Podcasts about kiobel

Nestlé USA Inc v Doe (2021) is a United States Supreme Court decision regarding the Alien Tort Statute (ATS), which provides federal courts jurisdiction over claims brought by foreign nationals for violations of international law. Consolidated with Cargill Inc v Doe, the case concerned a class-action lawsuit against Nestlé USA and Cargill for aiding and abetting child slavery in Côte d'Ivoire by purchasing from cocoa producers that utilize child slave labor from Mali. The plaintiffs, who were former slave laborers in the cocoa farms, brought their claim in U.S. district court under the ATS, The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California dismissed the suit on the basis that corporations cannot be sued under the ATS, and that the plaintiffs failed to allege the elements of an aiding and abetting claim. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed, holding that corporations are liable for aiding and abetting slavery, in part because norms against slavery are "universal and absolute" and thus provide a basis for an ATS claim against a corporation; however, it did not address the argument by the defendant corporations that the complaint sought an extraterritorial application of the ATS, which the U.S. Supreme Court had recently rejected in Kiobel v Royal Dutch Petroleum Co. On remand, the district court again dismissed the claims, finding that the plaintiffs sought an impermissible extraterritorial application of the ATS. In the interim, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Jesner v Arab Bank, PLC, which held that foreign corporations cannot be sued under the ATS. The Ninth Circuit reversed, finding that the holding in Jesner does not disturb its prior holding as to the domestic defendants, Nestle USA, Inc., and Cargill, Inc., and that the specific domestic conduct alleged by the plaintiffs falls within the focus of the ATS and does not require extraterritorial application of that statute. Background. Six Malians, identified as John Doe I through VI, were trafficked into Côte d'Ivoire as children and enslaved on cocoa plantations. The children, aged 12-14, were kept in harsh living conditions at the plantations, and they were forced under threat of violence to cultivate cocoa for up to fourteen hours per day without pay. The children witnessed slaves who were caught trying to escape from the plantation being tortured by guards. Most of the cocoa that the slaves cultivated on Côte d'Ivoire plantations was sold to U.S. companies such as the Nestlé and Cargill corporations and imported to U.S. markets. Nestlé and Cargill encouraged the use of child slave labor on Côte d'Ivoire plantations by supporting farmers through capital investments in equipment, training, and cash advances. They also facilitated child slavery by lobbying "against legislation intended to make the use of child slavery transparent to the public" and mislead consumers on their actions in the region. The corporations also sent representatives to inspect plantations. In return, Nestlé and Cargill get cheaper cocoa imports, increasing their profit margins. History. The case was initially filed in 2005 but dismissed by the District Court for the Central District of California in 2010. The Ninth Circuit remanded this decision, stating that the plaintiffs had standing to sue under the Alien Tort Statute—but the case was again dismissed by the district court. In oral arguments, the Malians were represented by Paul L. Hoffman, while Nestlé and Cargill were represented by Neal Katyal. --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app

