012
- "Torture Suits Against Companies Including Shell Draw U.S. High Court Review", Greg Stohr, Bloomberg, 17 Oct 2011
- "US court upholds key Shell ruling in Nigeria case", Jonathan Stempel, Reuters, 4 Feb 2011
- "2nd Circuit Rejects Corporate Liability in Alien Tort Cases", Mark Hamblett, New York Law Journal, 20 Sep 2010
- “Nigeria Torture Case Decision Exempts Companies From U.S. Alien Tort Law”, Bob Van Voris & Patricia Hurtado, Bloomberg, 17 Sep 2010
- “Judge Kimba Wood Dismisses Defendant from Aliant Tort Statute Class Action for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction”, Russell Jackson, Jackson on Consumer Class Actions & Mass Torts, 25 Jun 2010
Esther Kiobel, et al. v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Company et al.
- [PDF] Opinion of US Supreme Court, 17 Apr 2013
- Petitioners/plaintiffs (Kiobel) - Supplemental Reply Brief, 31 Aug 2012
- Respondents/defendants (Shell) - Supplemental Brief, 1 Aug 2012
- [PDF] Supplemental brief for petitioners/plaintiffs (Kiobel), 6 Jun 2012
- [PDF] Kiobel, et al. v. Royal Dutch Petroleum - Brief for Respondents, 27 Jan 2012
- [PDF] Kiobel, et al. v. Royal Dutch Petroleum - Brief for Petitioners, 14 Dec 2011
- [PDF] Kiobel, et al. v. Royal Dutch Petroleum - Petition for Writ of Certiorari, 6 Jun 2011
- US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit: [PDF] Kiobel, et al. v. Royal Dutch Petroleum, et al., 4 Feb 2011 [order denying plaintiffs' petition for rehearing]
- [PDF] Petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc for Plaintiffs-Appellants-Cross-Appellees, 14 Oct 2010
- US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit: [PDF] Order affirming District Court’s dismissal of lawsuit, 17 Sep 2010
- US District Court for the Southern District of New York: [PDF] Opinion and Order [regarding 2008 motion to dismiss], 21 Jun 2010
- Opinion and Order re Plainitffs' motion for reconsideration, 16 Nov 2009
- Opinion and Order, 25 Jun 2009
- [PDF] Kiobel, et al. v. Royal Dutch Shell Petroleum Co., et al. - Brief for the United States as amicus curiae supporting petitioners, 21 Dec 2011
- [PDF] Kiobel, et al. v. Royal Dutch Shell Petroleum Co., et al. - Brief of Former US Senator Arlen Specter, Human Rights First, and the Anti-Defamation League as amici curiae in support of petitioners, 21 Dec 2011
- [PDF] Kiobel, et al. v. Royal Dutch Shell Petroleum Co., et al. - Brief of Earth Rights Intl. as amicus curiae supporting petitioners, 21 Dec 2011
Wiwa v. Shell
An earlier, related claim was filed by Ken Wiwa (son of the late Ogoni activist Ken Saro-Wiwa who was executed together with Barinem Kiobel in 1995) and other members of MOSOP in 1996. The Wiwa lawsuit was filed against the same defendant companies as the Kiobel lawsuit. This lawsuit alleged that the Nigerian military government and security forces committed human rights violations, including torture and summary execution of MOSOP members, to suppress MOSOP’s activities and that Royal Dutch/Shell was complicit in the commission of these abuses. The plaintiffs won several pre-trial rulings, including on motions by the defendants to dismiss the case.
In early June 2009, the parties announced that they had agreed to a settlement in the case for $15.5 million. The settlement provides compensation for the ten plaintiffs and covers a portion of the plaintiffs’ legal costs. The settlement also establishes The Kiisi Trust, intended to benefit the Ogoni people, which will be governed by independent trustees. This trust is to fund initiatives in Ogoni such as education, women’s programmes, adult literacy and small enterprise support.
