06- 4800- cv, 06- 4876- cv

K i obe l v. R oy al D ut ch Pe t ro l eu m

1 1 LEVAL, Circuit Judge , c on curri ng on ly i n th e ju dg m ent: 2 Th e m ajo rity o pin ion de als a su

bs tantia l bl owto i nte rnatio na l law and its un de rtakin g to 3 protect fundamental human rights. According t o the rule my colleagues have creat ed, one who 4 ear

ns pro fi ts b y c om

m erc ial explo itatio n o f a

bu se o f f un dam en tal hum anrig hts can su cce ssf ull y 5 shield thos e profits from victims’ claims for com pensation si mply by taking the precaut ion of 6 conducting the heinous operat ion in the corporate form. W ithout any suppor t in eit her the 7 pre ced en ts o r th e sc ho lar sh ip o f i nte rnatio na l law, the m ajo rity take the po sit ion that 8 corporati ons, and other j uridical entiti es, are not s ubject to i nternati onal law, and for thatreason 9 such violat ors of fundam ental human rights ar e free to ret ain any profits s o earned without 10 liabil ity to the ir vict ims. 11 Ad op tio n o f t he co rpo rat e f

orm ha s al ways of

fe red im po rtant b en ef

its an d p rot ect ion s to 12 business – foremost among them the limitation of li abilit y to the asse ts of the business , without 13 rec ourse to t

he ass ets of

its sh are ho lde rs. Th e n ewrul e o ff ers to u ns cru pu lou s b us ine sse s 14 advantages of incorporation neve r before dreamed of. So long as they incorpor ate (or a ct in the 15 fo rm

of a tr us t), bu sin ess es w ill no w b e f ree to t rad e in or e xp loi t sl av es, em

plo y m erc en ary 16 arm ies to d o d irty w ork fo r de sp ots , p erf

orm ge no cid es o r op erate t ort ure pri so ns fo r a d esp ot’ s 17 politic al opponents, orengage in pir acy – all wit hout civil liabil ity to vic tims. By adopting the 18 corporate form , such an enterprise coul d have hired i tself out to oper ate Nazi ext ermination 19 cam

ps or t he tor tur e ch am be rs o f Arge nti na ’s d irty w ar, imm un e f rom civ il l iab ili ty t o it s 20 victims. By protecting pr ofits earned t hrough abuse of fundamental hum an rights pr otected by06- 4800- cv, 06- 4876- cv

K i obe l v. R oy al D ut ch Pe t ro l eu m

“T he dis tri ct c ourts sh all have ori gin al j uri sd ict ion of any c ivi l ac tio n b y an a lie n f or a 1 tort only, c omm itted i n violati on of the law of nations or a t reaty of the Unite d States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1350. My colleague s call my identificat ion of Judge Robert Bork as the author of this opi nion † a “strat agem” or “rhetorica l ploy.” Itis not. In Te l-O ren , the three judges of the Distr ict of Co lum bia Ci rcu it p an el e ach

wr ote sep arate c on curri ng op ini on s. By ide nti fy ing the autho rs i n citing t o Tel-Oren concurrence s, I simply follow the conventiona l method of distinguishing between separa te opinions i n the same case. The Supreme Court did the same, seeSo sa v. Al va rez -Ma ch ain , 5 42 U. S. 69 2, 72 8, 73 2 & n .2 0 (2 00 4), an d s o d oe s th e m ajo rity o pin ion he re. 2 1 internat ional law, the rule my colleagues have c reated oper ates in opposi tion to the objective of 2 int ern ati on al l awto p rot ect tho se r ights. 3 Si nc e Fi lar tig a v . P en a-I

ra la , 6 30 F. 2d

87 6 (2 d C ir. 19 80 ), w as d eci de d in 19 80 , Unit ed 4 St ate s co urt s, act ing un de r th e A lie n T ort St atute ( AT S) , wh ich

wa s p ass ed

bythe Fi rst 1 5 Co ng res s in

17 89 , h av e b een

aw ard ing co m

pe ns ato ry d am ag es t o v ict im s o f h um anrig hts ab us es 6 comm itted i n violati on of the law of nations. Many suppor ters of the caus e of hum an rights ha ve 7 cel eb rat ed

the Filartiga lin e o f c ase s as anim po rtant a dv an ce o f c ivi liz ati on . N ot a ll, ho we ve r, 8 have vie we d th os e ca ses wi th f av or. So m e se e th em

as u nw arr an ted

m ed dli ng byU. S. jud ge s in 9 ev en ts that oc curre d f ar a way, ap ply ing a b od

y o f l awthat w e d id n ot m ak e, in c irc um stanc es 10 carrying a potential , furthermore, to interfere with the Presi dent’s conductof foreign affairs. 11 See, e.g. , Te l-O ren v. Li by an Arab Re pu bli c , 726 F.2d 774, 805 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (Bork, J., 12 concurring)

. In 2004, a substant ial minority of the Supreme Court, in So sa v. Al va rez -Ma ch ain , † 13 54 2 U .S . 6 92 , w ou ld h av e es sentia llynu lli fi ed the AT S and

ov ert urn ed the Filartiga line, by 14 ruling tha t the ATS did no more than give court s jurisdi ction, and tha t, absent furthe r legisl ation 15 establi shing a legal claim, courts acti ng under ATS had no authorit y to grant any s ubstantive06- 4800- cv, 06- 4876- cv

K i obe l v. R oy al D ut ch Pe t ro l eu m

3 1 rel ief

. T he m ajo rity o f t

he Su pre m e C ourt, ho we ve r, r eje cte d th at argum en t. T he Co urt rul ed 2 that under t he ATS, federal courts coul d award damages for violations of the l aw of nations. For 3 tho se who be lie ve the Fi lar tig a-S os a line repr esents a meaningful advance in t he protect ion of 4 human rights, the majority’s dec ision here marks a very bad day. 5 To understand thi s controver sy, it is i mportant to understand e xactly what i s the 6 majority’s rule , how it functions, and in whatcircumstances. To begin, t heir rul e relat es to the 7 most abhorrent conduct – t hose acts t hat violat e norms of the internationa l law of human rights. 8 Th e A TS giv es U .S . c ourts jur isd ict ion to award t ort

dam ag es t o a lie ns wh o are v ict im s o f s uc h 9 atr oc iti es. Ac co rdi ng to t he m ajo rity, in c ase s whe re the no rm s o f t he lawof natio ns we re 10 vio lat ed

bya co rpo rat ion

(or oth er j uri dic al e nti ty) , c om pe ns ato ry d am ag es ma

y b e a wa rd

ed 11 un de r th e A TS

ag ain st t he co rp orati on ’s e mp loy ees , natural pe rsons who acted i n the 12 corporati on’s behalf, but not against the corporati on that co mm an de d th e at roc iti es and

ear ne d 13 pro fi ts b y c om

m itt ing the m . T he co rpo rat ion , a cco rdi ng to m y c oll eag ue s, ha s n ot v iol ate d 14 int ern ati on al l aw , and is i nd eed inc ap ab le o f d oin g s o b eca us e inter natio na l law d oe s n ot a

pp ly t o 15 the conduct of corpor ations. Accordi ngly, a corpora tion which has ea rned profits by abus e of 16 fundam ental human rights – as by s lave tra ding – is free to r etain thos e profits withoutliabil ity. 17 While my colleagues see nothing str ange or proble matic in this concl usion, theirposition 18 is that in

any e ve nt t

he y h av e n o re sp on sib ili ty f or i t. T he y invo ke the rul e si m ply be cau se, in 19 the ir c ontentio n, it i s co mm an de d b y th e law of natio ns . 20 But th ere is n o b asi s f or t his co nte nti on . N o p rec ed en t of int ern ati on al l awen do rse s th is06- 4800- cv, 06- 4876- cv

K i obe l v. R oy al D ut ch Pe t ro l eu m

Si nc e th e writ ing of

thi s o pin ion , in

the fe w d ay s b ef

ore fi lin g, a C ali fo rni a d ist ric t co urt * dis m iss ed anAT S a cti on

in p art on the ba sis of

its acc ep tan ce o f t

he m ajo rity’s vie w that customary internat ional law does notapply to corpor ations. Doe v. Nestle, S.A. , No. CV 05-5133 SV W (JT Lx ), s lip op . at 12 0 (C .D . C al. Se pt. 8, 20 10 ). T o th e ex tent I n ote in v ari ou s p lac es thr ou gh out th is o pin ion

that no co urt

ha s ev er s po ke n f

av ora bly of the m ajo rity’s pro po sit ion that corporati ons are exempt from the rules of internati onal law, I modify that state ment to except the op ini on fi led las t w eek

in C ali fo rni a. 4 1 rule. No court ha s ever approve d it, nor is any int ernationa l tribuna l struct ured with a * 2 jur isd ict ion

that re fl ect s it . (T ho se c ourts that have rul ed on the qu est ion

have expli cit ly r eje cte d 3 it.) No tre aty or int ernationa l convention a dopts this pr inciple. And no work of scholar ship on 4 int ern ati on al l awen do rse s th e m ajo rity’s rul e. Until tod ay , th eir co nc ep t ha d n o e xis ten ce i n 5 internat ional law. 6 Th e m ajo rity c onten d, ne ve rth ele ss, that un am big uo us jur isp rud en ce “ lea d[ s] 7 inescapabl y” to theirconclusion. Ma j. Op. 17. However, the reasoni ng that support s the 8 majority’s argument is, in my view, illogic al, misguided, and based on misunderstandi ngs of 9 precedent. 10 Th e ar gum en t de pe nd s o n it s o bs erv ati on that inter natio na l cri mi na l tri buna ls h av e b een 11 est ab lis he d w ith out juris dic tio n to im po se cri mi na l pu nis hm en ts on co rpo rat ion s f

or t he ir 12 vio lat ion s o f i nte rnatio na l law. Fr om thi s f act the m ajo rity c onten d an in esc ap ab le i nf ere nc e 13 ari ses that inter

natio na l law d oe s n ot g ov ern co rpo rat ion s, wh ich

are the ref

ore fr ee t o e ng ag e in 14 conduct prohibi ted by the rul es of internat ional law with i mpunity. 15 Th ere is n o lo gic to t he arg um en t. T he rea so ns why inter natio na l tr ibu

na ls h av e b een 16 est ab lis he d w ith out juris dic tio n to im po se criminal

lia bil ityon co rpo rat ion s h av e to do so lel y06- 4800- cv, 06- 4876- cv

K i obe l v. R oy al D ut ch Pe t ro l eu m

5 1 with the theor y and the object ives of criminal punis hment , and have no be ari ng on

civ il 2 co m

pe ns ato ry l iab ili ty. Th e v iewis w ide ly h eld am on g th e n ati on s o f t

he wo rld that cr im ina l 3 punishments (under domestic law, as well as international l aw) are inappr opriate for 4 corporati ons. This view deri ves from two perceptions: Firs t, that cr iminal punishment can be 5 the ore tic all y ju sti fi ed on ly whe re the de fe nd an t ha s ac ted wi th c rim ina l intent – a

co nd iti on

that 6 canno t ex ist

wh enthe de fe nd an t is a jurid ica l co ns tru ct whic h is inc ap ab le o f h av ing anint en t; 7 and second, thatcriminal punishments are point less and count erproducti ve when imposed on a 8 fi cti tio us jur idi cal en tity b eca us e th eyfa il t o a ch iev e th e p un iti ve ob jec tiv es o f c rim ina l 9 punis hm en t. F or t he se r eas on s m any n ati on s in the ir d om est ic l aw s im

po se c rim ina l 10 punishments only on natural persons, and not on j uridical ones. In contr ast, the i mposition of 11 civ il l iab ili ty o n c orp oratio ns ser ve s p erf ect ly t he ob jec tiv e o f c ivi l li ab ili ty t o c om pe ns ate 12 vic tim s f

or t he wr on gs inf

lic ted on the m an d is pra cti ced

ev erywh ere in t

he wo rld . T he fa ct that 13 int ern ati on al trib un als do no t im po se cri mi na l pu nis hm en t on co rpo rat ion s in

no way s up po rts 14 the inference t hat corpora tions are outside the scope of internat ional law and t herefore can inc ur 15 no civ il c om

pe ns ato ry l iab ili tyto vi ct ims whe n t he y e ng ag e i n c on du ctpr oh ib it edby th e n orms 16 of internati onal law. 17 Th e m ajo rity n ex t co nte nd that inter natio na l law d oe s n ot d ist ing uis h b etw een cri m ina l 18 an d c ivi l li ab ili ty. Th is i s si m ply inc orr ect . Inter

natio na l law d ist ing uis he s cl ear ly b etw een the m 19 an d p rov ide s d if

fe rentlyfo r th e d if

fe rent ob jec tiv es o f c rim ina l pu

nis hm en t an d c ivi l 20 compensatory liabil ity.06- 4800- cv, 06- 4876- cv

K i obe l v. R oy al D ut ch Pe t ro l eu m

6 1 Th e m ajo rity th enarg ue that th e ab sen ce o f a un ive rsa l practic e among nations of 2 im po sin g c ivi l dam ag es o n c orp oratio ns fo r vi olatio ns of int ern ati on al l awm ean s th at und er 3 int ern ati on al l awco rpo rat ion s ar e n ot l iab le f or v iol ati on s o f t

he lawof natio ns . T his arg um en t is 4 as illogi cal as the first and is ba sed on a misunderstanding of the st ructure of int ernationa l law. 5 Th e p os iti on

of int ern ati on al l awon

wh eth er c ivi l li ab ili ty s ho uld be im po sed fo r vi olatio ns of

its 6 norms is that inter national l aw takes no posit ion and leaves that quest ion to each nat ion to resol ve. 7 Internat ional law, atleast as it pert ains to human rights, consi sts primarily of a spar se body of 8 norms, adopting widely agreed pr inciples prohibiti ng conduct univer sally agr eed to be heinous 9 an d inhum an e. Havin g e sta bli sh ed the se n orm s o f p roh ibi ted co nd uc t, i nte rnatio na l law s ay s li ttl e 10 or n oth ing ab out ho w tho se n orm s sh ou ld b e en fo rce d. It l eav es t he m anne r of

en fo rce m en t, 11 including t he question of whether t here should be pr ivate ci vil remedies for violat ions of 12 int ern ati on al l aw , a lm os t entir ely to i nd ivi du al n ati on s. Whil e m os t natio ns have no t re co gn ize d 13 tor

t li ab ili ty f

or v iol ati on s o f i nte rnatio na l law, the Un ite d S tat es, thr ou ghthe AT S, ha s o pte d to 14 im

po se c ivi l co m

pe ns ato ry l iab ili ty o n v iol ato rs and draws no dis tin cti on

in i ts l aw s b etw een 15 vio lat ors wh o are n atural pe rso ns an d c orp oratio ns . T he m ajo rity’s arg um en t th at n ati on al c ourts 16 are at l ibe rtyto award c ivi l dam ag es f or v iol ati on s o f i nte rnatio na l law s ole ly a ga ins t natur al 17 pe rso ns an d n ot a ga ins t co rpo rat ion s h as n o b asi s in int ern ati on al l awan d, fu rth erm ore , null if

ies 18 the intent ion of internat ional law to l eave the quest ion of civil li abilit y to be decided s eparatel y by 19 each nation. 20 The majority’s asser ted rule i s, furthermore, at once int ernally i nconsistentand 21 incompatible with Supreme Court authori ty and with our pr ior cases that awarded da mages for06- 4800- cv, 06- 4876- cv