In this episode of RightsCast, we bring you a panel discussion, chaired by Sheldon Leader, with Dr Miriam Saage-Maaß and Daniel Leader, both leading practitioners in the business and human rights field, as they outline recent developments in the litigation of business and human rights cases. Taking Lessenich’s and others’ sociological concept of the “imperialistic lifestyle” to describe the dynamics of global economy and the lack of fundamental resistance against it, Miriam Saage-Maaß demonstrates how the law organises and enables exploitative practices of global economy. She also analyses how the law nevertheless opens space to develop resistance, and how it can be a driver of self-empowerment of workers and others negatively affected by globalised economic activities. Daniel Leader discusses the emerging jurisprudence from the UK Supreme Court surrounding the issue of parent company liability. In April 2019, the Supreme Court gave a landmark judgment in Vedanta Resources Plc v Lungowe and Ors. [2019] UKSC 20. The appeal analysed the controversial question of whether a parent company can be liable in the English courts for the operations of its foreign subsidiaries. The Supreme Court significantly extended the potential scope of parent company liability. The unanimous ruling of the Supreme Court has been cited as “the most important judicial decision in the field of business and human rights since the jurisdictional ruling of the US Supreme Court in Kiobel in 2013.” Dr. Miriam Saage-Maaß is Vice Legal Director at the European Centre For Constitutional and Human Rights (ECCHR), where she coordinates the Business and Human Rights program. She has worked on various cases against corporations relating to exploitation of workers in Bangladesh and Pakistan, especially against KiK Textilien regarding liability in the Baldia Factory Fire, and against companies trading in cotton picked through forced child labour in Uzbekistan. In 2016, the Association of Democratic Lawyers in Germany awarded Saage-Maaß and ECCHR's General Secretary the Hans Litten Prize in acknowledgment of their role in the strategic approach of ECCHR's work. Daniel Leader is a barrister and partner at Leigh Day and specialises in international claims, group actions, environmental and human rights law. Over the past 25 years, Leigh Day has been involved in groundbreaking cases against parent companies on behalf of victims from the developing world who have sought redress for human rights abuses committed by British companies. The firm has represented claimants from Nigeria, Mozambique, South Africa, Kenya, Colombia, Peru, Bangladesh, Iraq and the Ivory Coast. Many of Leigh Day cases have reached the higher courts and set new precedents in English law for cross-jurisdictional litigation. In 2001 Dan was awarded the Bar Council's Sydney Elland Goldsmith award for his contribution to pro bono work in Africa. For an update on the Lafarge case taken by ECCHR and Sherpa: https://www.ecchr.eu/en/case/lafarge-in-syria-accusations-of-complicity-in-grave-human-rights-violations/

Increasing World Climate Ambition / Moving the Paris Climate Deal Ahead / Beyond the Headlines / Bringing Back Butternut Trees / Rating the Climate Promises of 2020 Prexy Candidates / Seeking Justice for the Ogoni Nine / BirdNote®: Brewer's Sparrow, Sageland Singer Polls show climate change is a rising concern for Democratic voters looking towards the 2020 presidential election. Greenpeace has a scorecard for each candidate based on commitments to a Green New Deal and phasing out fossil fuels. Also, many of the 2,000 delegates from 185 nations at UN Climate session in Germany are seeking to raise the ambition of nations in the Paris Climate Agreement, in hopes of limiting planetary warming to no more than 1.5 degrees Celsius. And Ogoni Nine widow Esther Kiobel is one step closer to justice in her battle against Royal Dutch Shell. She has pursued the oil giant for nearly 25 years, since the Nigerian government executed her husband in 1995 on trumped up charges, allegedly encouraged by Shell. Ms. Kiobel's husband was part of a group known as the Ogoni Nine, including Ken Saro-Wiwa which fought against Shell for environmental and economic damages to their homeland near the Niger River Delta. Now Ms. Kiobel will finally have her case heard in a Dutch case in her bid for reparations and the clearing of her husband's name. Seeking justice for the Ogoni Nine and more, in this episode of Living on Earth from PRI.

Increasing World Climate Ambition / Moving the Paris Climate Deal Ahead / Beyond the Headlines / Bringing Back Butternut Trees / Rating the Climate Promises of 2020 Prexy Candidates / Seeking Justice for the Ogoni Nine / BirdNote®: Brewer's Sparrow, Sageland Singer Polls show climate change is a rising concern for Democratic voters looking towards the 2020 presidential election. Greenpeace has a scorecard for each candidate based on commitments to a Green New Deal and phasing out fossil fuels. Also, many of the 2,000 delegates from 185 nations at UN Climate session in Germany are seeking to raise the ambition of nations in the Paris Climate Agreement, in hopes of limiting planetary warming to no more than 1.5 degrees Celsius. And Ogoni Nine widow Esther Kiobel is one step closer to justice in her battle against Royal Dutch Shell. She has pursued the oil giant for nearly 25 years, since the Nigerian government executed her husband in 1995 on trumped up charges, allegedly encouraged by Shell. Ms. Kiobel's husband was part of a group known as the Ogoni Nine, including Ken Saro-Wiwa which fought against Shell for environmental and economic damages to their homeland near the Niger River Delta. Now Ms. Kiobel will finally have her case heard in a Dutch case in her bid for reparations and the clearing of her husband's name. Seeking justice for the Ogoni Nine and more, in this episode of Living on Earth from PRI.

