CFR Presents

Development Channel

Issues and innovations in global economic development

Print Print Cite Cite
Style: MLA APA Chicago Close


The U.S. Supreme Court and Global Human Rights

by Terra Lawson-Remer
April 18, 2013

Plaintiff Esther Kiobel (L) joins a protest against Royal Dutch Shell Petroleum in front of the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington on October 1, 2012 (Gary Cameron/Courtesy Reuters). Plaintiff Esther Kiobel (L) joins a protest against Royal Dutch Shell Petroleum in front of the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington on October 1, 2012 (Gary Cameron/Courtesy Reuters).


On Tuesday the Supreme Court ruled that victims of torture, arbitrary executions, and other human rights abuses in foreign countries could not seek justice in U.S. courts. The ruling in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum halted a widely watched case brought by a group of Nigerians, which alleged that in the 1990s Shell Oil was complicit in the torture and murder of protesters at the company’s operations in the impoverished but oil rich Ogoni region. The Supreme Court held unanimously that the “presumption against extraterritoriality” applies to Alien Tort Statute cases, meaning that foreigners cannot use U.S. courts to seek justice against foreigners for crimes committed on the soil and in the territory of foreign nations.

Since the 1980s, when a landmark case opened the door for such claims, the Alien Tort Statute (ATS) has been used by victims of human rights abuses worldwide to seek redress in the United States for egregious human rights violations when justice would not otherwise be available through regular channels in domestic courts. Over the past 20 years, ATS defendants have included companies accused of colluding with authoritarian governments to enslave or murder local citizens. The most notable victory for human rights came in 2005, when Unocal agreed to settle a case brought by Burmese villagers, who claimed that Unocal used forced labor to construct a major gas pipeline (stretching through Myanmar into Thailand), and turned a blind eye as the notorious military junta raped and murdered local people to force them to clear the way for the pipeline.

While unsurprising from a legal standpoint, the recent Supreme Court ruling brings into sharp focus one of the most pressing policy challenges of our time: in an increasingly integrated global economy, where transnational investors and companies have profound effects on the lives of people around the world for both good and ill, how can the human rights of marginalized communities be protected from violations by powerful rogue and unaccountable actors?

Where domestic courts can be relied upon to fairly enforce the rule of law and protect the rights of all citizens, justice can be sought and served through regular channels within capital-importing countries. But the problem is acute when corrupt or autocratic governments do not protect the rights of their least powerful citizens, deliberately colluding with foreign investors to advance policies that further the interests of elites at enormous human costs. Autocratic oil producing countries like Equatorial Guinea and Sudan are particularly likely to conspire with foreign companies to exploit oil reserves regardless of the human consequences. And although many companies are increasingly making important efforts to safeguard human rights, the rising role of new transnational investors from countries like China who reject such human rights protections is compounding the problem.

Unfortunately, given the Supreme Court’s ruling on Tuesday, human rights accountability in the global economy remains elusive.

Post a Comment 2 Comments

  • Posted by Andre

    Human rights accountability is not elusive. The Nigerians just picked the wrong country to sue in. Why did they not go to the UK (Shell is officially a UK based company) or The Netherlands (headquarter is in The Hague).
    Courts there can hold Shell accountable. Please note that allegations are not proof, Shell is innocent untill proven guilty!

  • Posted by twistedtory

    As the Supreme Court noted in its majority opinion, “It is implausible to suppose that the First Congress wanted their fledgling Republic—struggling to receive international recognition—to be the first” nation to appoint itself the global enforcer of “international norms.”
    While the author rightly points out that there are – and will continue to be – legitimate cases of human rights violations by and/or with the collusion of authorities, the ATCA was so misused by greedy US class action lawyers that the Supreme Court really was left with little choice but to restrict its use.
    International NGOs with credibility in the UN and ICC must be the defenders of those subject to such abuses.

Post a Comment

CFR seeks to foster civil and informed discussion of foreign policy issues. Opinions expressed on CFR blogs are solely those of the author or commenter, not of CFR, which takes no institutional positions. All comments must abide by CFR's guidelines and will be moderated prior to posting.

* Required