K i obe l v. R oy al D ut ch Pe t ro l eu m

7 1 violati ons of internati onal law. The absence of a universall y accepted rule of internat ional law on 2 tor t dam ag es i s tr

ue as t o d ef

en dants wh o are n atural pe rso ns , a s w ell as t o c orp oratio ns . B eca us e 3 int ern ati on al l awge ne ral ly l eav es a ll a sp ect s o f t he iss ue of

civ il l iab ili ty t o in div idu al n ati on s, 4 the re i s n o ru le o r cu sto m of int ern ati on al l awto award c ivi l dam ag es i n anyfo rm or c ontex t, 5 eit he r as to n atural pe rso ns or a s to jur idi cal on es. If the ab sen ce o f a

un ive rsa llyacc ep ted

rul e 6 fo r th e aw ard

of civ il d am ag es a ga ins t co rpo rat ion s m ean s th at U .S . c ourts m ayno t aw ard 7 dam ag es a ga ins t a c orp oratio n, the n th e sam e ab sen ce o f a un ive rsa llyacc ep ted

rul e f or t he aw ard 8 of civ il d am ag es a ga ins t natur al p ers on s m us t m ean that U .S . c ourts m ayno t aw ard dam ag es 9 ag ain st a

natur al p ers on . B ut t

he m ajo rity o pin ion

co nc ed es ( as i t m

us t) that U .S . c ourts m ay 10 award damages against the c orporati on’s employees when a cor poration vi olates t he rule of 11 na ti on s. Fu rt he rmo re , o urci rc ui t a ndot he rs ha ve forde ca de s a wa rd edda mage s, an d t he Supr eme 12 Court in So sa m ad e cl ear that a d am ag e re m ed

y d oe s li e und er the AT S. Th e m ajo rity o pin ion is 13 th us in te rn al ly in co ns is te ntan d i s l og ic al ly in co mpat ib le wi th bo th Se co ndCi rc ui t a ndSupr eme 14 Court authori ty. 15 If

pa st j ud ge s h ad

fo llo we d th e m ajo rity’s rea so nin g, we wo uld have ha d n o Nure m

be rg 16 tri als , whic h f

or t he fi rst tim e im po sed cri m ina l li ab ili ty o n n atural pe rso ns co m pli cit in w ar 17 crimes; no subsequent i nternati onal tri bunals to impose criminal lia bility for vi olation of 18 in te rn at io na l l aw no rms ; a ndno ju dg ment s i n U. S. co ur ts un de r t he ATS , c ompe ns at in g v ic ti ms 19 fo r th e v iol ati on

of fu nd am en tal hum anrig hts

. 20 Th e rul e i n c as es un de r t he ATS is qu it e s imp le . T he la w of na ti on s s et s w or ld wi de no rms 21 of

co nd uc t, p roh ibi tin g c ert ain

un ive rsa llyco nd em

ne d h ein ou s ac ts. Th at b od y o f l aw , h ow ev er,06- 4800- cv, 06- 4876- cv

K i obe l v. R oy al D ut ch Pe t ro l eu m

The majority concede that“federal court s may recognize claims ‘based on the 2 pre sent-d aylawof

natio ns .’” Maj . O p. 17 . Whe re the ir o pin ion de parts fr om

pre ced en t is its co nte nti on

that co urt s m ayno t re co gn ize a cl aim ag ain st “ a p art icu lar

cla ss o f d ef

en dant” un les s internat ional tr ibunals re gularly i mpose liability on t hat type of defendant. Maj . Op. 20, 49, 51. As I expla in b elo w, the re i s n o le ga l ba sis fo r th is n ov el r eq uir em en t. Th e m ajo rity p rot est

that th eir rul e is no t on e o f “ im

m un ity ” b ut r ath er o ne of

ab sen ce 3 of lia bil ity . M aj. Op . 5 0. Be cau se t he ir r ule pro vid es t

hat, whe n a

co rpo rat ion

is s ue d, it c an have the suitdismissed on the ground that it is a c orporati on, it seems to me to be ind ist ing uis ha

ble fr om animm un ity . B ut n oth ing tur

ns on wh eth er w e ca ll i t an

imm un ity , an exemption, a protecti on, an absence of liabi lity, or a ny other name. My reasons for rej ecting the rule are that ther e is no supportor justi fication for it i n precedent, s cholarshi p, reason, expe rie nc e, or m ora lity. No ne of thi s w ou ld c hang e if

the rul e w ere cal led

bya d if fe rent nam e. 8 1 tak es n o p os iti on

on wh eth er i ts n orm s m aybe en fo rce d b y c ivi l ac tio ns fo r co m pe ns ato ry 2 damages. It leaves tha t decisi on to be separa tely deci ded by each nati on. Se e in fra Part III .B. 3 The ATS confers on the U.S. courts juri sdiction t o enterta in civil suits for viol ations of the la w of 4 nations. In t he United State s, if a plainti ff in a suit under the ATS shows thatshe is the vi ctim of 5 a to rt c om

m itt ed in v iol ati on

of the no rm s o f t

he lawof natio ns , the co urt

ha s juris dic tio n to he ar 2 6 th e c as e a ndto aw ar d c ompe ns at ory d ama ge s a ga in stth e t or tf ea so r. Th atis wha t t he Supr eme 7 Court explaine d in So sa . N o p rin cip le o f d om est ic o r inter natio na l law s up po rts the m ajo rity’s 8 co nc lus ion

that th e n orm s en fo rce ab le thro ug h th e A TS – s uc h a s th e p roh ibi tio n b y inter natio na l 9 lawof

ge no cid e, slave ry, war cr im es, pir acy , e tc. – a pp ly o nly to n atural pe rso ns an d n ot t o 10 corporati ons, leaving corporations i mm une from suit and free to retai n profits earne d through 11 su chact s. 3 12 * * * * * 13 I am

in f ull ag ree m en t th at thi

s Co m pla int m us t be dis m iss ed . It

fa ils to s tat e a p rop er06- 4800- cv, 06- 4876- cv

K i obe l v. R oy al D ut ch Pe t ro l eu m

9 1 legal cl aim of entitlement to relief. The Complaint alleges that the Appel lants – the parent 2 ho ldi ng co m

panie s at the ap exof

the hu ge Ro ya l D utc h S he ll i nte rnatio na l, i nte grated oil 3 enterpri se – are li able under t he ATS on the theory thattheir ac tions aide d the government of 4 Ni ge ria

in i nf lic tin g hum anrig hts ab us es o n th e O go ni p eo ple s in the jun gle s o f N ige ria . T he 5 allegat ions fall shortof m andatory ple ading standar ds. We recently held in Pr esb yte ria n C hu rch 6 of S

ud an v. Ta lis ma n E

ne rg y, Inc

. , 582 F.3d 244 (2d Cir. 2009), thatliabil ity under t he ATS for 7 aiding and abett ing in a violat ion of internat ional human rights li es only where the aider and 8 ab ett or a cts wi th a pu rp os e to br in g abo utth e abu se of h uman ri gh ts . F ur th er mor e, th e S up re me 9 Court ruled i n Ashcroft v. I qbal , 1 29 S. Ct . 1 93 7 (2 00 9), that a c om pla int is i ns uf fi cie nt a s a 10 matter of law unless it pl eads specific fact s supporting a plausible inference thatthe defendant 11 violated t he plainti ff’s legal right s. Putting toge ther thes e two rules, t he complaint in this a ction 12 would need to plead s pecific facts tha t support a pl ausible i nference that t he Appellants a ided the 13 go ve rnm en t of

Ni ge ria wi th a pu rp os e to b rin g a bo ut t he Ni ge rian g ov ernm en t’s all eg ed 14 violati ons of the human rights of the plainti ffs. As explained in great er detai l below, seeinf ra 15 Part V II, the all eg ati on s o f t he Co m pla int do no t su cce ed

in m eet ing that te st. I th ere fo re a gre e 16 with the majority tha t the cla ims against the Appella nts must be dismissed, but not on the basi s of 17 the supposed rul e of internati onal law the majority ha ve fashioned. 18 I. Th e im pr ob ab ili ty t ha t th e h um an itar ian law of n ati on s, w hi ch is b as ed in mor al 19 ju dg men ts r efl ect ed in leg al s ys tem s th ro ug ho utw or ld an d s eek s to pr ote ct 20 fundamental human rights , would espouse a rule w hich undermines that obj ective 21 and lacks any logi cal justi ficati on 22 A. The opposition of t he majority’ s rule to the objecti ves of int ernational l aw. Rules of06- 4800- cv, 06- 4876- cv

K i obe l v. R oy al D ut ch Pe t ro l eu m

Se e T he Am y Wa rw ick, 6 7 U .S . (2 Bl ack) 63 5, 67 0 (1 86 2) ( “T he lawof natio ns is a lso 4 called t he law of nature; i t is founded on the comm on consent as well as the comm on sense of the world. Itcontains no . . . anomalous doctr ine.”); Osca r Schachter , Intern ati on al L aw in Th eo ry a nd

Prac tic e 2 (1991) (“[I]nterna tional l aw . . . is more than a given body of rules and obligati ons. It invol ves purposive a ctivit ies undert aken by governments, direct ed to a vari ety of social ends .”). 10 1 internat ional law ar e not, like r ocks, mountains, and oceans, unexpla ined natura l phenomena 2 found on the surface of the eart h. The rules of inter national l aw have been creat ed by a collec tive 3 human agency representing t he nations of the worl d with a purpose to se rve desire d objectiv es. 4 Th os e ru les expre ss t he co ns en su s o f n ati on s o n g oa ls that ar e sh are d w ithvir tua l un an im ity 5 thr ou gh out th e w orl d. Pr ior to W orl d W ar I I, t

he en fo rce m en t of

int ern ati on al l awfo cu sed 4 6 pri m ari ly o n re lat ion s am on g S tat es and pro ble m s re lat ing to t

he so ve rei gn

int ere sts of

St ate s. It 7 involved, for example, the inviol abilit y of am bassadors i n foreign lands, safe conduct s, and the 8 outlawing of piracy, whic h threate ned the share d interes t of all nati ons in trade on the high seas

. 9 Se e S

os a , 5 42 U. S. at 7 15 , 7 20 . W orl dw ide revuls ion at the Na zi atro cit ies in t he pe rio d o f W orl d 10 W ar I I, h ow ev er, fo cu sed att en tio n o n hum an itarian v alu es – va lue s so fu

nd am en tal that th ey 11 were seen as sha red by the “ci vilized na tions” of the world. Filartiga , 630 F.2d at 881. 12 Beginning with the Nure mberg trials, the focus of inte rnational law thus broadene d beyond 13 pra cti cal co nc ern s o f s ov ere ign natio ns tow ard

un ive rsa llysh are d m ora l ob jec tiv es. Ac ts s o 14 rep ug nant t

hat th eyvio lat ed

the m ora lity s hared

bythe civ ili zed

wo rld we re r eco gn ize d a s 15 vio lat ion s o f i nte rnatio na l law. Th e law o f n ati on s thus cam e to fo cu s o n hum an itarian, m ora l 16 co nc ern s, ad dre ssi ng a sm all cat eg ory of parti cu lar ly “ he ino us act ion s – eac h o f whic h v iol ate s 17 de fi na

ble , univ ers al and

ob lig ato ry n orm s” –

co nd uc t so he ino us that he wh o c om m its it i s06- 4800- cv, 06- 4876- cv

K i obe l v. R oy al D ut ch Pe t ro l eu m

See, e.g. , So sa , 542 U.S. at 732, 737 (tortur e, slave tr ade, prolonged arbitrary detention 5 co mm itt ed

as a m att er o f s tat e p oli cy , and pir acy ); Ka dic v. Ka ra dz ic , 70 F.3d 232, 240, 243 (2d Cir. 1995) (genoci de, war crimes, and tortur e and summ ary executi on comm itted i n the course of ge no cid e o r w ar c rim es) ; In re Ferdinand M arcos, Human Rights Litig. , 2 5 F .3 d 1 46 7, 14 75 (9t h Ci r. 1 99 4) ( tor

tur e); see also Re statem en t (T hir d) o f t he Fo rei gn

Re lat ion s L awof

the Un ite d States § 404 (1987) (genocide, war c rimes, piracy, slave trade, and at tacks on or hi jacking of air cra ft )

. 11 1 rendered “ ho sti

s h um an i ge ne ris , an e ne my o f a ll m ankin d. ” So sa , 542 U.S. at 732 (quoting 2 Filartiga , 630 F.2d at 890, and Te l-O ren v. Li by an Arab Re pu bli c , 7 26 F. 2d

77 4, 78 1 (D .C . C ir. 3 19 84 ) (E dw ard s, J. , c on curri ng )). Th ese act s ar e g en era llyun de rst oo d to inc lud e su chex tre m e, 4 un ive rsa llyco nd em ne d c on du ct a s g en oc ide , e xp loi tat ion of sla ve s, war cr im es, an d, in c ert ain 5 cir cum stanc es, im pri so nm en t w ith out ca

us e an d to rture. Th e law o f n ati on s und ert ak es an 5 6 em

ph ati c st an ce o f o pp os iti on to s uc h a cts

. 7 Th e m ajo rity’s int erp ret ati on of int ern ati on al l aw , whic h a cco rds to c orp oratio ns a f ree 8 pa ss t o a ct i n c ontrave nti on of int ern ati on al l aw ’s n orm s, co nf lic ts w iththe hum an itarian 9 objective s of that body of law. In order t o understand t he majority’s rul e, I explore a handful of 10 concrete e xamples of how it would operate. Because the liabil ity, if any, of a corporat ion for 11 vio lat ion s o f i nte rnatio na l law i s li ke ly t o aris e in tw o s om ewhat di ff

ere nt c ontex ts –

that in wh ich 12 the corpora tion its elf inflicts humanitari an abuses, and tha t in which the c orporati on aids and 13 ab ets a lo cal go ve rnm en t’s inf lic tio n o f t

he ab us es –

an d b eca us e th e p ert ine nt c on sid eratio ns in 14 these two cir cumstances are somewhat different, I discuss them separately. 15 1) D irect commissi on of heinous off enses by corporat ions 16 a) Sla ve t ra ding a nd

exp loi tat ion of s lav es. Am on g th e f oc us es o f t

he Nurem be rg t ria ls06- 4800- cv, 06- 4876- cv

K i obe l v. R oy al D ut ch Pe t ro l eu m

VI II Tr ial

s o f Wa r C rim ina ls B efo re t

he Nu ern be rg

Mil ita ry T

rib un als 1173-74 (1952) 6 (th e “F arb enTr ial ”) ( “C harge d w iththe res po ns ibi lity o f m eet ing fi xe d p rod uc tio n q uo tas , Farben yielde d to the pres sure of the Reich Labor Office and uti lized invol untary foreign wo rke rs i n m any o f i ts p lants. It i s en ou ghto sa y h ere that th e util izatio n o f f orc ed lab or, un les s done under such ci rcumstances as to re lieve th e employer [the Farben company] of res po ns ibi lity, co ns tit

ute s a v iol ati on

of [i nte rnatio na l law] .” ); seeals o IX Trials of W ar Cr im ina ls B efo re t

he Nu ern be rg

Mil ita ry T

rib un als 13 75 -76 (19 50 ) (the “K rup p T ria l”) (“[ T] hro ug ho ut G erm anind us tryin g en era l, and

the fi rm of Kr up p and its su bs idi ari es i n particul ar, prisone rs of war of several nat ions includi ng French, Belgian, Dutch, Pol ish, Yu go slav, Ru ssi an , and

