Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-m9kch Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-07T00:01:45.126Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Paradox of Kiobel in Europe

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Caroline Kaeb  and
David Scheffer
Caroline Kaeb
Affiliation:
Northwestern University School of Law
David Scheffer
Affiliation:
Center for International Human Rights at Northwestern University School of Law
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

One of the most striking features of Chief Justice John Roberts’s majority opinion in the U.S. Supreme Court’s judgment in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co. is how it pays homage to foreign governments’ opposition to the extraterritorial application of the Alien Tort Statute (ATS), as voiced most prominently from European foreign ministries. “[F]oreign policy concerns” and the overarching goal to avoid diplomatic tensions with foreign sovereigns are themes heavily informing the Roberts opinion. The majority found the presumption against extraterritoriality applicable to the ATS in large part due to fear of “unwarranted judicial interference in the conduct of [U.S.] foreign policy” if the Court allowed the ATS to “reach conduct occurring in the territory of a foreign sovereign.” In that light, the Kiobel judgment can be understood primarily as a decision prohibiting the overreach of U.S. law and protecting jurisdictional prerogatives of lex loci delicti and state of incorporation alike.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 107 , Issue 4 , October 2013 , pp. 852 - 857
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 2013

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

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

2 The ATS confers on district courts “original jurisdiction of any civil action by an alien fora tort only, committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. §1350.

3 Kiobel, 133 S.Ct. at 1664.

4 Id.

5 Germany, discussed below, only filed an amicus brief for the initial argument in the case.

6 Supplemental Brief of the Governments of the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland as Amici Curiae in Support of Neither Party at 6,33–34, Kiobelv. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 133 S.Ct. 1659 (2013) (No. 10-1491), available at http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/supreme_court_preview/briefs/10-1491_neutralamcunetherlands-uk-greatbritain-andirelandgovs.authcheckdam.pdf [hereinafter Netherlands/UK Brief].

7 Supplemental Brief of the European Commission on Behalf of the European Union as Amicus Curiae in Support of Neither Party at 18, Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 133 S.Ct. 1659 (2013) (No. 10-1491), available at http://harvardhumanrights.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/european-commission-on-behalf-of-the-european-union-revised.pdf [hereinafter EU Brief].

8 Netherlands/UK Brief, supra note 6, at 24–26, 31. Arguing that the ATS poses a threat to international comity, the Dutch and British governments endorsed the concerns voiced by the U.S. Supreme Court and the South African government regarding the perceived risk to a foreign nation’s prerogative to “regulate its own commercial affairs,” id. at 31 (citation omitted), and the potential negative impact on “much needed direct foreign investment” in host countries, id. at 26 (citation omitted).

9 Id. at 24.

10 EU Brief, supra note 7, at 5.

11 Id. at 4–5.

12 Id. at 30–31. Alternatively, as noted in the EU Brief, “exhaustion of ‘local’ remedies requires a demonstration by the claimant that those states with a traditional jurisdictional nexus to the conduct are unwilling or unable to proceed.” Id. at 30 n.77.

13 Id. at 24 n.66.

14 El-Hojouj v. Unnamed Libyan Officials, Arrondissementsrechtbank Den Haag [District Court of the Hague], Mar. 21, 2012, Case No. 400882/HAZA11-2252 (ECLI:NL:RBSGR:2012:BV9748) (Neth.) (awarding damages to a Palestinian doctor tortured by Libyan state agents).

15 Oral Argument at 56:10–11, Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 133 S.Ct. 1659 (2013) (No. 10-1491), available at http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/10-1491rearg.pdf.

16 For a list of nations that provide for legal codification of criminal and often also joint civil liability for extraterritorial corporate conduct pertaining to international crimes, see Supplemental Brief of Ambassador David J. Scheffer as Amicus Curiae in Support of the Petitioners at 15–20, Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 133 S.Ct. 1659 (2013) (No. 10-1491), available at http://harvardhumanrights.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/ambassador-scheffer.pdf

17 See Kerr, Michael, Janda, Richard & Pitts, Chip, Corporate Social Responsibility: A Legal Analysis 113 (2009)Google Scholar.

18 Berle, Adolf A. Jr. & Means, Gardiner C., The Modern Corporation and Private Property 220–32 (1933)Google Scholar.

19 Companies Act 2006, c.46, pt. 10, c.2, §172 (UK), available at http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/46/section/172. Stakeholder interests include the interests of employees, suppliers, customers, and (local) communities. Id., §172, para. 1(b)–(d).

20 Other such areas include drug trafficking, terrorism, securities laws, and certain atrocity crimes.

21 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. 2(1), 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.

22 The European Court of Justice interprets the jurisdictional link of the “place where the harmful event occurred,” id, Art. 5(3), to encompass either “the place where the damage occurred or the place of the event giving rise to it.” Case 21/76, Handelskwekerij G. J. Bier B.V. v. Mines de Potasse dAlsace S.A., 1975 ECR 1735, para. 19.

