Trial lawyers say the darndest things. In recent years, they've been pushing the theory that US corporations should be liable merely for doing business in countries with bad human rights records -- even if the corporation does not itself commit any human rights violations.

The legal basis for this shakedown is the Alien Tort Claims Act (ATCA), a law passed in 1789 that allows foreign individuals to sue for injuries sustained from a “violation of the law of nations” anywhere in the world. For about 218 years, the statute was regarded as a remedy against individuals in the US who had committed atrocities abroad. But a few decisions from the last decade suggested that corporations could be liable for "aiding and abetting" foreign evil-doers. This theory feeds lawsuits that, for example, now seek to hold US multinationals liable for injuries caused by the apartheid regime. Such lawsuits have been championed by many liberal lawyers, including Harold Koh who is now a legal advisor to the Obama State Department.

Now the Second Circuit has ruled that ATCA can only be used to pursue claims against individuals, not against corporations that allegedly "aided" foreign governments by doing business abroad. If this goes to the Supremes, let's hope they affirm. It would be nice if corporations could invest abroad without having to get advance permission from Amnesty International.

And besides, given the Administration's own human rights "self-assessment," shouldn't US corporations refrain from doing business in the US?

  • Comment Filters
Contributor Comments
Member Comments
Comment Popularity

Comments :

Duane Oyen
Joined
May '10
Duane Oyen

So, why didn't we ever go after Occidental Petroleum when Armand Hammer was playing footsie with the Soviets?

Even if they weren't restrictive on freedom, these laws always go one way, against just one side. And you know which side. Let it die.


Joined
Jul '10
Ragnarok

I am probably mixing apples and oranges but how is the attempted extortion under ATCA different from the US government's taxing its citizens on their world wide income? The underlying statutes may be different but the former always struck me as predatory, so the latest shakedown seems par for the course.

Matthew Gilley
Joined
May '10
Matthew Gilley
Adam Freedman: And besides, given the Administration's own human rights "self-assessment," shouldn't US corporations refrain from doing business in the US? ·

Seems to me the Administration is already doing plenty to bring about this result.

Adam Freedman

Matthew Gilley

Adam Freedman: And besides, given the Administration's own human rights "self-assessment," shouldn't US corporations refrain from doing business in the US? ·

Seems to me the Administration is already doing plenty to bring about this result. · Sep 20 at 11:04am

Well, exactly. As Dinesh D'Souza points out in his recent Forbes piece, the Obama administration is subsidizing offshore drilling for Brazil, even while banning it in the US. The best way for an American to grow a business is: move abroad.


Would you like to comment on this Conversation?

Become a Member for $3.67 a month.

Join the Conversation
Already a member? Sign In
Loading

Welcome Visitor

Already a Member?
Please Sign In

Become a Member to enjoy the full benefits of Ricochet:

Join Ricochet today!

Already a Member? Sign In