- “Shell settles human rights suit for $15.5M”, Chris Kahn, Associated Press, 8 Jun 2009
- [video] Shell in court over alleged Nigeria crimes, Al Jazeera English, 3 Jun 2009
- "Shell must defend Nigerian rights suit, judge says", David Glovin, Bloomberg, 23 Apr 2009
- “Shell Faces Human Rights Grilling”, Tim Webb, Independent [UK], 11 Apr 2004
- “Big Oil and an Activist's Death: Family Sues to Probe Role Played by Shell in Nigerian's Execution”, Elizabeth Neuffer, Boston Globe, 03 Jun 2001
- [PDF] Statement of the Plaintiffs in Wiwa v. Royal Dutch/Shell, Wiwa v. Anderson, and Wiwa v. SPDC, Lucky Doobee, Monday Gbokoo, David Kiobel, Karalolo Kogbara, Blessing Kpuinen, James N-nah, Friday Nuate, Ken Saro-Wiwa, Jr., Michael Vizor, Owens Wiwa, 8 Jun 2009
- [PDF] Statement of Plaintiffs' Attorneys in Wiwa v. Royal Dutch/Shell, Wiwa v. Anderson, and Wiwa v. SPDC, 8 Jun 2009
- EarthRights International (NGO representing plaintiffs):Wiwa v. Royal Dutch Petroleum (Shell) [includes links to court opinions and plaintiffs’ complaints filed in this case]
- Center for Constitutional Rights (NGO representing plaintiffs):
- Wiwa v. Royal Dutch Petroleum [synopsis]
- [PDF] On Eve of Trial, Settlement Agreements Provide $15.5 Million for Compensation to Nigerian Human Rights Activists and to Establish Trust Fund, 8 Jun 2009
- The Case Against Shell [joint project of EarthRights International and Center for Constitutional Rights]: Wiwa v. Shell
- US Circuit Court for the Second Circuit:
- [PDF] Wiwa v. Shell, 14 Sep 2000 [reversal of lower court’s dismissal of the case]
- US District Court for the Southern District of New York:
- [PDF] Wiwa v Shell – Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release, 8 Jun 2009
- [PDF] Wiwa v. Shell - Denial of Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, 23 Apr 2009
- [PDF] Wiwa v. Shell – Dismissal of RICO claims against defendants, 18 Mar 2009
All components of this story
Author: Jennifer Fraczek, Deutsche Welle
The ATS [Alien Tort Statute] had long been considered the sharp sword in the battle against human rights violations. But then the court rejected the claims in the Kiobel case, saying they lacked a strong enough connection to the US…Michael Windfuhr [deputy director of the German Institute for Human Rights] believes legal hurdles are too high for victims of human rights violations...[and] hopes that the United Nations guiding principles on business and human rights will afford people who have suffered human rights abuses more opportunity to bring their cases to court…The hope is that human rights can be ensured all along the value chain…It's still not clear whether the UN principles, also known as 'soft laws,' will be effective because they are not legally binding. That's why international law expert Jochen von Bernstorff believes the answer is an internationally binding treaty…
Author: Carey L. Biron, MintPress News (USA)
Victims of corporate human rights abuses are finding it more difficult to access justice or hold companies accountable for such crimes, according to new research released this week…[S]cholars and rights defenders are warning that governments have either failed to implement or gone backward on a key provision of…[the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights]…the ability of victims of corporate abuses to access justice…[A]report looks at seven countries in North America and Europe and tracks any legal or legislative changes that have been put in place following the 2011 agreement of the Guiding Principles. These countries are considered particularly important given that most of the world’s major multinational companies are headquartered in these states…Two of the most significant ongoing obstacles to justice for victims of corporate abuses are extremely basic: prohibitive cost and an often bewildering corporate structure…
[PDF] The Third Pillar: Access to Judicial Remedies for Human Rights Violations by Transnational Business
Author: Gwynne Skinner, Robert McCorquodale, Olivier De Schutter & Andie Lambe
The Access to Judicial Remedy (A2JR) Project set out to identify and analyze the barriers in the United States, Canada, and Europe…The detailed mapping exercise undertaken in the development of this Report shows that States are generally not fulfilling their obligation to ensure access to effective judicial remedies to victims of human rights violations by businesses operating outside their territory. Victims continue to face barriers that at times can completely block their access to an effective remedy…These barriers have been overcome in only some instances…Victims of human rights violations by business, wherever the violations occur, are entitled to full and effective access to judicial remedies. In order to provide this, each State should examine the barriers in their jurisdiction and consider the range of actions they can take to alleviate them, and in particular, the recommendations contained in this Report…[Refers to Alstom, Amesys (part of Bull), Anvil Mining (part of China Minmetals), Barrick Gold, Bull, Cambior, Cape PLC, Chevron, Chiquita, Daimler, DLH (Dalhoff Larsen & Horneman), Drummond, ExxonMobil, HudBay Minerals, Monterrico Metals (part of Zijin), Shell, Talisman, Texaco (part of Chevron), Thor Chemicals, Unocal (part of Chevron), Veolia Environnement (formerly Vivendi), Veolia Transport (part of Veolia Environnement), Walmart, Zijin]