Increasing World Climate Ambition / Moving the Paris Climate Deal Ahead / Beyond the Headlines / Bringing Back Butternut Trees / Rating the Climate Promises of 2020 Prexy Candidates / Seeking Justice for the Ogoni Nine / BirdNote®: Brewer's Sparrow, Sageland Singer Polls show climate change is a rising concern for Democratic voters looking towards the 2020 presidential election. Greenpeace has a scorecard for each candidate based on commitments to a Green New Deal and phasing out fossil fuels. Also, many of the 2,000 delegates from 185 nations at UN Climate session in Germany are seeking to raise the ambition of nations in the Paris Climate Agreement, in hopes of limiting planetary warming to no more than 1.5 degrees Celsius. And Ogoni Nine widow Esther Kiobel is one step closer to justice in her battle against Royal Dutch Shell. She has pursued the oil giant for nearly 25 years, since the Nigerian government executed her husband in 1995 on trumped up charges, allegedly encouraged by Shell. Ms. Kiobel's husband was part of a group known as the Ogoni Nine, including Ken Saro-Wiwa which fought against Shell for environmental and economic damages to their homeland near the Niger River Delta. Now Ms. Kiobel will finally have her case heard in a Dutch case in her bid for reparations and the clearing of her husband's name. Seeking justice for the Ogoni Nine and more, in this episode of Living on Earth from PRI.

Increasing World Climate Ambition / Moving the Paris Climate Deal Ahead / Beyond the Headlines / Bringing Back Butternut Trees / Rating the Climate Promises of 2020 Prexy Candidates / Seeking Justice for the Ogoni Nine / BirdNote®: Brewer's Sparrow, Sageland Singer Polls show climate change is a rising concern for Democratic voters looking towards the 2020 presidential election. Greenpeace has a scorecard for each candidate based on commitments to a Green New Deal and phasing out fossil fuels. Also, many of the 2,000 delegates from 185 nations at UN Climate session in Germany are seeking to raise the ambition of nations in the Paris Climate Agreement, in hopes of limiting planetary warming to no more than 1.5 degrees Celsius. And Ogoni Nine widow Esther Kiobel is one step closer to justice in her battle against Royal Dutch Shell. She has pursued the oil giant for nearly 25 years, since the Nigerian government executed her husband in 1995 on trumped up charges, allegedly encouraged by Shell. Ms. Kiobel's husband was part of a group known as the Ogoni Nine, including Ken Saro-Wiwa which fought against Shell for environmental and economic damages to their homeland near the Niger River Delta. Now Ms. Kiobel will finally have her case heard in a Dutch case in her bid for reparations and the clearing of her husband's name. Seeking justice for the Ogoni Nine and more, in this episode of Living on Earth from PRI.

On April 24, 2018, the Supreme Court decided Jesner v. Arab Bank, PLC, a case considering whether corporations may be sued under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS).Between 2004 and 2010, survivors of several terrorist attacks in the Middle East (or family members or estate representatives of the victims) filed lawsuits in federal district court in New York against Arab Bank, PLC, an international bank headquartered in Jordan. Plaintiffs alleged that Arab Bank had financed and facilitated the attacks in question, and they sought redress under, among other laws, the Alien Tort Statute (ATS). The district court ultimately dismissed those ATS claims based on the 2010 decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co. (“Kiobel I”) which concluded that ATS claims could not be brought against corporations, because the law of nations did not recognize corporate liability. The U.S. Supreme Court later affirmed the judgment in Kiobel (“Kiobel II”) but on a different basis: the presumption against extraterritorial application of statutes. In Jesner, the Second Circuit, invoking its precedent in Kiobel I--and finding nothing to the contrary in the Supreme Court’s Kiobel II decision--affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Plaintiffs’ ATS claims on the grounds that the ATS does not apply to alleged international law violations by a corporation. This sharpened a split among the circuit courts of appeals on the issue, and the Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve the dispute.By a vote of 5-4, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Second Circuit. In an opinion delivered by Justice Kennedy, the Court held that foreign corporations may not be defendants in suits brought under the Alien Tort Statute. Justice Kennedy delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, II-B-I, and II-C, joined by the Chief Justice and Justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch--and an opinion with respect to Parts II-A, II-B-2, II-B-3, and III, joined by the Chief Justice and Justice Thomas. Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion. Justices Alito and Gorsuch also filed opinions concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. Justice Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, and Kagan. To discuss the case, we have Eugene Kontorovich, Professor of Law at Northwestern School of Law.