Ita lian m ili tar

y inter ne es w ere em

plo ye d in arm am en t pr od

uc tio n in vio lat ion of the law s an d c us tom s o f w ar. ”). Th e m ajo rity c onten d th at the fa ilure o f t he Nurem be rg t rib un al t o im

po se c ivi l dam ag es 7 on Farben shows that i nternati onal law does not i mpose dam ages on corpora tions. Maj . Op. 32. This argument demonstrates the il logic and int ernal inc onsistency of the majorit y’s positi on. Th e Nure m

be rg t rib un al a lso did

no t im po se l iab ili ty f

or c ivi l dam ag es o n F arb en ’s e xe cutiv es whom it convict ed criminally. If the fact t hat Nuremberg did not impose civil li abilit y on the Farbe n c orp oratio n m ean s th at i nte rnatio na l law d oe s n ot a llo w f or c ivi l li ab ili ty o f c orp oratio ns , the n th e f act that N ure m

be rg d id n ot i m

po se c ivi l li ab ili ty o n F arb en ’s g uil ty p ers onne l m us t m ean that inter natio na l law d oe s n ot a llo w f or c ivi l li ab ili ty o f n atural pe rso ns . Y et the m ajo rity co nc ed e th at s uc h n atural pe rso ns are lia ble fo r ci vil dam ag es. Th e Nure m be rg t rib un al s im

ply did not contemplate quest ions of civil l iabili ty, nor has any subs equent inte rnational tribunal . As I expla in b elo w, the lawof natio ns ha s si m

ply no t ve ntu

red int o d ete rm inatio ns wi th r esp ect to civ il l iab ili ty. It h as l ef

t th at q ue sti on to i nd ivi du al n ati on s.

12 1 was the exploit ation of slave l abor by the I.G. Farbe nindustri e Aktiengesel lschaft (“Farben”) and 2 oth er G erm anco m panie s. Th e F arb enco rpo rat ion its elf wa s n ot o n tr ial , a s th e p roc eed ing wa s 3 brought solel y against i ts executi ves for their c omplicity in the offenses comm itted by t he 4 corporati on. Nevertheles s, the tri bunal found that Farben’ s program of exploitation of slave labor 5 vio lat ed

the stand ard s o f i nte rnatio na l law. Be cau se t he Nurem be rg t rib un al w as e sta

bli sh ed 6 6 with only cri minal, and not civil, j urisdict ion, it nevercontemplated imposing civil li abilit y on 7 offenders. No civil procee dings of any kind were broughtin that t ribunal by t he victims of 8 Farbe n’s vio lat ion s ag ain st e ith er n atural or j uri dic al p ers on s. Th e q ue sti on thu s d id n ot aris e at 706- 4800- cv, 06- 4876- cv

K i obe l v. R oy al D ut ch Pe t ro l eu m

Se e Trafficking Victims Protection Reaut horizati on Act of 2005, Pub. L. 109-164, § 2, 8 11 9 S tat . 3 55 8, 35 58 (Jan. 10 , 2 00 6) ( no tin g th at an e sti m ate d 6 00 ,0 00 to 8 00 ,0 00 ind ivi du als are trafficked across internat ional border s each year a nd exploited t hrough forced labor a nd comm ercial sex exploit ation, of which 80% are wom en and girls ); United Nati ons Office on Drugs and Crime, Global Report on Trafficking in Pers ons 48-50 (Feb. 2009), available at http:// www.unodc.org/documents/Global_Report_on_TIP.pdf (noting appr oximately 14,900 inc ide nts of

hum antra ff

ick ing we re r ep ort ed

in 2 00 6, 79 % of

wh ich inv olv ed sexua l exploitat ion). 13 1 Nuremberg whether internat ional law count enances the i mposition of civil liabi lity on a 2 co rpo rat ion

or o n anyoth er typ e o f a cto r f or e xp loi tat ion

of slave lab or. 3 Pe rha

ps m ore pe rti ne nt t od ayis c om m erc ial explo itatio n o f s ex -sl av ery . E ntr ep ren eurs i n 4 ch ild

pro sti tut ion

kid na p unp rot ect ed

ch ild ren in p ov erty s tri ck enare as and ho ld t he m in c ap tiv ity 5 to s ati sf

y s excravin gs of

cu sto m ers . Y oung wo m en , s eek ing to e sca pe fr om pla ces wh ere the y 6 are op pre sse d, inc ur d eb ts t o f aci lit ato rs, wh o p rom ise to h elp the m , b ut, wh enthe y are u na ble to 7 pay the enti re fee, consign the m into sex-slavery, compelling t hem to perform acts of prosti tution 8 a hun dre d ti m es a

day f or t he pro fi t of

the ir c ap tor s unti l ei the r th e d eb t is co ns ide red pa id, or, 9 m ore lik ely , th e w om anis s o w ast ed bythe ab us e sh e h as s uf

fe red that sh e ce ase s to be a 10 m ark eta

ble sexob jec t. Ac co rdi ng to t

he m ajo rity’s rul e, aninc orp orated en tity d oe s n ot v iol ate 8 11 internat ional law when itconducts such oper ations, and i s free to ret ain any profit ea rned through 12 its conduct

. 13 b) Pi ra cy. On ce t ho ug ht t o h av e f

ad ed int o a pa st r em em

be red on ly i n ro m an tic ize d 14 ch ild

ren ’s f ab les an d G ilb ert

& S ull ivan whim sy , p ira cyno w r eem erg es a s a t hre at t o06- 4800- cv, 06- 4876- cv

K i obe l v. R oy al D ut ch Pe t ro l eu m

Se e ge ne ra llyLauren Ploch et a l., Cong. Research Serv., Pi ra cy O ff t he Ho rn of A

fri ca 9 (Sept. 28, 2009); Pet er Chalk, The Mariti me Dimension of Inter national Secur ity: Terr orism, Pi ra cy, an d C

ha lle nges f

or theUn ite d S

tates 6 (RAND 2008). The possibili ty of pirates ope rating t hrough the corpor ate form is not far-fetched. 10 Ac co rdi ng to a

rec en t U nit ed

Natio ns rep ort , S om ali pir ate s es sentia llyop erate a s li m ite d partn ers hip s, in whic h inve sto rs m ak e inve stm en ts o f m on ey , w eap onry, an d e qu ipm en t in exchange for “Class A” and “Cla ss B” partic ipations i n the profits of pira cy operati ons. Rep. of the Monitor ing Group on Somalia Pursuant to Secur ity Council Resol ution 1853 (2008), U.N Do c. No . S /20 10 /91 , at 99 (Mar. 1 0, 20 10 ). T he pro fi ts o f s uc h an o pe rat ion can be su bs tantia l, as in the ca se of the MV Faina, which was rel eased in Februa ry 2009 for $3.2 million ransom. Se e P ira cy O

ff t he Ho rn of A

fri ca , su pra , at 10-11.

14 1 internat ional tr ade. In Somalia, pirates s eize vesse ls in the I ndian Ocean and exactlarge ra nsom 9 2 paym en ts f

rom the owne rs and

ins ure rs. In t

he po rt o f L ag os , N ige ria , arm ed pir ate s b oard 3 an ch ore d v ess els wa iti ng fo r ac ces s to the harbo r an d s tea l th eir car go . M y c oll eag ue s’ n ewrul e 4 of fe rs s ecu re p rot ect ion

fo r th e p rof

its of pir acy so lon g a s th e p erp etr ato rs t ak e th e p rec autio n to 5 inc orp orate the bu sin ess . 10 6 The majority opinion goes st ill further . Because it cl aims that juridi cal enti ties ar e not 7 “su

bje cts ” o f i nte rnatio na l law and have ne ith er r ights n or o bli gatio ns un de r it , th eycan ne ith er 8 su e n or b e su ed

fo r vi olatio ns of

int ern ati on al l aw . A cco rdi ng ly, the sei zure b y p irates of a v ess el 9 owned by a corporation (as vir tua llyall co mm erc ial ve sse ls a re) wo uld no t vi olate i nte rnatio na l 10 law ’s p roh ibi tio n o f p ira cy , and the ve sse l’s co rpo rat e o wn er, fr om wh ich a rans om ha d b een 11 ex tor

ted as t he pri ce o f f

ree ing its sh ip, wo uld

have no rem ed

y und er the AT S o r any o the r 12 comparable provision i n any other nat ion. 13 c) Ge no cid e. A num ber of the cases br ought before our court s under the ATS, includi ng 14 thi s o ne , are b rou gh t ag ain st b us ine ss c orp oratio ns en ga ge d in ex tra cti on

of pre cio us res ource s06- 4800- cv, 06- 4876- cv

K i obe l v. R oy al D ut ch Pe t ro l eu m

15 1 fr om

m ine s, we lls , o r f

ore sts in r em ote , s parse ly p op ulated are as. At

tim es, loc al trib esm enharas s 2 an d h ind er the co rpo rat ion ’s o pe rat ion s, res en tin g th e d esp oli ati on of the ir h ab itat an d th e f

ail ure 3 to share wit h them the wealth taken from what they see as the ir land. The corporation sol icits t he 4 pro tec tio n o f t

hat natio n’s po lic e o r m ili tar y f orc es. Mo st o f t

he su its we have see n, lik e th is o ne , 5 have accused t he defendant corpora tions of aiding and a betting t he local gover nment in the 6 latter ’s abuse of the ri ghts of those indige nous persons. 7 Su cha co m pany , h ow ev er, fa ili ng to r ece ive ad eq uate p rot ect ion

fr om the loc al 8 authorit ies, might mount its own protective s ecurity force and proceed, ei ther indepe ndently or 9 working togetherwith forces of the local government, to exterminate the t roublemaking tribes. 10 The complaint under ATS in such a case would c harge thatthe corpora tion its elf co mm itt ed 11 genocide in or der to prot ect its business oper ations from harassment and increase i ts profits. 12 Un de r th e m ajo rity’s rul e, su cha co rpor ati on wo uld ne ve r ne ed

to t est in c ourt whe the r it 13 in f

act ex ter m inated a tr ibe , a s al leg ed . It

co uld sim ply m ov e f or t he dis m iss al o f t

he su it, 14 ass ert ing that it

is a co rpo rat ion

an d th ere fo re b y d ef

ini tio n c ou ld n ot h av e v iol ate d inter natio na l 15 law’s prohibi tion of genocide. The pla intiffs could bring a successful ATS suit agai nst the 16 hireli ngs who carried outthe genocide for t he corporat ion (in the unlikely eve nt they could be 17 su ed

in a co urt that pr ov ide d f

or c ivi l li ab ili ty) . B ut a s f or t he co rpo rat ion

its elf , whic h c om

m itt ed 18 a g en oc ide to i nc rea se i ts p rof its , th e su it w ill be dis m iss ed on the gro un d th at the de fe nd an t is a 19 corporati on. 20 2) A iding and abett ing 21 As just noted, a number of suits, li ke this one, cha rge corpora tions engaged i n the06- 4800- cv, 06- 4876- cv

K i obe l v. R oy al D ut ch Pe t ro l eu m

16 1 extract ion of precious re sources in r emote places with having aided and abette d ab us es 2 co mm itt ed

bya f ore ign go ve rnm en t’s po lic e o r m ili tar y f orc es a ga ins t lo cal po pu lat ion s. In a ll 3 likeli hood, corporati ons like the defendants in thi s case, when they as k a relat ively impecunious 4 local government to render protec tion to the corporati on’s operat ions, will cont ribute money and 5 res ource s to the loc al g ov ernm en t to he lp i t re nd er the pro tec tio n th e co rpo rat ion ne ed s f or i ts 6 operations . If the government troops then c omm it atr ocities , the victi ms m ight sue the 7 corporati on on the theory t hat it ai ded and abette d the government’s bruta litie s by its cont ribution 8 of m oney and resourc es. Similarly, busines s corporat ions engaged in financ e or in the s ale of 9 fo od

or m ili tar

y s up pli es m ight ra ise fu

nd s f or, or s ell su

pp lie s to , a

go ve rnm en t th at i s k

no wn to 10 violate t he law of nations. Victi ms of that government’s abuse s might sue the corporat ion, 11 all eg ing that th e co rpo rat ion ’s p rof it- m oti vated

pro vis ion

of fi nanc e o r su

pp lie s, do ne wi th 12 awareness of the purc hasing government’s rec ord of atrocit ies, consti tutes ai ding and abett ing of 13 those atr ocities

. 14 Many argu e w ithco ns ide rab le f orc e th at i m

po sit ion of lia bil ityin s uc h c irc um stanc es 15 wo uld

go too far in

im pe din g le git im ate bu sin ess , b y m ak ing a b us ine ss c orp oratio n re sp on sib le 16 fo r th e il leg al c on du ct o f l oc al g ov ernm en t autho rit ies that is be yo nd the co rpo rat ion ’s c ontro l, 17 an d whic h th e co rpo rat ion m ayev ende plo re. Th e sh oe m ak er who m ak es H itl er’ s sh oe s sh ou ld 18 no t be he ld r esp on sib le f or H itl er’ s at

roc iti es, ev enif

the sh oe m ak er k

no ws that a p air

of sh oe s 19 wi ll h elp Hi tle r ac co m pli shhis ho rre nd ou s ag en da . C on cer ns of thi s n ature m ight w ell giv e p au se 20 to a court c ontemplating the imposition of liabi lity on a busi ness corpora tion for aiding a nd 21 abetting i n a government’s inflicti on of hum an rights a buses, where the c orporati on did not06- 4800- cv, 06- 4876- cv

