Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Foreign Affairs
Related: About this forumIn win for Shell, U.S. top court curbs human rights claims
Source: Reuters
In win for Shell, U.S. top court curbs human rights claims
By Lawrence Hurley
WASHINGTON | Wed Apr 17, 2013 6:37pm EDT
(Reuters) - In a major victory for multinational companies, the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday limited the ability of human rights plaintiffs to invoke a 224-year-old federal law when suing companies over alleged collusion with violent foreign governments.
The nine justices ruled unanimously that a federal court in New York could not hear claims made by 12 Nigerians who accused Anglo-Dutch oil company Royal Dutch Shell Plc of complicity in a violent crackdown on protesters in Nigeria from 1992 to 1995.
The ruling immediately sparked another debate, not least in concurring opinions written by justices in response to Chief Justice John Roberts' majority opinion, about exactly what claims can still be made under the Alien Tort Statute. The 1789 law had been dormant for nearly two centuries before lawyers began using it in the 1980s to bring international human rights cases in U.S. courts.
What is clear is that the ruling is a major win for multi-nationals such as Royal Dutch that do business in the developing world and become embroiled in local political controversies.
[font size=1]-snip-[/font]
By Lawrence Hurley
WASHINGTON | Wed Apr 17, 2013 6:37pm EDT
(Reuters) - In a major victory for multinational companies, the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday limited the ability of human rights plaintiffs to invoke a 224-year-old federal law when suing companies over alleged collusion with violent foreign governments.
The nine justices ruled unanimously that a federal court in New York could not hear claims made by 12 Nigerians who accused Anglo-Dutch oil company Royal Dutch Shell Plc of complicity in a violent crackdown on protesters in Nigeria from 1992 to 1995.
The ruling immediately sparked another debate, not least in concurring opinions written by justices in response to Chief Justice John Roberts' majority opinion, about exactly what claims can still be made under the Alien Tort Statute. The 1789 law had been dormant for nearly two centuries before lawyers began using it in the 1980s to bring international human rights cases in U.S. courts.
What is clear is that the ruling is a major win for multi-nationals such as Royal Dutch that do business in the developing world and become embroiled in local political controversies.
[font size=1]-snip-[/font]
Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/17/us-usa-court-rights-idUSBRE93G11I20130417
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
3 replies, 707 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (0)
ReplyReply to this post
3 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
In win for Shell, U.S. top court curbs human rights claims (Original Post)
Eugene
Apr 2013
OP
ladjf
(17,320 posts)1. The river of bad news in America flows deep and wide. nt
bemildred
(90,061 posts)2. The one thing our USSC is guaranteed to do: support corporate rule. nt
BethanyQuartz
(193 posts)3. The death blow to human rights in America
We've known this was coming for awhile. We've also known that attempts to bring some measure of justice for the absolute worst human rights violations were rarely successful anyway. Still, a sad day. Except not sad for me. It's a good day for me. Because I've sometimes questioned my decision to not become a human rights lawyer. Now I know absolutely that I made the right choice.
Law is useless. If we want human rights we're going to have to find other ways to fight for them.