On April 24, 2018, the Supreme Court decided Jesner v. Arab Bank, PLC, a case considering whether corporations may be sued under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS).Between 2004 and 2010, survivors of several terrorist attacks in the Middle East (or family members or estate representatives of the victims) filed lawsuits in federal district court in New York against Arab Bank, PLC, an international bank headquartered in Jordan. Plaintiffs alleged that Arab Bank had financed and facilitated the attacks in question, and they sought redress under, among other laws, the Alien Tort Statute (ATS). The district court ultimately dismissed those ATS claims based on the 2010 decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co. (“Kiobel I”) which concluded that ATS claims could not be brought against corporations, because the law of nations did not recognize corporate liability. The U.S. Supreme Court later affirmed the judgment in Kiobel (“Kiobel II”) but on a different basis: the presumption against extraterritorial application of statutes. In Jesner, the Second Circuit, invoking its precedent in Kiobel I--and finding nothing to the contrary in the Supreme Court’s Kiobel II decision--affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Plaintiffs’ ATS claims on the grounds that the ATS does not apply to alleged international law violations by a corporation. This sharpened a split among the circuit courts of appeals on the issue, and the Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve the dispute.By a vote of 5-4, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Second Circuit. In an opinion delivered by Justice Kennedy, the Court held that foreign corporations may not be defendants in suits brought under the Alien Tort Statute. Justice Kennedy delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, II-B-I, and II-C, joined by the Chief Justice and Justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch--and an opinion with respect to Parts II-A, II-B-2, II-B-3, and III, joined by the Chief Justice and Justice Thomas. Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion. Justices Alito and Gorsuch also filed opinions concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. Justice Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, and Kagan. To discuss the case, we have Eugene Kontorovich, Professor of Law at Northwestern School of Law.

On October 11, 2017, the Supreme Court heard argument in Jesner v. Arab Bank, PLC, a case regarding the validity of suits against corporate entities under the Alien Tort Statute. Between 2004 and 2010, survivors of several terrorist attacks in the Middle East (or family members or estate representatives of the victims) filed lawsuits in federal district court in New York against Arab Bank, PLC, an international bank headquartered in Jordan. Plaintiffs alleged that Arab Bank had financed and facilitated the attacks in question, and they sought redress under, among other laws, the Alien Tort Statute (ATS). The district court ultimately dismissed those ATS claims based on the 2010 decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., (“Kiobel I”), which concluded that ATS claims could not be brought against corporations, because the law of nations did not recognize corporate liability. The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the Second Circuit’s judgment in Kiobel (“Kiobel II”) but for a different reason: the failure to rebut a presumption against extraterritorial application of the ATS to actions that took place in the territory of a sovereign other than the United States. The district court in Jesner acknowledged this, but concluded that nothing in the Supreme Court’s decision actually contravened the Second Circuit’s original rationale regarding corporate liability, which therefore remained the law applicable to district courts within the Second Circuit. On appeal, the Second Circuit affirmed the district court, agreeing that Kiobel II did not overrule Kiobel I on the issue of corporate liability under the ATS. Other federal circuit courts of appeals, however, have read Kiobel II differently with respect to the possibility of corporate liability, creating a split with the Second Circuit--and the Supreme Court has now granted certiorari to address whether the Alien Tort Statute categorically forecloses corporate liability.To discuss the case, we have Eugene Kontorovich, Professor of Law at Northwestern School of Law.