- Related stories: Abu Ghraib lawsuits against CACI, Titan (now L-3) Amesys lawsuit (re Libya) Anvil Mining lawsuit (re Dem. Rep. of Congo) Cambior lawsuit (re Guyana) Cape/Gencor lawsuits (re So. Africa) Chiquita lawsuits (re Colombia) Daimler lawsuit (re Argentina) DLH lawsuit (re Liberian civil war) Drummond lawsuits (re Colombia) ExxonMobil lawsuit (re Aceh) Hudbay Minerals lawsuits (re Guatemala) Monterrico Metals lawsuit (re Peru) Report analyses barriers to access judicial remedy for victims of human rights abuses by companies & makes recommendations Shell lawsuit (re Nigeria - Kiobel & Wiwa) Talisman lawsuit (re Sudan) Texaco/Chevron lawsuits (re Ecuador) The Third Pillar: Access to Judicial Remedies for Human Rights Violations by Transnational Business Unocal lawsuit (re Myanmar) Veolia & Alstom lawsuit (re Jerusalem rail project) Walmart lawsuit (re gender discrimination in USA) Show moreShow less
- Related in-depth areas: Judicial remedies Latest Legal News Latest news on UNGPs Reports & materials launched Speeches & presentations
- Related companies: Alstom AMESys (Advanced Middle East Systems, formerly Amesys (part of Bull)) Anvil Mining (part of China Minmetals) Barrick Gold Bull (part of Atos) Cambior Cape PLC Chevron Chiquita Daimler DLH (Dalhoff Larsen & Horneman) Drummond ExxonMobil Hudbay Minerals Monterrico Metals (part of Zijin) Shell Talisman Texaco (part of Chevron) Thor Chemicals Unocal (part of Chevron) Veolia (formerly Vivendi Environnement) Veolia Transport (now Transdev) Walmart Zijin
[PDF] Briefing note - Africa Oil Week 2013: Oil & gas industry must improve its respect for human rights
Author: Aliou Diouf, Joseph Kibugu, Nokukhanya Mncwabe, Julia Mello Neiva, Gregory Regaignon - Business & Human Rights Resource Centre
The oil & gas industry has a vital role to play in Africa’s development. But too often exploration and extraction are linked to human rights abuses against local residents, oil & gas revenues prop up repressive governments, and the promise of poverty alleviation is squandered...This briefing, on the occasion of Africa Oil Week, focuses on three key areas identified by African civil society as needing urgent and transformative action to ensure the oil industry serves the common good and inclusive development, rather than causing enrichment of a few and abuses of the rights of many: 1. Community impacts: rights to water, food, health & land. 2. Violence linked to the oil industry. 3. Transparency of revenues and contracts & contribution of revenues to the fulfilment of social & economic rights. [refers to Addax Petroleum (part of Sinopec), Agip (part of Eni), Chevron, CNPC, ExxonMobil, Marathon, Shell, Swala Oil & Gas, Talisman Energy, Tullow Oil]
- Related stories: Briefing note: "Africa Oil Week 2013: Oil & gas industry must improve its respect for human rights" Chevron lawsuit (re Nigeria) Shell lawsuit (re Nigeria - Kiobel & Wiwa) Shell lawsuit (re oil pollution in Nigeria) Talisman lawsuit (re Sudan) Show moreShow less
- Related companies: Addax Petroleum (part of Sinopec) AGIP (part of Eni) Chevron China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC) Control Risks Eni Erinys International ExxonMobil Greater Nile Petroleum Operating Company (GNPOC) Marathon Oil Petronas Shell Sinopec Sudapet Talisman Tullow Oil
Author: 2013 Annual Conference of the International Bar Association
In this interview and Q&A, Harvard Professor John Ruggie, author of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, provided insight into his groundbreaking work, contending that it is simply good business for business to be just, in the sense of it being principled. Professor John Ruggie, former Special Representative of the UN Secretary-General on Business and Human Rights, is the Berthold Beitz Professor in Human Rights and International Affairs at the Kennedy School of Government, and an Affiliated Professor in International Legal Studies at Harvard Law School. Trained as a political scientist, he has made significant intellectual contributions to the study of international relations, focusing on the impact of economic and other forms of globalisation on global rule-making and the emergence of new rule-makers. He is the author of Just Business: Multinational Corporations and Human Rights...in which he explains that he deliberately sought to bring new players into the business and human rights debate, the most consequential of whom were corporate lawyers. He is identified as one of the 25 most influential international relations scholars in the US and Canada according to surveys published in Foreign Policy magazine.
