Pitfalls and Pipelines - Philippine Indigenous Peoples Links
Pitfalls and Pipelines - Philippine Indigenous Peoples Links Pitfalls and Pipelines - Philippine Indigenous Peoples Links
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
- Page 238 and 239: 210 Pitfalls and Pipelines: Indigen
- Page 240 and 241: 212 Pitfalls and Pipelines: Indigen
- Page 242 and 243: 214 Pitfalls and Pipelines: Indigen
- Page 244 and 245: 216 Pitfalls and Pipelines: Indigen
- Page 246 and 247: 218 Pitfalls and Pipelines: Indigen
- Page 248 and 249: 220 Pitfalls and Pipelines: Indigen
- Page 250 and 251: 222 Pitfalls and Pipelines: Indigen
- Page 252 and 253: 224 Pitfalls and Pipelines: Indigen
- Page 254 and 255: 226 Pitfalls and Pipelines: Indigen
- Page 256 and 257: 228 Pitfalls and Pipelines: Indigen
- Page 258 and 259: 230 Pitfalls and Pipelines: Indigen
- Page 260 and 261: 232 Pitfalls and Pipelines: Indigen
- Page 262 and 263: 234 Pitfalls and Pipelines: Indigen
- Page 264 and 265: 236 Pitfalls and Pipelines: Indigen
- Page 266 and 267: 238 Pitfalls and Pipelines: Indigen
- Page 268 and 269: 240 Pitfalls and Pipelines: Indigen
- Page 270 and 271: 242 Pitfalls and Pipelines: Indigen
- Page 272 and 273: 244 Pitfalls and Pipelines: Indigen
- Page 274 and 275: 246 Pitfalls and Pipelines: Indigen
- Page 276 and 277: 248 Pitfalls and Pipelines: Indigen
- Page 278 and 279: 250 Pitfalls and Pipelines: Indigen
- Page 280 and 281: 252 Pitfalls and Pipelines: Indigen
- Page 282 and 283: 254 Pitfalls and Pipelines: Indigen
- Page 284 and 285: 256 Pitfalls and Pipelines: Indigen
- Page 286 and 287: 258 Pitfalls and Pipelines: Indigen
- Page 290 and 291: 262 Pitfalls and Pipelines: Indigen
- Page 292 and 293: 264 Pitfalls and Pipelines: Indigen
- Page 294 and 295: 266 Pitfalls and Pipelines: Indigen
- Page 296 and 297: 268 Pitfalls and Pipelines: Indigen
- Page 298 and 299: 270 Pitfalls and Pipelines: Indigen
- Page 300 and 301: 272 Pitfalls and Pipelines: Indigen
- Page 302 and 303: 274 Pitfalls and Pipelines: Indigen
- Page 304 and 305: 276 Pitfalls and Pipelines: Indigen
- Page 306 and 307: 278 Pitfalls and Pipelines: Indigen
- Page 308 and 309: 280 Pitfalls and Pipelines: Indigen
- Page 310 and 311: 282 Pitfalls and Pipelines: Indigen
- Page 312 and 313: 284 Pitfalls and Pipelines: Indigen
- Page 314 and 315: 286 Pitfalls and Pipelines: Indigen
- Page 316 and 317: 288 Pitfalls and Pipelines: Indigen
- Page 318 and 319: 290 Pitfalls and Pipelines: Indigen
- Page 320 and 321: 292 Pitfalls and Pipelines: Indigen
- Page 322 and 323: 294 Pitfalls and Pipelines: Indigen
- Page 324 and 325: 296 Pitfalls and Pipelines: Indigen
- Page 326 and 327: 298 Pitfalls and Pipelines: Indigen
- Page 328 and 329: 300 Pitfalls and Pipelines: Indigen
- Page 330 and 331: 302 Pitfalls and Pipelines: Indigen
- Page 332 and 333: 304 Pitfalls and Pipelines: Indigen
- Page 334 and 335: 306 Pitfalls and Pipelines: Indigen
- Page 336 and 337: 308 Pitfalls and Pipelines: Indigen
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