International Human Rights - Corporate Liability Claims Not Actionable under the Alien Tort Statute - Kiobel V. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The horrific suffering engendered by early 20th century's economic and political nationalism gave rise to precept of individual responsibility for gross violations of human rights. (1) In United States, Alien Tort Statute (2) (ATS) confers federal subject matter jurisdiction for such violations, granting a cause of action for torts committed in violation of law of nations. (3) In Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., (4) United States Court of Appeals for Second Circuit considered whether ATS confers federal jurisdiction over tort claims against corporations. (5) The court refused to classify corporate liability as a norm of customary international law, and held that tort actions against corporations are not actionable under ATS. (6) The plaintiffs are current and former residents of Ogoni Region of Nigeria. (7) The defendants are multi-national petroleum companies engaged in exploration, production, and distribution of oil. (8) The plaintiffs allege that Royal Dutch and Shell compelled their Nigerian subsidiary, Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria (SPDC), to enlist aid of Nigerian military forces to brutally crush indigenous resistance to SPDC's oil exploration and production. (9) The plaintiffs filed a class action suit under ATS in U.S. District Court for Southern District of New York alleging that defendants aided and abetted, and were complicit in, violations of international law. (10) The defendants filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. (11) The district court granted and denied motion in part, and certified order for interlocutory appeal. (12) On appeal, Second Circuit held that corporate tort liability was not a specific, universal, and obligatory norm of customary international law and dismissed claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (13) After lying dormant for nearly two hundred years, ATS was resuscitated by Second Circuit's opinion in Filartiga v. Pena-Irala (14) The Filartiga court held that ATS claims were not restricted solely to customary norms recognized by international community in 1789, but could invoke universal human rights principles that have subsequently ripened. (15) Despite court's sweeping interpretation, it cautioned against overextending jurisdiction under ATS. (16) Notwithstanding large number of ATS filings post Filartiga, appellate review of ATS issues is rare due to tendency of parties to settle ATS claims. (17) Eventually, U.S. Supreme Court had occasion to clarify ATS' limited applicability as a jurisdictional statute in Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain. (18) In Sosa, Court restricted ATS jurisdiction to violations of customary norms analogous in stature to those recognized by international law in 1789. (19) Recent appellate decisions reaffirm classic principle that in determining what complaints properly allege violations of customary international law, courts should look to the customs and usages of civilized nations. (20) In determining whether ATS jurisdiction is properly conferred, courts must decide whether conduct is proscribed by international law and whether liability can be attributed to a specific defendant. (21) In Presbyterian Church of Sudan v. Talisman, Second Circuit considered whether a Canadian corporation could be held liable for allegedly enabling Sudanese military to commit crimes against humanity. (22) The court held that because corporation improved airstrips to allow its employees to access concession area, and not to intentionally aid and abet atrocities, corporation could not be held liable under ATS. (23) The appellate courts, however, have not expressly decided whether corporate entities can be held liable under otherwise permissible extensions of ATS jurisdiction. (24) In Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Shell Co. …
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,013 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».