K i obe l v. R oy al D ut ch Pe t ro l eu m

17 1 pro m ote , s oli cit , o r de sir e th e v iol ati on of hum anrig hts

. 2 At

lea st i n th is c irc uit , h ow ev er, the re i s n o c au se f or s uc h c on cer

n. InKh ulu ma ni v

. 3 Barclay National Bank Ltd. , 504 F.3d 254 (2d Cir. 2007), Judge Katz mann in his concurring 4 opinion expres sed the view tha t international l aw does not deem it aiding and abe tting in vi olation 5 of that law t o a ct i n a

m anne r th at a ssi sts a v iol ato r un les s th e as sis tan ce i s g ive n w itha p urp os e 6 t o cause or facil itate t he violati on. Id. at 277 (Katzmann, J., concurri ng). Then, in Talisman , we 7 ruled on whethera corporat ion could be hel d liable for ai ding and abett ing under the s tandards of 8 int ern ati on al l awm ere ly b eca us e it kn ewthat su

pp lie s it fu rni sh ed to a loc al g ov ernm en t w ou ld 9 be used in the c omm ission of human rights abuses. Alt hough confronted with evide nce of 10 sh oc kin g hum anrig hts vio lat ion s co mm itt ed bythe go ve rnm en t of

Su dan, we fo un d th at the re i s 11 no su chaid ing an d a be tti ng lia

bil ity . F oll ow ing Ju dg e K atz m ann’s an aly sis , w e co nc lud ed that 12 the stand ard s o f i nte rnatio na l law a dm it o f a idi ng an d a be tti ng lia

bil ityon ly whe n th e ac cu sed 13 aid er a cts wi th a pu rp os e to b rin g a bo ut t he vio lat ion s o f i nte rnatio na l law. 58 2 F .3 d at 25 9. In 14 this cir cuit, supplyi ng financing or military e quipment to a local government will not support the 15 im

po sit ion of aid ing an d a

be tti ng lia

bil ityon the co rpo rat ion

fo r th at g ov ernm en t’s ab us es u nle ss 16 the corpora tion acte d wi th a pu rp os e to promote or advance those violati ons. (For thatreason, 17 an d a s expla ine d in Part V II b elo w, thi s C om pla int m us t be dis m iss ed

fo r f ail ure to s tat e a p rop er 18 claim for aiding and abett ing liabi lity.) 19 A true qu est ion of tor t li ab ili ty f

or c orp orate a idi ng an d a

be tti ng in g ov ernm en t atroc iti es 20 wo uld

be rai sed wh ere su cha d ef

en dant pu rp os ely

pro cures the co mm iss ion of ge no cid e b y lo cal 21 government forces. Assume the hypothetical oi l explorat ion company first seeks prote ction from06- 4800- cv, 06- 4876- cv

K i obe l v. R oy al D ut ch Pe t ro l eu m

18 1 the local host government from interference with its operations by indigenous tr ibes. For a per iod 2 of time, the government forces provide ineffectual prot ection, but ha rassment, interferenc e, and 3 sab ota ge bythe tri be s co nti nu e. Ev en tua lly , th e f rus trated co rpo rat e m an ag ers say

to t he loc al 4 police chi ef or military comm ander: “We have been slippi ng you very handsome sum s, but you 5 have done nothing for us. These protestor s continue t o cut our pipel ines, and sabot age our 6 m ach ine ry. Th e ti m e h as c om e f or y ou to b rin g th is h ara ssm en t to anen d. W ipe the m out! T he re 7 will be a gener ous bonus for you when it is done.” The local government off icials comply. 8 Th os e ar e f

act s th at would raise an i ssue of corporate liabil ity for aiding a nd abetting be cause the 9 all eg ed

aid er and ab ett er i nte nd ed , s oli cit ed , and de lib eratel y p roc ure d th e p rim ary act or’ s 10 violati ons of internati onal law. The rule my colleagues have adopted, however , holds that t he 11 corporati on has comm itted no vi olation and i ts profits ar e protect ed from liability, 12 no tw ith stand ing that it purpo sel y s oli cit ed , p roc ure d, an d c au sed the ge no cid e in

ord er t o re nd er 13 its op eratio ns m ore pro fi tab le. 14 * * * * * 15 Co ns ide rat ion of su chex am

ple s d em on str ate s b ey on d p os sib ili ty o f r eas on ab le 16 disagreement that t he rule my colleagues at tribute to the law of nations operates t o the detri ment 17 of

the ob jec tiv e o f i nte rnatio na l law t o p rot ect fu nd am en tal hum anrig hts . M y c oll eag ue s’ o nly 18 response to t hese examples is thatthey do not choose t o respond to the m. Maj. Op. 12. 19 Defenders of the majority opinion might argue tha t I have chose n extreme and unrepresent ative 20 examples to cast the majorit y’s rule i n an unreasonabl y pejorati ve light. I t is true that the 21 hypothetica l cases I present for examination i nvolve extra ordinari ly abhorrentconduct. But the06- 4800- cv, 06- 4876- cv

K i obe l v. R oy al D ut ch Pe t ro l eu m

19 1 rea so n I r ais e su chab ho rre nt c on du ct i s b eca us e th e law o f n ati on s, at l eas t in its hum an itarian 2 branch, concerns itsel f only with extreme abhorrent c onduct – conduct t hat draws the una nimous 3 opprobrium of the entire ci vilized worl d. The Supreme Court m ade clearin So sa that li ab ili ty i s 4 im po sed un de r th e A TS fo r co nd

uc t th at i s co nd em

ne d throu gh out th e ci vil ize d w orl d and that 5 ren de rs o ne the “en em y o f a ll m ankin d. ” So sa , 5 42 U. S. at 7 32 . S uit s al leg ing ord inary, les s 6 repugnant, le ss universa lly condemned torts (i ncluding the a llegati ons in So sa itself of a 7 temporary abduction of an all eged criminal to bri ng him to answer criminal charges) will be 8 dismissed whether brought a gainst a nat ural pers on or a corpora tion because of failure to plead a 9 vio lat ion

of the lawof

natio ns . T he ef

fe ct o f t he m ajo rity’s rul e is to i mm un ize the pro fi ts e arn ed 10 from

the most heinous acts known to mankind. 11 I re co gn ize that po int ing out th e in co m patib ili ty o f t

he m ajo rity’s rul e w iththe ob jec tiv es 12 of internati onal law does not c onclude the ar gument. If the supposed rule the majorit y relies on 13 in f

act ref lec ts the lawof

natio ns an d inter

natio na l law i nd eed

do es n ot a

pp ly t o c orp orate c on du ct 14 (as the m ajo rity c lai m ), t he n w e m us t ap ply that ru le i n a

cas e b rou gh t un de r th e A TS reg ard les s 15 of

wh eth er w e f

ind it i llo gic al o r in co m

patib le w iththe ob

jec tiv es o f i nte rnatio na l law. Law i s 16 not always logi cal. 17 But neither i s the observa tion irr elevant. Recogni tion of the humanitarian obj ectives of 18 the lawof

natio ns m ak es i t un lik ely that th is b od

y o f l awint en ds to e xe m

pt c orp oratio ns fr om

its 19 prohibiti ons or to provi de a substant ial financia l incenti ve to violat e the most fundam ental of 20 human rights. Cf . T he Am y Wa rw ick, 6 7 U .S . (2 Bl ack) 63 5, 67 0 (1 86 2) ( “T he lawof natio ns is . 21 . . founded on the comm on consent as well as the comm on sense of the world. Itcontains no . . .06- 4800- cv, 06- 4876- cv

K i obe l v. R oy al D ut ch Pe t ro l eu m

20 1 anomalous doctrine.”). The i ncompatibility of the majority’ s rule with t he objecti ve of the law of 2 natio ns to p rot ect

fu nd am en tal hum anrig hts warrants sk ep tic ism as t o whe the r inter

natio na l law 3 in f

act ha s su cha ru le. Be fo re r eac hin g a co nc lus ion

wh eth er the m ajo rity’s “ru le” ha s in de ed 4 been adopted by the nations of the world a s a rule of inte rnational law, we would want to examine 5 wh eth er the rul e h as anypurpo rte d ju sti fi cat ion that m ight expla in i ts a do pti on in s pit e o f i ts 6 apparent i ncompatibility with t he principl es and object ives of the law of nations. 7 B. The absence of any reas on, purpose, or object ive for which i nternational law might 8 have adopted such a rul e. In assert ing that i nternati onal law exempts corporat ions from any 9 ob lig ati on

to c om ply wi th i ts r ule s, the m ajo rity im

pli cit ly c onten d th at the natio ns of the wo rld 10 have so m e k ind

of rea so n, or s om e sh are d o bje cti ve , th at m ight ju sti fy the rul e. Th e q

ue sti on the n 11 arises whatobjective the rule would s erve. Where a corporati on earns profits by exploiti ng slave 12 labor, or by ca using or soli citing a ge nocide in orde r to reduce its opera ting costs , what objecti ve 13 wo uld

the natio ns of

the wo rld

see k b y a rul e th at s ub

jec ts t he fo ot s old ier s o f t

he en ter pri se t o 14 compensatory liabil ity to the victims but holds thatthe corpora tion has comm itted no offense and 1 5 is f

re e to re ta in

it s p ro f it s , s h ie ld e d

f ro m th e c la im s o f

th o s e it h a s ab u s e d ? 16 Whe re the leg al s ys tem s o f t he wo rld en co ura ge the est ab lis hm en t of jur idi cal en tit ies , 17 en do wi ng the m

wi th l eg al s tat

us bygiv ing the m

autho riz ati on

to o wn pro pe rty , m ak e co ntr act s, 18 employ labor, and bring suit s, treat ing them as exempt from the law’s commands and immune 19 from

suit would ser ve no rationa l purpose. In fact , nowhere are the y so imm unized. E.g. , Doug 20 Cassel, Co rp orateAi ding a nd Ab ett ing of H um an Ri gh ts V iol ati on s: C on fus ion in t

he Co ur ts , 6 21 Nw . J . Int’l Hum anRi gh ts 3 04 , 3 22 (20 08 ) (“ I am no t aw are of

any le ga l sy ste m

in whic h06- 4800- cv, 06- 4876- cv

K i obe l v. R oy al D ut ch Pe t ro l eu m

11 Th e m ajo rity’s ch ara cte riz ati on of the fac ts up on

wh ich the ir the ory

res ts i s oc cas ion all y s ub

jec t to dis pute. Fo r ex am ple , th e o pin ion

ass ert s th at “ cu sto m ary

int ern ati on al law has steadfast ly rejec ted the noti on of corporate li abilit y for internat ional cri mes.” Maj. Op. 9. Th e o pin ion

ref ers to “ a juris pru de nc e, fi rst set fo rthin Nure m

be rg and rep eat ed byev ery internat ional tr ibunal of which we are aware , that offenses againstthe law of nations . . . ca n be en fo rce d a ga ins t S tat es and ind ivi du al m enan d w om enbut no t ag ain st j uri dic al p ers on s su chas co rpo rat ion s. ” Id. It maintains, “the re are ample sources of internati onal law expli citly rejecti ng co rpo rat e li ab ili ty. ” Ma

j. O p. 10 n. 21 . H ow ev er, the m os t th at c anbe ass ert ed as f act , a s op po sed to argum en t, i s th at i nte rnatio na l tr ibu na ls h av e n ot b een

em po we red to e xe rci se cri m ina l juris dic tio n o ve r co rpo rat ion s o r ci vil jur isd ict ion ov er anyso rt o f p riv ate act or. The majority opinion furtherasserts that “no int ernationa l tribuna l has ever he ld a co rpo rat ion

lia ble fo r a v iol ati on

of the lawof

natio ns ,” Maj . O p. 9, an d th at “ no co rpo rat ion ha s ever been subj ect to an

y fo rm of lia bil ityun de r th e cu sto m ary int ern ati on al l awof

hum an rig hts ,” Maj . O p. 10 . T he fa ct i s, ho we ve r, t hat no int ern ati on al trib un al h as e ve r co ns ide red whether a corpor ation or a na tural per son can be held ci villy li able in damages for violati on of the cu sto m ary

lawof natio ns , b eca

us e n o inter

natio na l tr ibu

na l ha s ev er e xe rci sed

civ il 21 1 corporati ons cannot be sued for damages when they comm it legal wrongs that would be 2 actionabl e if comm itted by an i ndividual.”)

. 3 My colleague s do not even suggestany purpose or goal the nations of the world might 4 ho pe to d eri ve fr om su cha ru le, an d I c anthi nk of no ne . B ef

ore acc ep tin g m

y c oll eag ue s’ 5 su gg est ion

that a r ule so inc om

patib le w iththe ob

jec tiv es o f i nte rnatio na l law and so lac kin g in 6 log ica l ju sti fi cat ion is i n f act a ru le o f i nte rnatio na l law, we sh ou ld d em an d at le ast a re aso na

bly 7 persuasive showing based on the pr ecedents of inte rnational law. The majority, however, have no 8 su chpre ced en ts t o o ff er. 9 II. Th e a bs en ce o f p rec ed en t fo r th e ma jor ity ’s r ul e 10 No authoritat ive source doc ument of international l aw adopts or in any way appr oves the 11 m ajo rity’s vie w that inter natio na l law a

uth ori zes im

po sin g c ivi l aw ard s o f c om pe ns ato ry d am ag es 12 on

natur al p ers on s b ut l eav es c orp oratio ns fr ee t o v iol ate its rul es w ith out le ga l co ns eq ue nc es. 1106- 4800- cv, 06- 4876- cv

