Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Corporations and Transnational Litigation: Comparing Kiobel with the Jurisprudence of English Courts

  • Andrew Sanger (a1)

Extract

As a result of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., claims brought under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS) must “touch and concern the territory of the United States … with sufficient force” for federal courts to recognize a federal common law cause of action for violations of international law.

    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      Corporations and Transnational Litigation: Comparing Kiobel with the Jurisprudence of English Courts
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      Corporations and Transnational Litigation: Comparing Kiobel with the Jurisprudence of English Courts
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      Corporations and Transnational Litigation: Comparing Kiobel with the Jurisprudence of English Courts
      Available formats
      ×

Copyright

References

Hide All

1 28 U.S.C. §1350.?

2 Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 133 S.Ct. 1659, 1669 (2013).

3 See, e.g., Al Shimari v. Caci Int’l, Inc., No. 1:08-cv-827, 2013 U.S. Dist. Lexis 92937, at *50–51 (E.D. Va. June 25, 2013), available at http://ccrjustice.org/files/Shimari_Opinion%20Dismissing%20ATS%20Claims% 206.26.13.pdf.

4 Council Regulation (EC) No. 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on Jurisdiction and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, Art. 60, 2001 O.J. (L 12) 1, available at http://eur-lex. europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri!OJ:L:2001:012:0001:0023:en:PDF [hereinafter Brussels I]; Case C-281/02, Owusu v. Jackson, 2005 ECR I-1383, paras. 37–46, available at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/ LexUriServ.do?uri!CELEX:62002CJ0281:EN:HTML (a decision on the Brussels Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, 1978 O.J. (L 304) 36, but directly applicable to Brussels I). As of January 10, 2015, Brussels I will be recast as Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, 2012 O.J. (L 351) 1 (hereinafter EU Regulation). Article 63 of the EU Regulation is the corresponding provision to Article 60 of Brussels I.

5 See Kiobel, 133 S.Ct. at 1662–63; Wiwa v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 226 F.3d 88, 93 (2d Cir. 2000).

6 Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 414–15 (1984).

7 Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, SA v. Brown, 131 S.Ct. 2846, 2849 (2011) (quoting Int’l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 318 (1945)).

8 Id. at 2851(quoting Int’l Shoe, 326 U.S. at 317).

9 Id. at 2856 (quoting Int’l Shoe, 326 U.S. at 318).

10 Wiwa, 226 F.3d 88.

11 See John Bellinger, Reflections on Kiobel, Lawfare, Apr. 22, 2013, at http://www.lawfareblog.com/2013/04/ reflections-on-kiobel.

12 Bauman v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 644 F.3d 909 (9th Cir. 2011), cert. granted, 133 S.Ct. 1995 (U.S. Apr. 22, 2013) (No. 11-965).

13 See, e.g., John Bellinger, Recent Decisions May Make Ninth Circuit a Magnet for Foreign Plaintiffs, Lawfare, Sept. 3, 2012, at http://www.lawfareblog.com/2012/09/recent-decisions-may-make-ninth-circuit-a-magnet-forforeign- plaintiffs; Kenneth Anderson, Supreme Court to Review Bauman v. DaimlerChrysler,Opinio Juris, July 17, 2013, at http://opiniojuris.org/2013/07/17/supreme-court-to-review-bauman-v-daimlerchrysler; see also Brief for the United States as Amicus Curiae Supporting Petitioner at 11, DaimlerChryslerAGv. Bauman, No. 11-965 (U.S. July 2013), available at http://www.justice.gov/osg/briefs/2012/3mer/1ami/2011-0965.mer.ami.pdf (arguing that the Supreme Court should reverse the Ninth Circuit's “seriously flawed” decision in Bauman).

14 Brussels I, supra note 4, Art. 60 (EU Regulation, supra note 4, Art. 63); Owusu, supra note 4, paras. 37–46.

15 Brussels I, supra note 4, Art. 60 (EU Regulation, supra note 4, Art. 63).

16 Id., Art. 27 (EU Regulation, supra note 4, Art. 29).

17 Id., Art. 23 (EU Regulation, supra note 4, Art. 25). Article 25 of the EU Regulation contains changes to the rules for assessing both the validity of the agreement conferring jurisdiction and the effect of the lis alibi pendens.

