Pitfalls and Pipelines - Philippine Indigenous Peoples Links

Pitfalls and Pipelines - Philippine Indigenous Peoples Links Pitfalls and Pipelines - Philippine Indigenous Peoples Links

17.11.2014 Views

260 Pitfalls and Pipelines: Indigenous Peoples and Extractive Industries Practically, however, there remain many serious obstacles to such a course of action. These include: • Finding the necessary legal advice and support; • Having to prove that the parent company is responsible and that the courts in the home country have jurisdiction; • Producing evidence and witnesses; and • Finding the necessary legal arguments. It also requires patience, given that most of the cases quoted below have been ongoing for 10 years or more. The assertion that justice delayed is justice denied is particularly true in the extractive industries sector, as litigants may die of mine-related disease or companies may cease to exist before claims are considered. Projects can advance causing irreparable social and environmental damage despite ongoing legal action. Since the Second World War and the Nuremberg war crimes trials, international law has held that human rights abuses can be prosecuted around the globe, but practically litigants tend to use civil, rather than criminal law, to bring cases, for instance under the Alien Tort Claims Act (ACTA) of 1789, which gives United States courts the jurisdiction to rule on human rights abuses perpetrated against foreign citizens outside the US. This complete extraterritoriality is its big advantage, as it opens up all sorts of possibilities. In addition to the ACTA, the Torture Victim Protection Act of 1991 is another tool which allows US courts to hear cases involving violations of international law committed against private persons, regardless of nationality, focussing on cases of torture or extrajudicial executions. 26 Previous ACTA cases include Beanal v Freeport-McMoran, which focused on environmental impacts, human rights abuses and cultural genocide at Freeport McMoran’s Grasberg mine in West Papau/Indonesia, and Doe v Unocal where Burmese villagers sued the oil company Unocal for alleged human rights violations, including forced labor, in the construction of the Yadana gas pipeline project. 27 Well-known current cases include Alexis Holyweek Sarei v Rio Tinto PLC over alleged human

Chapter 2.6: Legal Strategy from the Local to the International 261 rights violations and environmental damage in Bougainville because of Rio Tinto’s Panguna mine, and Kiobel v Shell, in relation to Shell’s support for the violent suppression of the Movement for the Survival of the Ogoni People (MOSOP) in Nigeria. 28 In fact the Ogoni’s legal actions are a good example of what can be gained, but also the pitfalls. To quote an article in the American lawyer, “Shell has been sued so many times over its conduct in Nigeria that its cases offer a laboratory experiment for human rights litigation.” 29 In the case of Wiwa v Shell there were 13 years of arduous ACTA litigation, which resulted in a US$15.5 million settlement in 2009. As noted above there is also the case of Kiobel v Shell, which has been in the US court system for around a decade and is now being heard as a test case of the applicability of the Alien Tort Statute Act to similar overseas company cases in the U.S. Supreme Court. The decision on whether corporations are covered by the Act will be crucial for any future actions. In defending the ACTA in the case of Kiobel v Shell, human Rights chief Navi Pillay said, “governance gaps created by the rising reach and influence of business actors have not been matched by a similar rise in the capacity of societies to manage their impact and ensure accountability for adverse human rights impacts resulting from business activities.” 30 A recent successful legal action by the Ogoni was the case of Bodo v Shell. This was a complaint filed by farmers and fishermen from the village of Bodo in the UK High Court over pollution from oil spills. In August 2011, after only four months, Shell’s Nigerian subsidiary admitted liability for a pair of oil spills in return for the parent company’s dismissal of the suit, paying out an unknown sum (which was estimated to be up to $400 million). It is believed that the simultaneous launch of a well-research report by the United Nations Environment Program, documenting serious contamination in the area, assisted greatly the rapid settlement. 31 The case taken against UK-based Monterrico Metals is an example of an extraterritorial legal case against a mining company for rights violations. The incident involved a number

260 <strong>Pitfalls</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>Pipelines</strong>: <strong>Indigenous</strong> <strong>Peoples</strong> <strong>and</strong> Extractive Industries<br />

Practically, however, there remain many serious obstacles<br />

to such a course of action. These include:<br />

• Finding the necessary legal advice <strong>and</strong> support;<br />

• Having to prove that the parent company is responsible<br />

<strong>and</strong> that the courts in the home country have<br />

jurisdiction;<br />

• Producing evidence <strong>and</strong> witnesses; <strong>and</strong><br />

• Finding the necessary legal arguments.<br />

It also requires patience, given that most of the cases<br />

quoted below have been ongoing for 10 years or more. The<br />

assertion that justice delayed is justice denied is particularly<br />

true in the extractive industries sector, as litigants may die of<br />

mine-related disease or companies may cease to exist before<br />

claims are considered. Projects can advance causing irreparable<br />

social <strong>and</strong> environmental damage despite ongoing legal<br />

action.<br />

Since the Second World War <strong>and</strong> the Nuremberg war<br />

crimes trials, international law has held that human rights<br />

abuses can be prosecuted around the globe, but practically<br />

litigants tend to use civil, rather than criminal law, to bring<br />

cases, for instance under the Alien Tort Claims Act (ACTA) of<br />

1789, which gives United States courts the jurisdiction to rule<br />

on human rights abuses perpetrated against foreign citizens<br />

outside the US. This complete extraterritoriality is its big advantage,<br />

as it opens up all sorts of possibilities.<br />

In addition to the ACTA, the Torture Victim Protection<br />

Act of 1991 is another tool which allows US courts to hear<br />

cases involving violations of international law committed<br />

against private persons, regardless of nationality, focussing on<br />

cases of torture or extrajudicial executions. 26<br />

Previous ACTA cases include Beanal v Freeport-McMoran,<br />

which focused on environmental impacts, human rights abuses<br />

<strong>and</strong> cultural genocide at Freeport McMoran’s Grasberg mine<br />

in West Papau/Indonesia, <strong>and</strong> Doe v Unocal where Burmese villagers<br />

sued the oil company Unocal for alleged human rights<br />

violations, including forced labor, in the construction of the<br />

Yadana gas pipeline project. 27 Well-known current cases include<br />

Alexis Holyweek Sarei v Rio Tinto PLC over alleged human

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!