K i obe l v. R oy al D ut ch Pe t ro l eu m

jur isd ict ion

ov er p riv ate act ors . The majority describe their ruling as answer ing a “questi on that has bee n lurking for some tim e in our ATS jurisprudence.” Maj. Op. 15. Itis not the c ase, however, thatjudges have struggled unc omf

ortably wit h this probl em f or decades. While the ATS has been in ourlaw for ov er 2 00 ye ars an d w as h eld to a pp ly i n a cti on s b oth

byan d a ga ins t co rpo rat ion s as ear ly a s 17 95 , 1 Op . A tt’ y G en . 5 7, 59 (17 95 ), and 19 07 , 2 6 O p. Att’yGe n. 25 0, 25 3 (1 90 7), it w as o nly four years ago thatcorporate imm unity was first a rgued to our cour t and only eightyears ago that itwas first argued t o a distri ct court. Se e Khulumani v. Barclay Nat’l Bank Ltd. , 504 F.3d 25 4, 28 2 (2 d C ir. 20 07 ); Pr esb yte ria n C hu rch of S

ud an v. Ta lis ma n E

ne rg y, Inc

. , 244 F. Supp. 2d 28 9, 31 9 (S .D .N .Y . 2 00 3). See, e.g. , Ab du lla hi v . P

fiz er, Inc

. , 562 F.3d 163 (2d Cir. 2009) (hol ding that al legation 12 that a co rp oratede fe nd an t en ga ge d in no n-c on sen su al m ed ica l expe rim en tat ion on hum an subjects s tated a cl aim under the ATS for violations of law of nations) , cer t. d en ied, 7 8 U. S. L. W. 30 49 ; Sarei v. Rio Tint o, PLC , 487 F.3d 1193 (9th Cir. 2007) ( concluding tha t nonfrivolous claims against int ernationa l mining corporation for vi carious l iabili ty for violati ons of jus cogens norms were sufficient to warrant e xercise of federal jurisdi ction under t he ATS), va ca ted in p ar t on other grounds , 5 50 F. 3d 82 2 (9 th C ir. 20 08 ) (e n b an c); Doe I v. Unocal Corp. , 395 F.3d 932 (9t h C ir. 20 02 ) (c on clu din g th at a pri vate p arty –

su chas Uno cal , a

co rpo rat ion

– m aybe su

bje ct to suit underthe ATS for aiding and abett ing violat ions of customary internat ional law and for violati ons of certain jus cogens norms without any showing of state act ion), reh’g en banc gran ted, 395 F.3d 978 (9th Cir. 2003), appeal dismisse d, 40 3 F .3 d 7 08 (9t h C ir. 20 05 ); Aguinda v. Te xa co , In c. , 303 F.3d 470 (2d Cir. 2002) (dismissing ATS case againstcorporate defendant on forum non conveniens grounds , because court s of Ecuador provided adequa te alte rnative fo rum ); Wiwa v. Royal Dutch Petr oleum Co. , 2 26 F. 3d 88 (2d Ci r. 2 00 0) ( rev ers ing dis tri ct court’s di smissal of ATS com plaint aga inst corpor ations on forum non conveniens grounds, and af fi rm ing dis tri ct c ourt’ s ru lin g th at c orp oratio ns we re s ub jec t to pe rso na l juris dic tio n in Ne w Yo rk) ; Jo ta v . T

exa co , Inc., 157 F.3d 153 (2d Cir. 1998) ( vacating di strictcourt’s di smissal of 22 1 A. No co ur t de cis ion s o r o the r le ga l prece de nts esp ou se t

he ma jor ity ’s rule . N o c ourt h as 2 ev er d ism iss ed

a ci vil su it a ga ins t a c orp oratio n, wh ich all eg ed a v iol ati on

of the law s o f n ati on s, 3 on the ground thatjuridic al entit ies have no le gal responsi bility orliabil ity under t hat law. No 4 court has eve r discusse d such a rule wit h even vaguely implied approva l. Quite to t he contrar y, 5 on m any o cca sio ns co urt s h av e ru led in c ase s invo lvi ng co rpo rat e d ef en dants in a

m anne r th at 6 ass um ed

wi tho ut d isc us sio n th at c orp oratio ns co uld be he ld l iab le. To my k no wl ed ge the re i s 1206- 4800- cv, 06- 4876- cv

K i obe l v. R oy al D ut ch Pe t ro l eu m

AT S c ase ag ain st c orp oratio n o n f orum no n c onve nie ns gro un ds an d re m an din g f or f urt he r pro cee din gs ); Bowoto v. Chevron Corp. , 5 57 F. Su pp . 2 d 1 08 0 (N .D . C al. 20 08 ) (d enyin g o il company defendants’ m otion for summ ary judgment on claims that U.S. corporat ion, acting thr ou ghits Ni ge rian s ub sid iar y, aid ed an d a be tte d v iol ati on s o f l aw s o f n ati on s; c ase pro cee de d to t ria l be fo re j ury , whic h f

ound in f av or o f d ef

en dants ); Licea v. Curacao Drydock Co. , 584 F. Supp. 2d 1355 (S.D. Fla. 2008) ($80 million ATS judgment against defendant corporation for hum antra ff

ick ing an d f

orc ed lab or) ; Chowdhury v. WorldTel Banglades h Holding , Ltd., No. 08 Ci v. 16 59 (B MC ) (E .D .N .Y . Aug . 6 , 2 00 9), EC F N o. 48 ($1 .5 m ill ion AT S j ury ve rdi ct e nte red against defendantholding company for torture), ap pe al f ile d , N o. 09 -44 83 -cv(2d

Ci r.) ; seeals o Hilao v. Estate of

Marcos , 1 03 F. 3d

76 7, 77 6-77 (9t

h C ir. 19 96 ) (a ff

irm ing $2 bil lio n A TS cla ss aw ard ag ain st est

ate of form er presi dent of Philippines for gross human rights violat ions co mm itt ed

durin g h is r eig n). (T he m ajo rity’s rul e w ou ld i mm un ize anest ate or t

rus t eq ua lly with a corpora tion, as itapplies t o all jur idical e ntitie s.) Ju dg e K atz m ann wrot e in res po ns e, “T his arg um en t [ that co rpo rat ion s m ayno t be he ld 13 liable unde r the ATS] was not raised by t he defendants on appeal and therefore t he issue was not bri ef ed bythe parti es. It i s p erh ap s n ot s urp ris ing that ne ith er the de fe nd an ts n or t he Un ite d St ate s ra ise d th is i ssu e as a b ar t o li ab ili ty: W e h av e re pe ate dly tre ate d th e is su e o f whe the r corporati ons may be held liable underthe AT[S] as indistinguishabl e from the question of wh eth er p riv ate ind ivi du als m aybe .” Khulumani , 504 F.3d at 282 (Katzmann, J., concurring)

. Sinaltrai nal v. Coca-Cola Co ., 57 8 F .3 d 1 25 2, 12 63 (11 th C ir. 20 09 ) (“ In a dd iti on to 14 pri vate i nd ivi du al l iab ili ty, we have als o re co gn ize d c orp orate d ef en dants are su

bje ct t o li ab ili ty under the ATS and may be liable for viola tions of the law of nations .” (citi ng Ro me ro v. Drum mo nd

Co ., Inc

. , 5 52 F. 3d

13 03 , 1 31 5 (1 1th

Ci r. 2 00 8) ( “T he tex t of

the Al ien To rt S tat ute provides no expr ess excepti on for corporati ons, and the the l aw of this Circuit i s that [ATS] grants jur isd ict ion

fr om co m pla int s o f t ort

ure ag ain st c orp orate d ef

en dants .” )); Al-Q urais hi v

. Na kh la , No. Civ. No. 08-1696, 2010 W L 3001986, at *39 (D. Md. July 29, 2010) ( “There is no 23 1 on ly o ne op ini on

bya ju dg e whic h h as s po ke n f av ora bly of su cha p rin cip le, an d th at w as a sin gle 2 judge’s dis senting opini on. Se e Khulumani v. Barclay Nat’l Bank Ltd. , 504 F.3d 254, 292 (2d 3 Cir. 2007) (Korman, J., concurring i n part and dis senting in pa rt). Since that di ssenting j udge 13 4 aired his view, numerous corporations ha ve moved f or the dismissal of thei r cases on t he ground 5 that jurid ica l entit ies are ex em pte d f rom civ il l iab ili ty b y th e law o f n ati on s. Ev ery co urt that ha s 6 passed on the ques tion has re jected t he contenti on. 1406- 4800- cv, 06- 4876- cv

K i obe l v. R oy al D ut ch Pe t ro l eu m

ba sis fo r di ff

ere nti ati ng be tw een

pri vate i nd ivi du als an d c orp oratio ns [u nd er the AT S]

. . . . ”); In re S. African Apart heid Litig. , 617 F. Supp. 2d 229, 254-55 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (Scheindlin, J.) (re jec tin g argum en t th at c orp orate l iab ili ty c anno t be im po sed un de r th e A TS ); In re X

E S erv s. Alien Tort Lit ig. , 6 65 F. Su pp . 2 d 5 69 , 5 88 (E .D . V a. 20 09 ) (“ No thi ng in t he AT S o r Sosa m ay plausibly be read to dis tinguish bet ween private i ndividuals a nd corporati ons; indeed, So sa sim ply ref ers to b oth

ind ivi du als an d e nti tie s as ‘pr ivate a cto rs. ’ . . . [ T] he re i s n o id en tif iab le pri nc ipl e o f c ivi l li ab ili ty whic h w ou ld d ist ing uis h b etw een ind ivi du al and

co rpo rat e d ef

en dants in t he se c irc um stanc es. ” (i nte rna l ci tat ion s o m itt ed )); seeals o In re Agent Orange Prod. Liab. Litig. , 373 F. Supp. 2d 7, 58 (E.D.N.Y. 2005) (W einstei n, J.) (“A corpor ation is notimm une fr om civ il l eg al a cti on

ba sed on int ern ati on al l aw .” ); Presbyteri an Church of Sudan v. Talisman En erg y, Inc

. , 3 74 F. Su

pp . 2 d 3 31 , 3 35 (S .D .N .Y . 2 00 5) ( Co te, J. ) (“ Ta lis m an ’s argum en t th at co rpo rat e li ab ili ty u

nd er i nte rnatio na l law i s n ot .

. . su ff ici en tlyacc ep ted

in i nte rnatio na l law t o su pp ort anAT S c lai m

is m isg uid ed .” ); Talisman , 244 F. Supp. 2d 289, 319 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) (Schwartz, J.) (“A private corporati on is a juri dical per son and has no pe r se imm un ityun de r U. S. do m est ic o r inter

natio na l law. . . . [ W ]h ere pla int if fs all eg e jus coge ns vio lat ion s, co rpo rat e lia bil itym ayfo llo w. ”); cf. In re S . A fri ca n A pa rth eid Li tig ., No. 02 MD L 1 49 9( SAS ), 20 09 WL 51 77 98 1, at * 2 (S .D .N .Y . D ec. 31 , 2 00 9) ( de ny ing m oti on fo r ce rti fi cat ion

of int erl oc uto ry appeal, becaus e there ar e not “substa ntial gr ounds for disagreement on the is sue of whether ATS ex ten ds lia

bil ityto c orp oratio ns ”); Pr esb yte ria n C hu rch of S

ud an v. Ta lis ma n E

ne rg y, Inc

. , No. 01 Ci v. 98 82 (D LC ), 2 00 5 W L 2 08 28 47 , at *3 -*4 (S .D .N .Y . Aug . 3 0, 20 05 ) (s am e); bu t se e discussion of Do e v. Nestle , at footnote * on page 3, su pra . 24 1 Th e m ajo rity’s vie w that co rpo rat ion s h av e n eithe r ri gh ts n or o bli gatio ns un de r 2 internat ional law is further refuted by t wo venerable opini ons of the Attorney Genera l of the 3 United States . In 1907, the Attor ney General re ndered an opini on that an American corpora tion 4 could be held l iable underthe ATS to Mexican nat ionals if the de fendant’s “diver sion of the 5 water [of the Rio Grande] was an injury t o substanti al right s of citizens of Mexi co under the 6 principl es of internat ional law or by t reaty.” 26 Op. Att’ y Gen. 252, 253 (1907). And in 1795, 7 shortly afterthe enactment of the ATS, the Attorney Gener al opined tha t a Briti sh corporat ion 8 co uld

pursu e a c ivi l ac tio n und er the AT S f or i nju ry c au sed to i t in vio lat ion of int ern ati on al l aw 9 by Am erican ci tizens who, in conc ert with a Fr ench fleet, had at tacked a set tlement managed by06- 4800- cv, 06- 4876- cv

K i obe l v. R oy al D ut ch Pe t ro l eu m

Although the Supreme Court reli ed on Attorney Genera l Bradford’s 1795 in So sa , the 15 m ajo rity’s on ly r esp on se t o th ese Attor ne y G en era l op ini on s is that th ey“d o[ no ]t hin g m ore than ba ldl y d ecl are ” co nc lus ion s w hic h th e m ajo rity c on sid er e rro ne ou s. Maj . O p. 41 n. 44 . (T he y ad d th e ir rel ev an cythat on e o f t

he op ini on s w ou ld r eq

uir e d ism iss al o f t

his su it o n a

co m ple tel y different ground.) 25 1 the corpora tion in Sier ra Leone in viol ation of international l aw. Se e 1 Op. Att’y Gen. 57 (1795). 2 Attor

ne y G en era l W ill iam

Br ad fo rd e xp lai ne d: 3 there can be no doubt that t he company or individuals who have bee n injured by 4 the se a cts of ho sti lit y h av e a r em ed

y b y a civ il su it i n th e co urt s o f t he Un ite d 5 St ate s; j uri sd ict ion be ing expre ssl y g ive n to the se c ourts in a ll c ase s whe re an a lie n 6 su es f

or a tor t on ly, in v iol ati on

of the law s o f n ati on s, or a

tre aty of the Un ite d 7 States . . . . 8 9 Id. at 59. Cf

. S os a , 542 U.S. at 721 (“Bradford . . . made it clear t hat a federal c ourt was open for 10 the pro sec uti on

of a to rt a cti on

gro wi ng out of

the ep iso de .” ). 15 11 In sum, the principle t hat my colleagues contend forms a part of the la w establishe d by the 12 universal consensus of the nati ons of the world – that j uridical persons have nei ther ri ghts nor 13 ob lig ati on s –

ha s n ev er b een

ad dre sse d w ithfavo r in

any o pin ion

on be ha lf of any c ourt and

ha s 14 many tim es been rej ected. 15 B. No international tribunal is structur ed with a juris diction cons istent wit h the 16 majority’s rule. If the re w ere int ern ati on al trib un als est ab lis he d w ithjur isd ict ion to award c ivi l 17 damages against natura l persons butnot againstjuridic al entit ies, this would give significa nt 18 su

pp ort to t he m ajo rity’s co nte nti on

that th e co nv en tio ns of

int ern ati on al l awatt ach

im po rtanc e to 19 wh eth er a

pe rso n a ga ins t w ho m

co m pe ns ato ry l iab ili ty i s so ug ht i s a n atural pe rso n o r a j uri dic al 20 entity. But t here is no i nternati onal tri bunal establ ished with such j urisdict ional res trict ions.06- 4800- cv, 06- 4876- cv