On October 11, 2017, the Supreme Court heard argument in Jesner v. Arab Bank, PLC, a case regarding the validity of suits against corporate entities under the Alien Tort Statute. Between 2004 and 2010, survivors of several terrorist attacks in the Middle East (or family members or estate representatives of the victims) filed lawsuits in federal district court in New York against Arab Bank, PLC, an international bank headquartered in Jordan. Plaintiffs alleged that Arab Bank had financed and facilitated the attacks in question, and they sought redress under, among other laws, the Alien Tort Statute (ATS). The district court ultimately dismissed those ATS claims based on the 2010 decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., (“Kiobel I”), which concluded that ATS claims could not be brought against corporations, because the law of nations did not recognize corporate liability. The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the Second Circuit’s judgment in Kiobel (“Kiobel II”) but for a different reason: the failure to rebut a presumption against extraterritorial application of the ATS to actions that took place in the territory of a sovereign other than the United States. The district court in Jesner acknowledged this, but concluded that nothing in the Supreme Court’s decision actually contravened the Second Circuit’s original rationale regarding corporate liability, which therefore remained the law applicable to district courts within the Second Circuit. On appeal, the Second Circuit affirmed the district court, agreeing that Kiobel II did not overrule Kiobel I on the issue of corporate liability under the ATS. Other federal circuit courts of appeals, however, have read Kiobel II differently with respect to the possibility of corporate liability, creating a split with the Second Circuit--and the Supreme Court has now granted certiorari to address whether the Alien Tort Statute categorically forecloses corporate liability.To discuss the case, we have Eugene Kontorovich, Professor of Law at Northwestern School of Law.

Should the U.S. Supreme Court be the court of the world? In the 18th century, two feuding Frenchmen inspired a one-sentence law that helped launch American human rights litigation into the 20th century. The Alien Tort Statute allowed a Paraguayan woman to find justice for a terrible crime committed in her homeland. But as America reached further and further out into the world, the court was forced to confront the contradictions in our country’s ideology: sympathy vs. sovereignty. Earlier this month, the Supreme Court heard arguments in Jesner v. Arab Bank, a case that could reshape the way America responds to human rights abuses abroad. Does the A.T.S. secure human rights or is it a dangerous overreach? The key voices: Ken Saro-Wiwa Jr., son of activist Ken Saro-Wiwa Sr. Dolly Filártiga, sister of Joelito Filártiga Paloma Calles, daughter of Dolly Filártiga Peter Weiss, lawyer at the Center for Constitutional Rights who represented Dolly Filártiga in Filártiga v. Peña-Irala Katherine Gallagher, lawyer at the Center for Constitutional Rights Paul Hoffman, lawyer who represented Kiobel in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum John Bellinger, former legal adviser for the U.S. Department of State and the National Security Council William Casto, professor at Texas Tech University School of Law Eric Posner, professor at University of Chicago Law School Samuel Moyn, professor at Yale University René Horst, professor at Appalachian State University The key cases: 1984: Filártiga v. Peña-Irala 2013: Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum 2017: Jesner v. Arab Bank The key links: Center for Constitutional Rights Additional music for this episode by Nicolas Carter. Special thanks to William J. Aceves, William Baude, Diego Calles, Alana Casanova-Burgess, William Dodge, Susan Farbstein, Jeffery Fisher, Joanne Freeman, Julian Ku, Nicholas Rosenkranz, Susan Simpson, Emily Vinson, Benjamin Wittes and Jamison York. Ken Saro-Wiwa Jr., who appears in this episode, passed away in October 2016. Leadership support for More Perfect is provided by The Joyce Foundation. Additional funding is provided by The Charles Evans Hughes Memorial Foundation. Supreme Court archival audio comes from Oyez®, a free law project in collaboration with the Legal Information Institute at Cornell.

A case in which the Court found that the Alien Tort Statute does not give ground for United States law to be applied extraterrestrially to other sovereign nations with their own laws.

Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co. | 10/01/12 | Docket #: 10-1491 (Reargued)

A case in which the Court found that the Alien Tort Statute does not give ground for United States law to be applied extraterrestrially to other sovereign nations with their own laws.