Supreme Court to decide if corporations can be sued for human rights abuses - Polidicks

[quote] WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The Supreme Court will weigh next week whether corporations can be sued in the United States for suspected complicity in human rights abuses abroad, in a case being closely watched by businesses concerned about long and costly litigation. The high court on Tuesday will consider the reach of a 1789 U.S. law that had been largely dormant until 1980, when human rights lawyers started using it, at first to sue foreign government officials. Then, over the next 20 years, the lawyers used the law to target multinational corporations. The case before the court pits the Obama administration and human rights advocates against large companies and foreign governments over allegations that Royal Dutch Shell Plc helped Nigeria crush oil exploration protests in the 1990s. Administration attorneys and lawyers for the plaintiffs contend corporations can be held accountable in U.S. courts for committing or assisting foreign governments in torture, executions or other human rights abuses. Attorneys for corporations argue that only individuals, such as company employees or managers involved in the abuse, can be sued, a position adopted by a U.S. appeals court in New York. Other courts ruled corporations can be held liable. The justices will hear an appeal by a group of Nigerians who argue they should be allowed to proceed with a lawsuit accusing Shell of aiding the Nigerian government in human rights violations between 1992 and 1995. California attorney Paul Hoffman, who will argue on behalf of the plaintiffs, said corporations, under the 1789 law, were permissible defendants and that corporate civil liability was a general principle of international law. “Businesses involved in genocide, crimes against humanity or other serious human rights violations deserve no exemption from tort liability,” he said in a brief filed with the court. NO EXEMPTION FOR GENOCIDE The Obama administration supported the corporate liability argument, as did international human rights organizations and Navi Pillay, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. Representing Shell at the arguments, Kathleen Sullivan, a former dean of the Stanford Law School in California, said U.S. and international law do not allow corporate liability for the alleged offenses. She said the post-World War Two Nuremberg tribunals covered prosecutions of individuals, not corporations. She warned of the consequences of allowing such lawsuits. “Even a meritless … suit against a corporation can take years to resolve,” she said in a brief, adding that corporations may reduce their operations in less-developed nations where such abuses tend to arise. The British, Dutch and German governments supported Shell and said it violates international law to apply a U.S. law from more than 200 years ago to acts that take place in other countries and have no connection to the United States. Also backing Shell are various multinational corporations and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce business lobby. Robin Conrad, head of the group’s legal arm, said that if the Supreme Court upholds corporate liability, “the global business community will face yet another wave of frivolous and expensive litigation.” In the past two decades, more than 120 lawsuits have been filed in U.S. courts against 59 corporations for alleged wrongful acts in 60 foreign countries, lawyers in the case said. Many of the lawsuits have been unsuccessful, though there have been a handful of settlements, the lawyers said. Many of the cases, having dragged on for years, are still pending. Among the cases: Indonesia villagers accused Exxon Mobil Corp’s security forces of murder, torture and other abuses in 1999-2001; Firestone tire company was accused of using child labor in Liberia; and Ford Motor Co and other firms were accused of aiding South Africa’s apartheid system. The Alien Tort Statute from 1789 states that U.S. courts shall have jurisdiction over any civil lawsuit “by an alien for a tort only, committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States.” In its first substantive look at the law in 2004, the Supreme Court ruled it can be used for certain well-established international law violations, but did not determine who may be held liable. A ruling in the case is expected by the end of June. The Supreme Court case is Esther Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co, No. 10-1491.[/quote] [url]http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/02/24/supreme-court-to-decide-if-corporations-can-be-sued-for-human-rights-abuses/[/url]

Romney is going to be so pissed. "Corporations are people too"

YES. DO IT.

Throw corporations in jail. They're human too, right?

They're sociopathic, they belong in an INSTITUTION!

This should of been introduced so long ago. I hope it does and it will be interesting to see which corporations are sent to court of this and also how corporations will begin to change their methods of practice.

[QUOTE=-n3o-;34861942]This should of been introduced so long ago. I hope it does and it will be interesting to see which corporations are sent to court of this and also how corporations will begin to change their methods of practice.[/QUOTE] Unless the corporations bribe the judges enough to make themselves innocent.