K i obe l v. R oy al D ut ch Pe t ro l eu m

Th e m ajo rity f

ind it “ parti cu lar ly s ign if

icant” that no int ern ati on al ( cri m ina l) trib un al 16 ha s ev er h eld

“a c orp oratio n li ab le f

or a vio lat ion of the lawof

natio ns .” Maj . O p. 28 . T his m isund ers tan ds the rol e o f s uc h tr ibu na ls i n th e enforcement

of the law of the nations. The primary, and prior to t he twentiet h century, the exclusive, means of applying and enforci ng the req uir em en ts o f c us tom ary

int ern ati on al l awwa s th e do mesti c lawof civ ili zed natio ns . T he ve ry actions t hat were “upper most” in the First Congres s’s mind in passing the ATS – pira cy, vio lat ion s o f s af

e co nd uc t, and of fe ns es a ga ins t am

ba ssa do rs –

ha d b een punis he d n ot b y an internat ional tr ibunal but by t he domestic courts of England under t he domestic law of England. Se e S os a , 5 42 U. S. at 7 15 , 7 19 ; 4 W ill iam Bl ack sto ne , C om

m en tar ies *6 6. On ly b eg inn ing in W orl d W ar I , w iththe adve nt o f t he Pe rm an en t C ourt o f I nte rnatio na l Ju sti ce, did int ern ati on al law also provi de an inter national c ourt for enforcing the se requir ements. And, until the est ab lis hm en t of

the Int ern ati on al C rim ina l C ourt, it p rov ide d c ourts to e nf orc e inter natio na l law ag ain st i nd ivi du als on ly o n an a d h oc ba sis , c onve nin g to car ry o ut j ud gm en t f

or p art icu lar violati ons of internati onal law – for example, in Nazi Germany, the former Yugoslavia, and Rw an da . S uc h tr ibu

na ls h av e ex erc ise d o nly

cri m ina l juris dic tio n. Th eyhave ne ve r enter tai ne d cla im s o f c ivi l li ab ili ty d ire cte d a ga ins t ei the r co rpo rat ion s o r natur al p ers on s. 26 1 Th e inter

natio na l tr ibu

na ls that have be enest ab lis he d to date w ithjur isd ict ion ov er p riv ate 2 pe rso ns have co nc ern ed the m sel ve s o nly

wi th c rim ina l pu

nis hm en t. No ne ha s ev er h ad

16 3 jur isd ict ion

to c on sid er a

pri vate c ivi l re m ed

y o f anykin d –

eithe r ag ain st a

natur al p ers on

or a 4 jur idi cal en tity. No int ern ati on al trib un al f urn ish es a

pre ced en t f

or t he m ajo rity’s rul e. (I d isc us s 5 be low , in

Part I II, the fa lla cyof

the m ajo rity’s arg um en t th at the res tri cti on of cri m ina l 6 punis hm en ts f

or v iol ati on s o f t

he lawof natio ns to n atural pe rso ns ref lec ts an intentio n in 7 internat ional law to i mm unize juri dical ent ities from civil compensatory li abilit y.) 8 C. Quoting out of contex t from a footnot e in the Supreme Court’ s Sosa opinion, the 9 majority att ribute to i t a meaning opposite to what it int ends. Qu oti ng a sn ipp et o f d ict um tak en 10 out of

co nte xt f rom a f oo tno te i n th e S up rem e C ourt’ s Sosa opinion, the majority opi nion 11 inc orr ect ly attr ibutes to t he Co urt su pp ort fo r th e m ajo rity’s co nte nti on that inter natio na l law 12 dis tin gu ish es b etw een natur al p ers on s (who can be civ ill y li ab le) an d c orp oratio ns (w ho canno t).06- 4800- cv, 06- 4876- cv

K i obe l v. R oy al D ut ch Pe t ro l eu m

27 1 To the ex tent th e So sa op ini on say s anyth ing on

the su bje ct, it c om

m un icates the op po sit e o f what 2 the majority att ribute t o it. 3 Th e m ajo rity a sse rt that in fo otn ote 20 of

Ju sti ce S outer ’s o pin ion , th e S up rem e C ourt 4 instruct ed the lower cour ts to consi der in rul ing in ATS claims “whether inte rnational law extends 5 the scope of liabi lity for a viol ation of a given norm to the perpe tratorbeing sued, if the defendant 6 is a priva te actorsuch as a corpor ation or an i ndividual.” M aj. Op. 18, 22. According to t he 7 m ajo rity o pin ion , th e q uo ted fr ag m en t m ean s th at whe n th e d ef en dant i s a p riv ate act or, su chas a 8 na tu ra l p er so n o r a co rp or at io n, a d et er min at iv e que st io n wi ll be whe th erwe ll es tabl is he d n or ms 9 of internati onal law impose liabil ity on such a perpetrator– and the answer may be different 10 de pe nd ing on

wh eth er the act or i s a n atural pe rso n o r a c orp oratio n. If rea d in co nte xt, ho we ve r, 11 the passage means the cont rary. 12 Th e So sa suit was broughtby Alvarez-Ma chain, a Mexi can doctor bel ieved by U.S. 13 government authoriti es to have par ticipat ed in the tor ture and murder by a Mexic an drug cart el of 14 anag en t of

the U. S. Dr

ug En fo rce m en t A dm ini str ati on . T he all eg ati on un de r th e A TS ass ert ed 15 that th e d ef

en dant S os a, act ing on

be ha lf of the U. S. go ve rnm en t, h ad he lpe d to sei ze A lvarez in 16 Mex ico an d b rin g h im to t he Un ite d S tat es t o s tan d tr ial fo r hi s ro le i n th e m urd er. Al varez wa s 17 eventuall y acquitte d of the crime. He contended that hi s abduction vi olated the law of nations 18 and thus prese nted a basis for tort li abilit y under the ATS. 19 Th e Ju sti ces of the Su pre m e C ourt a ll a gre ed

that A lvarez ’s c lai m s und er the AT S s ho uld 20 be dis m iss ed

be cau se t he ill eg al c on du ct h e as ser ted did no t vi olate the lawof

natio ns . What 21 divided the J ustices was whet her damages m ay eve r be awarded in a sui t under the ATS. The06- 4800- cv, 06- 4876- cv

K i obe l v. R oy al D ut ch Pe t ro l eu m

28 1 minority, taking esse ntiall y the positi on asserte d by Judge Bork in Te l-O ren , argued thatin the 2 ab sen ce o f f

urt he r le gis lat ion

su pp lyi ng a ca

us e o f a cti on , a

U. S. co urt

ha d n o b asi s to aw ard 3 dam ag es b eca

us e th e A TS did

no m ore than c on fe r juris dic tio n, an d n o s tat ute fu rni sh ed a ca us e 4 of action. Se e S

os a , 5 42 U. S. at 7 50 (S cal ia, J. , c on curri ng in t he jud gm en t). 5 Th e m ajo rity o f t he Co urt rej ect ed the m ino rity v iewthat th e A TS can have no pra cti cal 6 applicat ion unless and unt il some future Congress passes a dditional statute s making the law of 7 nations enforceable in a U.S. court. Cit ing the 1795 opini on of Attorney General Bradford, 1 Op. 8 Att’y Gen. 57, and reaffirming that “the domestic law of the United States recognizes the law of 9 natio ns ,” 54 2 U .S . at 72 9-3 0, Ju sti ce S outer ’s o pin ion co ns tru ed

the int en t of

the Fi rst Co ng res s in 10 pa ssi ng the AT S a s “f urn ish [i ng ] j uri sd ict ion

fo r a r elativ ely

m od est set of act ion s” b y p riv ate 11 act ors , whic h im

pli cat ed the int ere sts of

St ate s. See id. at 7 15 , 7 20 . T he Co urt m ajo rity n ote d 12 that the ATS origi nally was meant to authori ze liti gation of a “narr ow set of comm on law actions 13 de riv ed

fr om the lawof

natio ns ,” id. at 7 21 , b ut t hat in the pre sent day, fe de ral co urt s re tai ne d 14 autho rity to de cid e cl aim s ar isi ng un de r ne w “ int ern ati on al n orm [s ] i nte nd ed to p rot ect 15 individual s,” id. at 730. Recognizing, however , “good reasons for a r estrai ned conception of the 16 discret ion federal cour ts should exer cise in cons idering a ne w cause of action of this ki nd,” the 17 Court cautione d that a cl aim based on the “present -day law of nations [should] reston a norm of 18 int ern ati on al c harac ter acc ep ted bythe civ ili zed

wo rld an d d ef ine d w itha sp eci fi city c om parab le 19 to t

he fe atu res of the 18 th- centur

y p ara dig m s.” Id. at 725. 20 Justice Sout er then tur ned parenthet ically t o a concern broughtinto focus by the D.C.06- 4800- cv, 06- 4876- cv

K i obe l v. R oy al D ut ch Pe t ro l eu m

Th e E uro pe anCo mm iss ion als o ra ise d th is c on cer

n a s am icu s cu

ria e. Se e Br. of 17 Am icus Curiae t he European Comm ’n in Supp. of Neither Part y, at 10, So sa v. Al va rez -Ma ch ain , 54 2 U .S . 6 92 (20 04 ) (N o. 03 -33 9) ( “[ O] nly a su bs et o f n orm s re co gn ize d a s cu sto m ary int ern ati on al l awap pli es t o n on -st ate act ors , s uc h a s co rpo rat ion s, an d h en ce o nly that su bs et m ayfo rm the ba sis of

lia bil ityag ain st s uc h a cto rs. Fo r ex am ple , n on -st ate act ors m aybe lia ble fo r ge no cid e, war cr im es, an d p ira cy , whil e to rture, summ ary ex ecutio n, an d p rol on ge d arbi trary de tentio n d o n ot v iol ate the lawof natio ns un les s th eyare co mm itt ed bystate o ff

ici als or u nd er color of law.” (ci ting, inte r alia, Te l-O ren or Ka dic )), av ail ab le a t 2004 W L 177036. 29 1 Circuit’ s decision i n Te l-O ren and this cour t’s deci sion in Ka dic

. Judge Edwards in Te l-O ren 17 2 and this ci rcuit i n Ka dic had each contemplated tha t certa in forms of conduct were viol ations of 3 internat ional law, as oppos ed to violat ions of local la w, only when done by a State (orunder color 4 of a S tat e’s law ) an d n ot whe n d on e b y a pri vate a cto r ac tin g in de pe nd en tlyof a S tat e. (T his 5 resulte d from

internat ional law’s primary focus on the concerns and c onduct of States.) J udge 6 Ed wards co nc lud ed

that, whil e to rture p rac tic ed bya S tat e v iol ate d th e law o f n ati on s, the re w as 7 no wi de co ns en su s th at t ort ure , if done indepe ndently by a pri vate actor , constitut ed a violat ion of 8 the law of nations. Te l-O ren , 7 26 F. 2d at 7 94 -95 (E dw ard s, J. , c on curri ng ). Ka dic reflected on 9 the sam e q

ue sti on wi th r esp ect

to g en oc ide an d c on clu de d th at g en oc ide wa s g en era llyacc ep ted 10 as violat ing the laws of nati ons regardl ess of whether done by a Stat e or by a priva te actor

. 11 Ka dic , 7 0 F .3 d at 24 1-4 2. No thi ng in t he Te l-O ren or Ka dic op ini on s su gg est s in any w aythat 12 the law of nations might disti nguish between conductof a natural per son and of a corporati on. 13 Th eydis tin gu ish

on ly b etw een

pri vate and

St ate act ion . T he Sosa footnote refers to t he concern of 14 Te l-O ren and Ka dic – that some form s of noxious conduct are violati ons of the law of nations 15 wh endo ne byor o n b eh alf of a S tat e, but not when done by a pri vate actorindependentl y of a 16 State, while ot her noxious conductviolates the law of nations r egardless of whether done by a06- 4800- cv, 06- 4876- cv

K i obe l v. R oy al D ut ch Pe t ro l eu m

30 1 State or a pr ivate act or. Expressly r eferring to t hese discuss ions in Te l-O ren and Ka dic , So sa ’s 2 footnote 20 notes the pertinenc e of the considera tion “whetherinternat ional law ext ends the scope 3 of liabilit y for a violati on of a given norm for the perpetratorbeing sued, if t hede fen da nt i s a 4 private act or such as a corporat ion or an indivi dual ” (emphasis added). Se e a lso So sa , 542 U.S. 5 at 760 (Breyer , J. concurri ng) (“The norm m ust extend l iabili ty to the t ype of perpetrat or (e.g., a 6 pri vate a cto r) the pla int if f s eek s to su e. ”). 7 Far from im plying thatnatural pe rsons and corpor ations ar e treat ed dif feren tlyfor 8 purpo ses of

civ il l iab ili ty u

nd er A TS , th e inten de d in fe ren ce o f t he fo otn ote is that th eyare tre ate d 9 identical ly. If the violat ed norm is one that inte rnational law applies onl y against Sta tes, then “ a 10 private act or , such as a corporati on or an individual ,” wh o a cts ind ep en de ntl y o f a St ate , c an 11 have no lia

bil ityfo r vi olatio n o f t

he lawof natio ns be cau se t

he re h as b een

no vio lat ion

of the law 12 of n at io ns . On th e o th erha nd , i f t he co nduc t i s o f the ty pe cl as si fi edas a v io la ti onof t he no rms 13 of internati onal law regar dless of whether done by a St ate or a pr ivate act or, then “ a p riv ateac tor , 14 such as a corporati on or an individual ,” ha s v iol ate d th e law o f n ati on s an d is su bje ct t o li ab ili ty 15 in a s ui t u nd erth e A TS. Th e ma jo ri ty ’s pa rt ia l quo ta ti onou t o f co nt ex t, in te rp re ti ng th e S up re me 16 Court as dist inguishing bet ween individual s and corporat ions, misunderstands the meaning of the 17 passage. 18 III. The deficiencie s of the maj ority’s r easoning 19 In v iewof the co m ple te a bs en ce o f p rec ed en tia l su pp ort fo r th eir rul e, the m ajo rity’s 20 position r ests sole ly on arguments. These arguments rest on i llogical propositi ons and 21 m isund ers tan din gs of lawan d p rec ed en t.06- 4800- cv, 06- 4876- cv

K i obe l v. R oy al D ut ch Pe t ro l eu m

The majority opinion argue s at one pointthat “cust omary international law does not 18 develop through ‘ logical’ expansion of existi ng norms,” and that its rules cannot be extended by “parity of rea soning.” Maj Op. 36-37 & n.37. In spite of thi s assert ion, the majority opini on see ks by“p ari ty o f r eas on ing ” to ex ten d inter natio na l law’ s re fu sal to e xe rci se c rim ina l jurisdi ction over c orporati ons into a pri nciple of refusal t o allow imposition of civil l iabili ty on corporati ons. The problem with the exerci se is not onl y the majority’s i nconsistenc y on the ina pp rop riaten ess of

log ica l ex ten sio n b y p ari ty o f r eas on ing , b ut m ore im po rtantl y th at i ts asserte d extension i s based on neit her logic norparity of reas oning. Parity of rea soning undertakes t o apply the same rule to l ogically i ndistingui shable case s. The majority seek by ill og ica l ar gum en t to ex ten d a rul e ju sti fi ed

so lel y b y o ne set

of cir cum stanc es i nto oth er situati ons that la ck the just ifying circumstances. Legal scholarshi p often extols the virtue of deciding li ke cases in l ike fashion. The majority here undertake t o decide unli ke cases in l ike fashion. 31 1 A. The refusal to e mpower international criminal tr ibunals to i mpose criminal 2 punishment on corporat ions (for reasons which de pend solely on t he suitabil ity of cr iminal 3 punishment to corpor ations) in no way implies that i nternational law exempts corporat ions from 4 its ru les