23 Lugano Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, Dec. 21, 2007, 2007 O.J. (L 339) 3.

24 See, e.g., De Schutter, Olivier, The Accountability of Multinationals for Human Rights Violations in European Law, in Non-State Actors and Human Rights 227 (Alston, Philip ed., 2005)Google Scholar.

25 European Parliament Resolution on the Commission Green Paper on Promoting a European Framework for Corporate Social Responsibility (COM (2001) 366–C5-0161/2002–2002/2069(COS)), 2003 O.J. (C 187 E) 180, para. 50 (May 30, 2002), available at http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+TA+P5-TA-2002-0278+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN.

26 See Stephens, Beth, Translating Filártiga: A Comparative and International Law Analysis of Domestic Remedies for International Human Rights Violations , 27 Yale J. Int’l. L. 1, 27–31 (2002)Google Scholar.

27 Stephens, Beth, Conceptualizing Violence Under International Law: Do Tort Remedies Fit the Crime?, 60 Alb. L. Rev. 579, 603 (1997)Google Scholar (“The label ‘tort’ is a pale understatement when applied to the horrors inflicted upon victims and survivors of human rights abuses.”).

28 Chayes, Abram, The Role of the Judge in Public Law Litigation, 89 Harv. L. Rev. 1281, 1284 (1976)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

29 See Stephens, Beth, Corporate Liability: Enforcing Human Rights Through Domestic Litigation, 24 Hastings Int’l & Comp. L. Rev. 401, 412–13 (2001)Google Scholar.

30 See Curran, Vivian Grosswald, Globalization, Legal Transnationalization and Crimes Against Humanity: The Lipietz Case, 56 Am. J. Comp. L. 363, 364 – 66 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

31 EU Brief, supra note 7, at 18.

32 See Redress & FIDH, Extraterritorial Jurisdiction in the Eu: A Study of the Laws and Practice in the 27 Member States of the EU (Dec. 2010), available at http://www.fidh.org/IMG/pdf/Extraterritorial_Jurisdiction_In_the_27_Member_States_of_the_European_Union_FINAL.pdf; see also Prose cutor v. TotalFinaElf, Cour de Cassation/Hof van Cassatie [Court of Cassation], Mar. 28, 2007, No. P.07.0031.F (Belg.).

33 See Stephens, supra note 26, at 19.

34 Clermont, Kevin M. & Sherwin, Emily, A Comparative View of Standards of Proof, 50 Am. J. Comp. L. 243, 245–47 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

35 See Chase, Oscar G., American “Exceptionalism” and Comparative Procedure, 50 Am. J. Comp. L. 277, 293–94 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

36 See Larguier, Jean, The Civil Action for Damages in French Criminal Procedure, 39 Tul. L. Rev. 687 (1965)Google Scholar.

37 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, July 17, 1998, 2187 UNTS 90.

38 See Coffee, John C. Jr., “No Soul to Damn: No Body to Kick”: An Unscandalized Inquiry into the Problem of Corporate Punishment, 79 Mich. L. Rev. 386, 386–87 (1981)Google Scholar.

39 “Many of the European Union’s Member States can exercise universal criminal jurisdiction through actions civiles when brought within criminal proceedings.” EU Brief, supra note 7, at 24; see also Kyriakakis, Joanna, Corporate Criminal Liability and the ICC Statute: The Comparative Law Challenge, 56 Neth. Int’l L. Rev. 333, 340–42 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

40 See Diskant, Edward B., Comparative Corporate Criminal Liability: Exploring the Uniquely American Doctrine Through Comparative Criminal Procedure, 118 Yale L.J. 126, 142 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

41 Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 133 S.Ct. 1659, 1670 (2013) (Breyer, J., concurring).

42 Brief of the Federal Republic of Germany as Amicus Curiae in Support of Respondents at 2,14, Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 133 S.Ct. 1659 (2013) (No. 10-1491), available at http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/supreme_court_preview/briefs/10-1491_respondentamcufederalrepublicofgermany.auth checkdam.pdf

43 Id. at 15.

44 Supplemental Brief of Volker Beck and Christoph Stra¨sser, Members of Parliament of the Federal Republic of Germany, as Amici Curiae in Support of Petitioners at 2, Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 133 S.Ct. 1659 (2013) (No. 10-1491), available at http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/supreme_court_preview/briefs/10-1491_petitioneramcuvolkerbecketal.authcheckdam.pdf

45 Bundesgerichtsh of [Federal Court of Justice] Oct. 27, 1953, No. 5 StR 723/52, at 32 (Ger.) (discussing the issue of Strafbarkeit juristischer Personen (criminal liability of legal persons)).

46 Thompson, Robert C., Ramasastry, Anita & Taylor, Mark B., Translating Unocal: The Expanding Web of Liability for Business Entities Implicated in International Crimes, 40 Geo. Wash. Int’l L. Rev. 841, 893 (2009)Google Scholar.

47 Adam Liptak, Corporations Find a Friend in the Supreme Court, N.Y. Times, May 4, 2013 at http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/05/business/pro-business-decisions-are-defining-this-supreme-court.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 (capitalization adjusted).