Kiobel Ex Rel. Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co.
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 2200
| 2d Cir. | 2011Background
- Plaintiffs-appellants alleged corporate complicity in human rights abuses under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS).
- Defendants include Royal Dutch Petroleum, Shell Transport and Trading, and Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria.
- Second Circuit panel addressed whether corporations may be liable under the law of nations for violations, adopting or rejecting portions of Judge Leval’s view.
- Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co. (2010) and related opinions frame the debate on corporate liability and the scope of ATS.
- The court denied a petition for panel rehearing; Judge Leval’s concurrence and Judge Cabranes’s concurrence discuss policy concerns and jurisdiction.
- The opinion emphasizes comity and the absence of a universal norm supporting corporate liability under customary international law for ATS purposes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether corporations may be liable under the ATS for violations of customary international law | Kiobel argues for corporate liability under ATS based on international norms | Majority rejects corporate liability as not universal in customary international law | No corporate liability under ATS |
| Whether the availability of ATS claims against corporations should be foreclosed to avoid international friction | Continued ATS liability deters egregious abuses and ensures redress | Exposing foreign corporations in U.S. courts undermines comity and sovereignty | Affirmed foreclose on corporate ATS liability to promote comity |
| Whether the court should reserve judgment on remedies or limit discovery to avoid abuse | Discovery will uncover tortious corporate strategy and aid redress | Discovery and punitive damages risk abuse and coercive settlements | Court may limit discovery and use remedial controls under Talisman framework |
| Whether the acquiescence in corporate exemption would distort foreign policy and international relations | Exemption destabilizes victims' rights and international norms | Exemption protects international comity and foreign policy interests | Exemption acceptable under the majority approach, but with caveats |
Key Cases Cited
- Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 621 F.3d 111 (2d Cir. 2010) (concurrence discusses limits of ATS against corporations)
- Presbyterian Church of Sudan v. Talisman Energy, Inc., 582 F.3d 244 (2d Cir. 2009) (aiding-and-abetting liability under ATS requires purposeful violation)
- Flores v. S. Peru Copper Corp., 414 F.3d 233 (2d Cir. 2003) (norms must be universally abided to support customary international law)
- Khulumani v. Barclay Nat'l Bank Ltd., 504 F.3d 254 (2d Cir. 2007) (discusses accountability under law of nations and forum considerations)
- Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 U.S. 692 (S. Ct. 2004) (defines customary international law and ATS scope)