. Th e o nly fa ct o f i nte rnatio na l law t o whic h th e m ajo rity c anpo int as e vid en ce o f i ts 5 vie w that inter

natio na l law d oe s n ot a

pp ly t o ju rid ica l pe rso ns is the fa ct that inter natio na l 6 cri mi na l tri buna ls h av e n ot e xe rci sed autho rity to im

po se criminal

punishments on them. 7 Ac co rdi ng to t

he m ajo rity, it f

oll ow s in esc ap ab ly t

hat jurid ica l entit ies are no t su bje ct t o 8 int ern ati on al l aw . T he arg um en t is sim ply a n on seq uit ur. 18 9 Th e m ajo rity are a bs olutel y c orr ect

that inter natio na l cr im ina l tr ibu

na ls h av e co ns ist en tly 10 been establ ished without j urisdict ion to impose criminal punishments on corporat ions. At the 11 start of modern prosecuti on by internat ional tr ibunals for viol ations of the la w of nations, the 12 m ili tar

y tr ibu na ls at N ure m

be rg, est ab lis he d und er the Lo nd on Ch art er and

Co ntr ol C ounc il L aw 13 No. 10 to punish those r esponsible for t he Nazi atroc ities, found thatthe Farben cor poration06- 4800- cv, 06- 4876- cv

K i obe l v. R oy al D ut ch Pe t ro l eu m

See, e.g. , 2 Int’l Comm ission of Juris ts, Co rp orateCo mp lic ity& L eg al A cco un tab ili ty 19 57 -58 (20 08 ) (“ Natio na l cr im ina l laws we re d ev elo pe d m any c en tur ies ag o, an d th eyare bu ilt and framed upon the notion of the individual human being as a conscious being e xercisi ng fr eed om of ch oic e, tho ug ht and

act ion . B us ine sse s as leg al e nti tie s h av e b een vie we d a s fictitious beings, with no physi cal prese nce and no indivi dual conscious ness.”); L.H. Leigh, The Cr im ina l L iab ili ty o

f C or po ra tio ns an d O the r G ro up s: A Co mp arati ve V iew , 80 Mich. L. Rev. 15 08 , 1 50 9 (1 98 2) ( “T he se argum en ts [ ag ain st c orp orate c rim ina l li ab ili ty] m aybe summ ari zed quickly: a c orporati on has no mind of its own and therefore cannot ent ertain gui lt; ithas not bo dyan d th ere fo re c anno t ac t in propia persona ; . . . . ”). 32 1 vio lat ed

the stand ard s o f t

he lawof natio ns an d th ere fo re i m po sed punis hm en t on

the res po ns ibl e 2 Farbe n p ers onne l, b ut d id n ot p ros ecute the co rpo rat ion . T he su bs eq ue nt i nte rnatio na l criminal 3 tribunal s have also bee n establi shed with juri sdiction ove r only natur al persons. I n the recent 4 establi shment of the Internationa l Criminal Court (ICC) under t he Rom e Statute, J uly 17, 1998, 5 37 I.L.M. 999, 2187 U.N.T.S. 90, a proposal advanced by Fra nce to extend t he court’s jurisdi ction 6 to i nc lud e th e p ros ecutio n o f c orp oratio ns an d o the r jurid ica l pe rso ns wa s d ef eat ed . O n th is b asi s 7 the majority decla re it “abundantly cle ar,” Maj. Op. 35 (a lthough furnishing no e xplanation for 8 thi s ab un dant c lar ity ), t hat th e p roh ibi tio ns of

int ern ati on al l awdo no t ap ply to c orp oratio ns . 9 The reasons why the j urisdict ion of internat ional cri minal tribunals has been limited to the 10 prosecuti on of natural pers ons, as opposed to j uridical entiti es, relat e to the nature and purposes of 11 criminal

punis hm en t, and

have no ap pli cat ion

to t he ve ry d if

fe rent natur e an d p urp os es o f c ivi l 12 compensatory liabil ity. According t o views widely shar ed in the world, a n indispensabl e element 13 to the just ification of cri minal punishment is criminal intent. Many courts a nd writers ha ve 19 14 tak enthe po sit ion that, b eca

us e cr im ina l intent cann ot e xis t in anart if ici al e nti ty t

hat ex ist s so lel y 15 as a juri dical const ruct and can form no intent of any kind, itis an anomaly to view a corpor ation06- 4800- cv, 06- 4876- cv

K i obe l v. R oy al D ut ch Pe t ro l eu m

See, e.g. , 2 Int’l Comm ission of Juris ts, su pra note 19, at 58 (“ [M]any perceive it t o be 20 im po ssi ble to p rov e th at a

bu sin ess en tity h ad

cri m ina l intent, o r kn ow led ge .” ); V .S . K hann a, Co rp orateCr im ina l L iab ili ty: Wha t P ur po se D oes It

Se rve ? , 109 Harv. L. Rev. 1477, 1490 (19 96 ) (“ Many E uro pe anjur isd ict ion s in iti all y re fu sed to r eco gn ize co rpo rat e cr im ina l li ab ili ty be cau se t he no tio n th at a

jur ist ic f ict ion su chas a co rpo rat ion

co uld po sse ss g uil t in

the sen se necessary for t he applicat ion of the criminal law seemed far-fetched.”); Guy Stessens, Co rp orate Cr im ina l L iab ili ty: A C

om pa ra tiv e P ers

pe cti ve , 43 Int’l & Com

p. L.Q. 493, 496 (1994) (descri bing decisi ons of the Queen’s Bench that“managed to surmount the so-called ‘ mes re a hurdle’”) ; Gerhard O.W. Mueller, Mens Rea and the Corporat ion , 19 U. Pitt. L. Rev. 21, 29 (19 57 ) (d isc us sin g m id- centur y F ren chvie w that “c orp orate c rim ina l li ab ili ty i s ir rec on cil ab le with the guil t princi ple”); Rober t Philli more, Commentaries upon Internat ional Law 50 (1854) (“C rim ina l law i s co nc ern ed wi th a natural

person; a bei ng of thought, feeling, and will . A legal person is not , strict ly speaking, a be ing of these att ributes, t hough, through the medium of represent ation and of government, the will of cer tain indi viduals is considered t he will of the co rpo rat ion ; but on ly f

or c ert ain purpo ses .” ). 33 1 as c rim ina l. In additi on, criminal punis hm en t do es n ot a ch iev e it s p rin cip al o bje cti ve s whe n it is 20 2 im po sed on anab str act

en tity th at e xis ts o nly

as a leg al c on str

uc t. C rim ina l pu

nis hm en t se ek s to 3 im po se m ean ing fu l punishment – in other words, t o inflict, for sal utary effect, a measure of 4 sufferi ng on persons who have viol ated socie ty’s rul es. 1 Charles E. Torci a, Wharton’s Cri minal 5 Law § 1, at 2 (15th ed. 1993) (“The ‘cri minal’ law attempts to force obedienc e—or to disc ourage 6 dis ob ed ien ce—

bypunis hin g o ff

en de rs. ”). Th e in fl ict ion

of punit ive su ff

eri ng ha s se ve ral 7 ob jec tiv es. On e is to g ive so cie ty t he sat isf act ion of retrib uti on

– o f s eei ng that on e who ha s 8 bro ke n it s ru les an d h as c au sed su ff eri ng is r eq

uir ed in t urn to e nd ure su ff eri ng . A no the r is to 9 dis ab le t

he of fe nd er f rom fu rth er c rim ina l co nd

uc t du rin g im pri so nm en t. Athi rd i s th e h op e th at 10 the inf

lic tio n o f p un iti ve su ff

eri ng wi ll c hang e th e cr im ina l’s co nd uc t, b rin gin g a

bo ut e ith er h is 11 rep en tan ce o r, at le ast , h is r eal izatio n th at f urt he r cr im ina l co nd

uc t is lik ely

to r esu lt i n s til l m ore 12 sev ere punis hm en t. Y et ano the r ob jec tiv e is to d iss ua de oth ers sim ilarlysit uated fr om cri m ina l06- 4800- cv, 06- 4876- cv

K i obe l v. R oy al D ut ch Pe t ro l eu m

See, e.g. , P ros ecutor

v. Kayis he m a & R

uz ind an a, Ca se N o. IC TR -95 -1- T, Se nte nc e, ¶ 2 21 (June 1, 2001) (“ This Chamber m ust impose sentences on convi cted persons for retribut ion, de ter ren ce, reh ab ili tat ion , and to p rot ect

so cie ty. As to d ete rre nc e, thi s C ham be r se ek s to dissuade for good those who will be tempted in the future t o perpetra te such atr ocities by showing them that the inte rnational comm unity is no l onger willi ng to toler ate seri ous violati ons of internati onal humanitarian la w and hum an rights.” ); Prosecut or v. Nahimana, Case No. IC TR -99 -52 -T , Jud ge m en t an d S en ten ce, ¶ 10 95 (D ec. 3, 20 03 ) (“ Th e C ham be r co ns ide rs that senten cin g s erv es t

he go als of

retrib uti on , d ete rre nc e, reh ab ili tat ion , and pro tec tio n o f s oc iety. ”); Prosecutor v. M usema, Case No. ICTR -96-13, Judgment and Sentence, ¶ 986 ( Jan. 27, 2000) (“T he pe na lti es i m

po sed bythi s T rib un al m

us t be dir ect ed

at r etr ibutio n, so that th e co nv ict ed perpetra tors see t heir cri mes punished, and, over and above that , at deterrence, to di ssuade for ev er o the rs who m aybe tem pte d to co mm it atro cit ies bysh ow ing the m that th e inter

natio na l co mm un itydo es n ot t ole rat e se rio us vio lat ion s o f i nte rnatio na l hum an itarian law and hum an rights.”) ; Prosecutorv. Kupreskic, Case No. IT-95- 16-T, Judgment, ¶ 848 (Jan. 14, 2000) (“[I]n general, r etribut ion and deterrence are the main purposes to be consi dered when imposing sentences i n cases before the Internat ional Tribuna l.”); Pros ecutor v. Nalet ilic, Case No. IT -98 -34 -T , Jud ge m en t, ¶ 73 9 (M ar. 31 , 2 00 3) ( sam e).

34 1 co nd

uc t throu ghthe im

pli cit warni ng that, i f t

he y y iel d to the tem

ptatio ns of

ill eg al c on du ct, 2 su ffe ri ng may b e i nfl ic te d o n t he m. 21 3 Whe n c rim ina l pu nis hm en t is inf

lic ted on anab str act

en tity th at e xis ts o nly

as a leg al 4 construct , none of these object ives is ac complished. A corporation, havi ng no body, no soul, and 5 no co ns cie nc e, is i nc ap ab le o f s uf fe rin g, of rem ors e, or o f p rag m ati c re ass ess m en t of its futur e 6 be havio r. N or c anit b e in cap aci tat ed byim pri so nm en t. T he on ly f

orm of punis hm en t re ad ily 7 imposed on a corporation i s a fine, and this form of punishm ent, because i ts burden falls on the 8 corporati on’s owners or cr editors ( or even possibl y its cust omers if it can succeed in pa ssing on 9 its cost s in incre ased price s), may well fail to hurt the persons who were re sponsible for the 10 co rpo rat ion ’s m isd eed s. Furth erm ore , whe n th e ti m e co m es t o im po se p un ishm en t f

or p ast 11 misdeeds, the corporat ion’s owners, di rectors , and employees m ay be completely different06- 4800- cv, 06- 4876- cv

K i obe l v. R oy al D ut ch Pe t ro l eu m

35 1 pe rso ns fr om

tho se who he ld t

he po sit ion s at

the t im e o f t

he m isc on du ct. What is m ore , c rim ina l 2 prosecuti on of the corporati on can undermine the object ives of criminal law by misdirecti ng 3 pro sec uti on

aw ayfr om

tho se d ese rvi ng of

punis hm en t. B eca

us e th e im

po sit ion of cri m ina l 4 punis hm en t on

co rpo rat ion s an d o the r jurid ica l entit ies fa ils to f ulf ill the ob jec tiv es o f c rim ina l 5 punishment, the Interna tional Mi litar y Tribunal atNuremberg declared, “[O]nly by punishing 6 individual s who comm it such cr imes [and not by punishing abstrac t entit ies] can the provi sions of 7 internat ional law be enforce d.” The Nurnberg Trial , 6 F. R. D. 69 , 1 10 (19 46 ); see Maj. Op. 7-8. 8 Fo r th ese rea so ns , c rim ina l pr os ecutio n o f c orp oratio ns is unk no wn in m any n ati on s o f t

he wo rld 9 and is not pra cticed i n internat ional cri minal tribunals. See supra notes 19-20. 10 Th e v ery

so urc es t he m ajo rity c ite m ak e cl ear that th e re aso n f

or w ithho ldi ng cri m ina l 11 jur isd ict ion

ov er c orp oratio ns fr om

int ern ati on al trib un als rel ate s to a p erc eiv ed ina pp rop riaten ess 12 of im

posing criminal

punishments on corporati ons. M. Cherif Bassiouni’ s report on t he drafting 13 of the Rom e Statute not es the “deep di vergence of views as t o the advisabi lity of includi ng 14 cri mi na l re

sp on sib ili ty of legal [i.e., juri dical] persons” in the Rome Statute. Maj. Op. 34 15 (quoting Draft

Re po rt o f th e In ter

ses sio na l Me eti ng

fro m 1 9 to 30Ja nu ar

y 1 99 8 [ He ld] in 16 Zuthphen, The Netherlands , in T he Sta tute o

f th e In ter

na tio na l C

rim ina l C ou rt: A D oc um en tar

y 17 Hi

sto ry 22 1, 24 5 n .7 9 (M . C he rif Ba ssi ouni e d. , 1 99 8)) . A nd rewCl ap ham ’s r ep ort 18 no tes “th e who le n oti on of co rpo rat e cri mi na l resp on sib ili ty [i s] sim ply ‘al ien ’” t o m any le ga l 19 systems. Maj. Op. 34 (quoting Andrew Clapham, Th e Q uesti on of J ur isd ict ion Un de r 20 Internati onal Criminal Law Over Legal Persons: Lessons from the Rome Conferenc e on an 21 Internati onal Criminal Co ur t , in Liabili ty of Mul tinational Corporations Under Int ernational06- 4800- cv, 06- 4876- cv