Author: Katie Redford, EarthRights International
Every day, human rights defenders around the world risk their lives to stand up against injustice…[B]rave individuals everywhere depend on fundamental rights of free speech to do their work. The United States has always celebrated such rights as vital to our democracy…Yet recent trends…have privileged the free speech rights of corporations while silencing the living, breathing human beings that need those rights most… Since Citizens United, which extended First Amendment rights to corporations as “persons”, we’ve seen bold legal arguments against laws and regulations that would hold them accountable to fundamental human rights law…Human rights advocates have always faced an uphill battle, especially when taking on corporate abuse. What is new is the way in which our highest courts are privileging corporations and their rights over those of actual human beings. [refers to Shell, Chevron, Daimler]
- Related stories: Daimler lawsuit (re Argentina) Katie Redford of EarthRights International on "Corporate Rights or Human Rights?" Shell lawsuit (re Nigeria - Kiobel & Wiwa) Texaco/Chevron lawsuits (re Ecuador) Show moreShow less
- Related in-depth areas: Latest Legal News
- Related companies: Chevron Daimler Shell
Author: AFP, Reuters & Le Monde (France)
La Cour suprême américaine se penche, mardi 15 octobre, sur l'affaire dite Bauman contre DaimlerChrysler pour déterminer si le groupe automobile allemand Daimler AG doit répondre aux Etats-Unis de poursuites contre sa filiale Mercedes, accusée de complicité de violations des droits de l'homme en Argentine…"La question qui se pose aux juges [de la Cour suprême] c'est à quel point ce lien est significatif" pour permettre des poursuites aux Etats-Unis, commente Lyle Denniston, expert de ScotusBlog…Dans son arrêt, la cour d'appel de San Francisco a estimé que "les tribunaux américains ont un grand intérêt à redresser les abus sur les droits internationaux de l'homme". "Quand des entreprises comme DaimlerChrysler…travaillent en tandem avec de violents dictateurs, militaires et même des organisations terroristes, en jouant un rôle dans d'horribles violations de droits de l'homme, elles doivent rendre des comptes", fait valoir…EarthRights International…[Fait aussi référence à Shell]
Author: EarthRights International
EarthRights International (ERI) today released a new report, “Out of Bounds: Accountability for Corporate Human Rights Abuse After Kiobel,” which examines accountability for human rights abuses in U.S. courts. Focusing on the history, jurisprudence and politics of the Alien Tort Statute (ATS), the report explains how this 200-year-old law became a critical tool in the area of business and human rights – and how a recent decision by the corporate-friendly Supreme Court may shield some multinational corporations from liability and deny justice to their victims. [Refers to Shell, Unocal (part of Chevron).]
- Related stories: EarthRights International releases new report examining evolution & future of human rights litigation in US courts Shell lawsuit (re Nigeria - Kiobel & Wiwa) Unocal lawsuit (re Myanmar) Show moreShow less
- Related in-depth areas: Latest Legal News
- Related companies: Chevron Shell Unocal (part of Chevron)
Author: Lucie Greyl (CDCA) & Godwin Uyi Ojo (ERA/FoEN), for EJOLT
The impacts provoked by the expanding oil industry encompass environmental destruction, health impacts and violations of human rights. The increasing contamination jeopardizes safe conditions of life and destroys means of livelihood of vulnerable communities and of those relying on healthy ecosystems. Local communities, feeling that they are simply sacrificed to the oil industry, see themselves involved in social conflict. They are experiencing forms of environmental discrimination and might even face criminalisation of the protest when they stand up to defend their rights...[T]he number of lawsuits demanding justice for environmental, social, economical and cultural damages provoked by oil companies are increasing as well as their media visibility. Yet most outcomes are not satisfactory in tackling impacted communities claims for justice. This paper describes the most recent trends regarding oil corporations’ responsibilities and use of procedural justice by civil society through the review of emblematic legal cases. [refers to Shell, Texaco, Chevron, BP, Eni, NNPC]
- Related stories: BP lawsuit (re Alaska) Chevron lawsuit (re Nigeria) Shell lawsuit (re Nigeria - Kiobel & Wiwa) Shell lawsuit (re oil pollution in Nigeria) Texaco/Chevron lawsuits (re Ecuador) Show moreShow less
- Related in-depth areas: Latest Legal News
- Related companies: BP Chevron Eni Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC) Shell Texaco (part of Chevron)
Author: Francisco Javier Zamora Cabot (Universidad de Castellón), para proyecto Consolider-Ingenio (HURI-AGE)
[M]e referiré...a los Estados Unidos...que, si han sido durante...años un marco de referencia...en cuanto a los...litigios civiles transnacionales sobre Derechos Humanos...a través...de la práctica sobre el Alien Tort Claims Act...se encuentran actualmente en una nueva situación...a causa de la reciente decisión...en el...caso Kiobel...[E]studiaré la cuestión en el ámbito europeo...y...la extraterritorialidad...[M]e referiré en especial al sector extractivo...y al llamado Plan Nacional de Empresas y Derechos Humanos donde...nuestro País va a fijar la manera de poner en práctica los Principios Rectores...[se refiere a Shell, Trafigura, Cape PLC, Vedanta]