I hope this really improves the work conditions in Foxconn. It's sick how so many major companies can even support that labour.

[QUOTE=-n3o-;34861942]This should of been introduced so long ago. I hope it does and it will be interesting to see which corporations are sent to court of this and also how corporations will begin to change their methods of practice.[/QUOTE] I can only imagine how fucked Coca Cola would have been.

If corporations are people, then shouldn't they have to pay the same taxes as a regular person, as well as whatever corporate taxes they already have?

But...Corporations are the people.

[QUOTE=Medevilae;34862217]First thing to come of this will be a publicity stunt by human rights groups- suing Apple for continuing Foxconn operations despite knowing what went on there.[/QUOTE] Not only Apple.

[QUOTE=Badballer;34862038]I hope this really improves the work conditions in Foxconn. It's sick how so many major companies can even support that labour.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Medevilae;34862217]First thing to come of this will be a publicity stunt by human rights groups- suing Apple for continuing Foxconn operations despite knowing what went on there.[/QUOTE] Except Foxconn is in China.

[QUOTE=KillerJaguar;34862792]Except Foxconn is in China.[/QUOTE] So what they did was "understandable" and Apple has no responsibility?

[QUOTE=Falchion;34862915]So what they did was "understandable" and Apple has no responsibility?[/QUOTE] No one said that, but jurisdiction and legality is more complicated considering it happened in a different country.

EVERYONE CALL YOUR REPRESENATIVES MAKE THEM SAY YES GOGOGOOGOGOGOGOG

Nice.

Walmart is in for some serious shit

[QUOTE=GlebGuy;34863146]EVERYONE CALL YOUR REPRESENATIVES MAKE THEM SAY YES GOGOGOOGOGOGOGOG[/QUOTE] Except this is the supreme court and they answer to no one* (*: No one can refer to anyone)

[QUOTE=jordguitar;34863175]Except this is the supreme court and they answer to no one* (*: No one can refer to anyone)[/QUOTE] Oh. :(

[QUOTE=KillerJaguar;34862792]Except Foxconn is in China.[/QUOTE] Except human rights abuse can cross borders and still be illegal under law. Hell the US is very keen on enforcing it's laws on it's citizens that commit crimes illegal by US law (but legal under recipient nation). In the majority of cases most nation do this only if the act is illegal in both nations or is so grave to warrant this enforcing. Human rights abuse definitely counts under that.

Guys, guys. Don't get your hopes up. This is the same Supreme Court that declared corporations are people.

It will be a 5-4 outcome. Like most important fucking issues going through there recently. [editline]25th February 2012[/editline] Reagen really just fucked us up by appointing the worse possible people to the positions.

[QUOTE=Nikota;34864663]It will be a 5-4 outcome. Like most important fucking issues going through there recently.[/QUOTE] Even in bribing corporations like to save money! Why bribe all of them, when you can just bribe the majority

2012, the year where human ideology promoting peace and welfare for humans comes to fruition with a shift of values towards understanding But something tells me even to the higher ups, corporations have a firm grip

Worst case scenario for the corporations is they'll have to pay some fines

[QUOTE=Zezibesh;34864682]Even in bribing corporations like to save money! Why bribe all of them, when you can just bribe the majority[/QUOTE] I've never understood why people that get bribed don't do this: Get the money, then don't comply and denounce whoever bribed them.

[QUOTE=Maximo13;34865955]I've never understood why people that get bribed don't do this: Get the money, then don't comply and denounce whoever bribed them.[/QUOTE] They won't be receiving more in the future? Someone could rat them out on accepting bribes?

[QUOTE=Maximo13;34865955]I've never understood why people that get bribed don't do this: Get the money, then don't comply and denounce whoever bribed them.[/QUOTE] If you want to be labeled as a rat and never receive a single bribe again... sure.

[QUOTE=certified;34863948]Guys, guys. Don't get your hopes up. This is the same Supreme Court that declared corporations are people.[/QUOTE] No they aren't. Corporate personhood has been around for almost two hundred years. It's interesting to see them use the argument that people in a corporation can be sued, but not the actual corporation. I might be wrong here, but I thought the entire idea of a corporation was to protect the members of the corporation i.e. LLC (Limited Liability Company).