18 Id., Art. 22 (EU Regulation, supra note 4, Art. 24). In addition, Articles 33 and 34 of the EUR egulation allow, but do not require, a court to stay proceedings on the basis that proceedings before a nonmember state involving the same parties and concerning the same subject matter were pending at the time that proceedings were instituted in the member state court.

19 Vava v. Anglo American South Africa Ltd., [2012]EWHC 1969, paras. 17, 19 (QB), available at http://www. bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2012/1969.html.

20 Id., para. 43.

21 Vava v. Anglo American South Africa Ltd., [2013] EWHC 2131, para. 71 (QB), available at http://www. bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2013/2131.html.

22 Id.

23 Id., paras. 71–72, 76.

24 Civil Procedure Rules 1998, S.I. 1998/3132, pt. 6 (UK), available at http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/ 1998/3132/made [hereinafter CPR].

25 Id. §§6.2, 6.5; Companies Act 2006, c.46 (UK), available at http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/46. Stakeholder interests include the interests of employees, suppliers, customers, and (local) communities.

26 See Spiliada Maritime Corp v. Cansulex Ltd., [1987] A.C. 460 [H.L.]; Connelly v. RTZ Corp., [1998] 1 A.C. 854 (H.L.); Lubbe v. Cape PLC, [2000] 4 All E.R. 268 (H.L.) (appeal taken from Eng.).

27 Connelly, supra note 26; Lubbe, supra note 26, para. 24.

28 Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 U.S. 692, 725 (2004).

29 Council Regulation (EC) No. 864/2007 of 11 July 2007 on the Law Applicable to Non-contractual Obligations, Art. 4(1), 2007 O.J. (L 199) 40 (general rule applying to torts after January 11, 2009), available at http:// eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri!OJ:L:2007:199:0040:0049:EN:PDF [hereinafter Rome II]; Case C-142/10, Homawoo v.GMF Assurances SA, 2011 ECR I-11603, available at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/ LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri!Celex:62010CJ0412:EN:HTML.

30 Rome II, supra, note 29, Art. 4(2) (exception applying to torts committed after January 11, 2009); id., Art. 4(3) (escape clause); see also id., Art. 14(1)(a) (post-event agreement); id., Art. 14(1)(b) (pre-event agreement).

31 Id., Art. 26.

32 Kuwait Airways Corp. v. Iraqi Airways Co., [2002] UKHL 19, paras. 14–17, [2002] 2 A.C. 883, available at http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/2002/19.html.

33 SC Res. 662 (Aug. 9, 1990); see also SC Res. 661 (Aug. 6, 1990).

34 See UN Human Rights Council, Report of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the Issue of Human Rights and Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises, John Ruggie: Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights: Implementing the United Nations “Protect, Respect and Remedy” Framework, UNDoc. A/HRC/17/31, princ. 26&cmt. (Mar. 21, 2011), available at http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Business/A-HRC-17-31_AEV.pdf.

35 Chandler v. Cape PLC, [2012]EWCA(Civ) 525, para. 80 (Eng.), available at http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/525.html. An argument based on parent company responsibility was also made in Lubbe, supra note 26, and Gurerrero v. Montericco Metals PLC, [2009] EWHC 2475 (QB).

36 Andrew Sanger, Crossing the Corporate Veil: The Duty of Care Owed by a Parent Company to the Employees of Its Subsidiary, 71CAMBRIDGE L.J. 478 (2012); see also, in this Agora, Robert McCorquodale, Waving Not Drowning: Kiobel Outside the United States.

37 Michael D. Goldhaber, Corporate Human Rights Litigation in Non-U.S. Courts: A Comparative Scorecard, 3 U.C. IRVINE L. REV. 127, 128 (2013).

38 See, in this Agora, Caroline Kaeb & David Scheffer, The Paradox of Kiobel in Europe.

39 See, in this Agora, Anupam Chander, Unshackling Foreign Corporations: Kiobel's Unexpected Legacy.

40 See McCorquodale, supra note 36.

41 See, in this Agora, Ralph G. Steinhardt, Kiobel and the Weakening of Precedent: A Long Walk for a Short Drink.

42 See, in this Agora, Mahdev Mohan, The Road to Song Mao: Transnational Litigation from Southeast Asia to the United Kingdom.

Corporations and Transnational Litigation: Comparing Kiobel with the Jurisprudence of English Courts

  • Andrew Sanger (a1)

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed