Search: Kiobel

I’m pleased to flag the fact that the American Journal of International Law has recently launched its own blog — AJIL Unbound. Interested readers can find out more about the project and the Journal‘s interest in reader feedback here. In the meantime, AJIL Unbound is currently hosting an on-line discussion of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co. in concert with the Journal‘s print-based Agora on that same case in its October 2013 issue. I look forward to reading these posts and also to seeing...

...schools of thought and legal and non-legal disciplines, geographically disparate and often specializing in sub-fields that can no longer be defined as covering only “foreign affairs.” While Benedict and I are attempting to make the Journal ever more reflective of the increasingly diverse “invisible college” (or should we say “invisible colleges”?) from around the world –as through our recent effort to solicit public submissions for an Agora on the Supreme Court’s Kiobel decision—inevitably, prospective AJIL authors will continue to receive more polite rejections than acceptances from us. Web-based symposia such...

[I posted this about the same time that Ken posted his discussion of the same case below, which is definitely worth reading. Please forgive any repetitions. But we are both on the same page.] In a blockbuster opinion that could spell the end of the vast bulk of Alien Tort Statute litigation, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has held that corporations cannot be liable for violations of customary international law under the Alien Tort Statute. The decision, Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum, dismisses an ATS lawsuit...

...the ICTY’s new “specific direction” standard for aiding and abetting. Finally, Elizabeth Wilson returned to the discussion of Kiobel to refute Samuel Moyn’s argument in his Foreign Affairs post, by delving into the historical background of anti-Shell protests in Ogoniland. In other posts, Duncan pointed to a recent article by Jean Galbraith on the treaty-implementing power of Congress in historical practice, and Kristen reported back from a conference in Leiden on privileges and immunities of international organizations. If this inspires you to write or to attend a conference, check out...

...carefully how it tries to manage the sharply opposed interests of commercially valuable information flows and restraining a huge population undergoing extraordinary economic and social change. Next, what is the instrument for inducing businesses to do no evil? Chander alludes to Alien Tort Statute litigation, but after Kiobel that prospect seems dim. Incidentally, I could find no reference to that litigation in the book, although the Second Circuit decision would have come out long before his book went off to the publisher. I remain a skeptic about the efficacy of...

...School of Law and featuring Judge Bruno Simma of the Iran-U.S. Claims Tribunal, Judge Xue Hanqin of the International Court of Justice and Joel P. Trachtman of the Fletcher School of Dipomacy at Tufts University (Saturday, April 6). Our own Julian Ku will be moderating a panel on China and International Law featuring Jacques DeLisle, University of Pennsylvania School of Law; Bing Bing Jia, Tsinghua University Law School; and Stephanie Klein-Ahlbrandt, International Crisis Group (Friday, April 5) Our own Roger Alford will moderate a panel on Kiobel, the ATS and...

I’ve now had a chance to read a little more closely the decision, majority and concurrence, in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum (issued today by a 2nd Circuit panel of Judge Cabranes writing for himself and Judge Wood, and a concurrence in the judgment by Judge Leval). On second reading, it still looks to me like a blockbuster opinion, both because of the ringing tone of the Cabranes decision and the equally strong language of a concurrence that, on the key point of corporate liability, amounts to a dissent. With...

I have just now been forwarded a copy of the 2nd Circuit opinion released today in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum. I say “apparently” because I have hastily read it in the last couple of minutes; see also Julian’s post above. But unless I am greatly mistaken, it is a blockbuster opinion on the basics of ATS litigation. However, the most provocative and important holding seems to be that the ATS does not embrace corporate liability … at all: Plaintiffs assert claims for aiding and abetting violations of the law...

This week on Opinio Juris, the debate on Kiobel continued. Katherine Florey pointed out how the decision will deepen the divide between state and federal approaches to extraterritoriality issues. Ken Anderson argued that the ATS should be understood as the “law of the hegemon”. Peter agreed with Samuel Moyn that more attention to corporate social responsibility regulation could potentially have a broader impact in improving human rights than high profile ATS cases. Corporate social responsibility was also central to Peter’s post on the impact of recent tragedies in the Bangladesh...

...meeting with the US State Department and the Department of Transportation at the end of this month to discuss their opposition to a new EU law forcing foreign airlines to pay for greenhouse gas emissions. At this week’s ASEAN Summit, South China Sea issues dominate discussion. The United States has strengthened its military presence in the Gulf of Oman and the Arabian Sea to prevent Iran from blocking the Strait of Hormuz with mines. SCOTUS Blog is hosting an online symposium about the Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum, the case...

...of issues as that of direct obligations or others would not foreclose future –or even simultaneous— developments at all, insofar as business and human rights issues may well be regulated by other sources of international law, customary law and general principles of law included, as Surya Deva and Humberto Cantú have well expressed. Furthermore, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit acknowledged in the Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum case that corporate liability may well “gradually ripen [] into a rule of international law” –in spite of...

...to have an intent to violate the law). But Ben, I also suspect that there is an effort by some judges to protect corporations from liability -- even to the point of ignoring overwhelming trends in judicial decision concerning corporate duties (and rights) under international law. See, e.g., Kiobel and http://ssrn.com/abstract=1701992 If so, it is a problem of lawfare in the courts, not merely that some judges are unaware of the law (and their clerks). John C. Dehn Thinking out loud... If the Rome Statute permits referral by the Security...