K i obe l v. R oy al D ut ch Pe t ro l eu m

André Tunc, Introduct ion, in 11 Internati onal Encyclopedi a of Comparative Law ¶ 22 16 7, at 9 6 (And

ré T un c ed ., 19 83 ) (“ [T ]h e law o f t ort sh ou ld s erv e th e f

ulf ill m en t of jus tic e, at least i f a com

pensatory j ustice, nota punishing one, i s contemplated.”); Doug Cassel , Co rp orate Aiding and Abetti ng of Human Rights Violati ons: Confusion in t he Courts, 6 N w. J. Int ’l H um an 36 1 Law 139, 157 (Menno T. Kamm inga & Saman Zia-Zarifi eds., 2000) ). 2 The refusal of interna tional or ganizati ons to impose criminal liabil ity of corporat ions – for 3 reasons havi ng to do solely wit h a corporat ion’s perc eived inabi lity to a ct with a cr iminal intent 4 an d th e in ef

fi cac y o f c rim ina l pu

nis hm en t to ach iev e it s g oa ls whe n a pp lie d to a co rpo rat ion

– in 5 no way implies that inte rnational law deems corporations exe mpt f rom international law. As the 6 Chairman of the Rom e Statute’ s Drafting Comm ittee ha s explained, de spite the diversit y of views 7 co nc ern ing co rpo rat e criminal liabil ity, “all positions now acc ept in some form or another t he 8 pri nc ipl e th at a

leg al e nti ty, pri vate o r pu bli c, can , throu ghits po lic ies or a cti on s, trans gre ss a 9 no rm

fo r w hic h th e law, wh eth er n ati on al o r inter natio na l, p rov ide s, at the ve ry l eas t dam ag es. ” 10 M. Cherif Bassiouni, Crimes Against Humanity in I nternational

Criminal Law 379 (2d rev. ed. 11 19 99 ); see also 3 Int’l Comm ission of Juris ts, Co rp or ateCo mp lic ity& L eg

al A cco un tab ili ty: 12 Ci vil

Re me die s 5 (2 00 6) ( “[ W ]h enthe leg al a cco untab ili ty o f a co m panyen tity is so ug ht, the law 13 of

civ il r em ed ies m ayof

ten pro vid e v ict im s w iththe ir o nly leg al ave nu e to rem ed

y. Th is i s 14 be cau se the law of civ il remedies will always have t he abilit y to deal with t he conduct of 15 co mp an ies , in div idu als an d s tate a uth or iti es. ” (e m ph asi s ad de d and

fo otn ote s o m itt ed )). 16 Th e p urp os es o f c ivi l to rt l iab ili ty are v ery dif fe rent f rom the purpo ses of

cri m ina l 17 punis hm en t. Apri nc ipa l ob jec tiv e o f c ivi l to rt l iab ili ty i s to co m pe ns ate vic tim s o f i lle ga l 18 co nd

uc t f or t he harm s in fl ict ed

on the m an d to res tor e to the m

wh at i s ri gh tf

ull y th eir s. If a

2206- 4800- cv, 06- 4876- cv

K i obe l v. R oy al D ut ch Pe t ro l eu m

Ri gh ts 304, 322-23 (2008) (“ [C]ustom ary inter national l aw has long held tha t injuri es caused by vio lat ion s o f i nte rnatio na l no rm s re qu ire rep aratio n, inc lud ing m on etary c om pe ns ati on wh enfu ll res tit uti on is n ot p os sib le. ”); seeals o infra no te 2 4 (q uo tin g d eci sio ns of

the Int ern ati on al C ourt of Ju sti ce and

Pe rm an en t C ourt o f I nte rnatio na l Ju sti ce t o th e sam e ef fe ct)

. Se ve ral int ern ati on al c onve nti on s exp lic itl y re co gn ize the div ers ityin n ati on s’ 23 domestic laws regardi ng the imposition of criminal sancti ons on legal orjuridic al persons. Th ese co nv en tio ns req

uir e S tat e p art ies to i m

po se c rim ina l sanc tio ns on leg al p ers on s, or whe re that is notpossible underthe indivi dual nation’ s domestic law, non-criminal sanct ions. Se e Op tio na l P rot oc ol t o th e C onve nti on on the Ri gh ts o f t

he Ch ild on the Sa le o f C hil dre n, Ch ild Prostitut ion and Child Pornography, May 25, 2000, G.A. Res. 54/263, Annex II, 54 U.N. GAOR Supp. (No. 49) at 6, U.N. Doc. A/54/49, Vol. III ( 2000), en tered into fo rce Jan. 18, 2002 (“S ub jec t to the pro vis ion s o f i ts n ati on al l aw , e ach St ate Partysh all tak e m eas ure s . . . to est ab lis h th e li ab ili ty o f l eg al p ers on s. Su bje ct t o th e le ga l pr inc ipl es o f t he St ate Party , s uc h lia bil ityof leg al p ers on s m aybe cri m ina l, c ivi l or adm ini str ati ve .” ); O rganiz ati on fo r E co no m ic Co op eratio n and

De ve lop m en t, C onve nti on on Co m batin g B rib ery

of Fo rei gn Pu bli c O ff ici als in Internat ional Business transact ions, art. 3, Nov. 21, 1997, DAFFE/IME/BR(97)20, en tered into force Fe b. 15 , 1 99 9 (“ Th e b rib ery of a f ore ign pu bli c o ff ici al s ha ll b e p un ish ab le b y e ff ect ive , 37 1 co rpo rat ion

harm s v ict im s b y c on du ct that vi olates the lawof natio ns , im

po sit ion of civ il l iab ili ty 2 on the corpora tion perfectl y serves the objective s of civil li abilit y. It compensates the vi ctims for 3 the harm s wron gly inf lic ted on the m an d re sto res to t

he m wh at i s ri gh tf

ull y th eir s. What is m ore , 4 in a ll l ike lih oo d, the ob jec tiv es o f c ivi l to rt l iab ili ty c anno t be ach iev ed un les s li ab ili ty i s im

po sed 5 on the corporati on . B eca us e th e co rpo rat ion , and

no t it s p ers onne l, e arn ed the pri nc ipa l pr of

it 6 from

the violat ion of the rights of others, the goal of com pensation of the vi ctims likely cannotbe 7 achieved if they ha ve remedies only againstthe persons who act ed on the corpor ation’s be half – 8 ev enin t

he un lik ely

ev en t th at the vic tim s co uld su e th os e p ers on s in

a co urt wh ich grants civ il 9 rem ed ies fo r vi olatio ns of int ern ati on al l aw . F urt

he rm ore , unli ke the cas e w ithco rpo rat e cr im ina l 10 lia

bil ity , whic h d oe s n ot e xis t in m any n ati on s o f t

he wo rld , it

is the wo rld

wi de pra cti ce t o im

po se 11 civ il l iab ili ty o n c orp oratio ns . 2306- 4800- cv, 06- 4876- cv

K i obe l v. R oy al D ut ch Pe t ro l eu m

proportiona te and dissua sive cri minal penalties. . . . I n the event t hat under the legal syst em of a Party , c rim ina l re sp on sib ili ty i s n ot a pp lic ab le t o le ga l pe rso ns , th at P arty s ha ll e ns ure that le ga l pe rso ns sh all be su

bje ct t o e ff

ect ive , p rop ort ion al and

dis su asi ve no n-c rim ina l sanc tio ns .” ). 38 1 Thus , th e re aso ns that expla in t he ref us al t o e nd owint ern ati on al c rim ina l tr ibu na ls w ith 2 jur isd ict ion

to i m po se c rim ina l pu

nis hm en ts o n c orp oratio ns su gg est if anyth ing the op po sit e as to 3 civil t ort liability. Whereas cri minal liabilit y of corporations i s unknown in much of the world, 4 civil l iabili ty of corporati ons is enforced thr oughout the world. Whereas the i mposition of 5 criminal punishment on corporati ons fails to achi eve the objec tive of criminal punishment, the 6 compensatory purposes of civil liabil ity are pe rfectly ser ved when it is i mposed on corporations. 7 Whereas cr iminal prosecution of a corporation coul d misdirect prosecut orial at tention away from 8 the responsi ble persons who dese rve punishment, imposition of civil compensatory li abilit y on 9 corporati ons makes possible the achi evement of the goal of civil law to compensate vic tims for 10 the abuses t hey have suffered. There is s imply no logic to the majority’ s assumption that the 11 wi thh old ing fr om int ern ati on al cri mi na l tri buna ls o f j uri sd ict ion to i m po se cri mi na l punis hm en ts 12 on

co rpo rat ion s (f

or r eas on s re lat ing so lel y to a p erc ep tio n th at c orp oratio ns canno t co mm it 13 cri m es) m ean s th at i nte rnatio na l law’ s p roh ibi tio ns of inh um an e co nd

uc t do no t ap ply

to 14 corporati ons. 15 B. Th e m ajo rit y in co rre ctl

y a sse rt t ha t in ter na tio na l la w d

oes n ot d ist ing uis h b etw een 16 cri mi na l an d c ivi l li ab ili ty; in f ac t, i nte rn ati on al l

aw do es d ist inguis h b etw een thetw o, an d le av es 17 iss ues o

f pr iva te c ivi l li ab ili ty to in div idu al S tates. In an effort to defend theirillogic al leap from 18 the fact thatinternat ional tr ibunals have notexercise d criminal juris diction overjuridic al persons06- 4800- cv, 06- 4876- cv

K i obe l v. R oy al D ut ch Pe t ro l eu m

One internat ional tr ibunal, the c lose st thing t o a tribunal vested with ci vil juri sdiction – 24 the Inter national Courtof Justice (I CJ), which resolve s matters referred t o it by tre aty or ag ree m en t of

St ate parti es –

do es award c ivi l re parat ion s ag ain st S tat es, wh ich are jur idi cal entiti es. Statute of the Internat ional Court of Justi ce, art. 36( 1), June 26, 1945, 59 Stat. 1055, 33 U.N.T.S. 993. W

hile thatcourt does notexercise jurisdi ction over pr ivate act ors, id. art . 3 4(1 ), its pre ced en ts i nv olv ing aw ard s o f r ep aratio ns pa id b y o ne St ate to ano the r de m on str ate that an award of damages against a juri dical ent ity is fam iliarground in inte rnational law. In a line of decisions da ting to the 1920s, the ICJ and it s predecess or court, t he Permanent Court of Int ern ati on al Jus tic e, have rec og niz ed as “ a p rin cip le o f i nte rnatio na l law that th e b rea chof an internat ional engagement [a duty imposed by internat ional law] involves an obligati on to make reparat ion in an adequat e form.” Factory at Chorzów (Jurisdi ction) ( Germany v. Poland), 1927 P. C. I.J . (s er. A) No . 9 , at 3, 21 (Ju ly 2 6); see also Un ite d S tat es D ipl om ati c an d C on su lar St af f i n Tehran (Judgment) (United St ates of America v. Iran), 1980 I.C.J. 3, 41- 42 (May 24) (“ Iran, by comm itting s uccessive a nd continuing br eaches of [treaty obl igations] an d th e a pp lic ab le rule

s of general i nternational

law , h as i nc urr ed

res po ns ibi lity to wards the Un ite d S tat es. [I ]t cle arl y entails an obligati on on the part of the I ranian Stat e to make reparation for t he injury t hereby caused to the United States .” (emphasis added)); Corfu Channel Case (Merit s), 1949 I.C.J. 4, 23 (Apri l 9) (“T he Co urt

the ref ore rea ch es t

he co nc lus ion

that A lbania

is r esp on sib le und er int ern ati on al l awfo r th e explo sio ns wh ich oc curre d o n O cto be r 22 nd , 1 94 6, in A lbanian w ate rs, an d f or t he dam ag e an d lo ss o f h

um anlif e whic h re su lte d f

rom the m , and

that th ere is a

duty 39 1 to t

he co nc lus ion

that jurid ica l entit ies canno t vi olate i nte rnatio na l law and thu s cann ot b e su ed 2 un de r th e A TS , th e m ajo rity p os it that th ere is n o d ist inc tio n in int ern ati on al l awbe tw een civ il 3 an d c rim ina l li ab ili ty. Maj . O p. 46 . T he m ajo rity c ite ne ith er s ch olarlydis cu ssi on no r any s ource 4 do cum en t of

int ern ati on al l awin s up po rt o f t his ass ert ion . In

fa ct, sch olarlywr iti ng s an d s ource 5 documents of international law contradi ct theirasserti on. These sources di stinguish i n many 6 im po rtant r esp ect s b etw een

cri m ina l an d c ivi l li ab ili ty, an d d em on str ate that im po sit ion of civ il 7 lia bil ityfo r vi olatio ns of

int ern ati on al l awfa lls wi thi n th e g en era l di scr eti on that in div idu al S tat es 8 possess to meet theirinternat ional obli gations. 9 In e ve ry i ns tan ce o f t he est ab lis hm en t of

anint ern ati on al trib un al w ithjur isd ict ion ov er 10 private a ctors, the tribunal has been given exc lusively c riminal jurisdi ction. For instance , the 2406- 4800- cv, 06- 4876- cv

K i obe l v. R oy al D ut ch Pe t ro l eu m

upon Albania to pay compensation t o the United Kingdom.”); 1 Oppenheim’s Inter national Law ¶ 15 5, at 5 28 n. 3 (S ir R ob ert Jennin gs & S ir Arthur W att s ed s. , 9 th e d. 19 96 ) (n oti ng an “‘inter national e ngagement’ includes any dut y under inter national l aw”). Se e Pr os ecu

tor v. Kayis he m a & R

uz ind an a, Ca se N o. IC TR -95 -1- T, Se nte nc e, ¶ 1 25 (May 2 1, 19 99 ) (s tat ing that th e Inter natio na l C rim ina l T rib un al f or R wand a w as e sta

bli sh ed “to ensure the e ffective redress of violations of inte rnational humanitarian law in Rwanda in 1994. The objective was to prosecute and punish the perpet rators of the a trocit ies in Rwanda in such a way as to put an end t o impunity and promote national reconc iliat ion and the re storati on of pe ace .” (em

ph asi s ad de d)) ; P ros ecutor v. Bl ag oje vic & Jo kic , C ase No . IT -02 -60 -T , Jud ge m en t, ¶ 81 4 (J an . 1 7, 20 05 ) (s tat ing that th e Inter natio na l T rib un al f

or t he Fo rm er Yug os lav ia s eek s to im po se p un ishm en t th at “ ref lec t[ s] bo th t

he cal ls f or j us tic e f

rom the pe rso ns wh o h av e –

dir ect ly or i nd ire ctl y –

be envic tim s o f t

he cri m es, as w ell as r esp on d to the cal l f rom the int ern ati on al co mm un ityas a wh ole to e nd

im punit y f or m ass ive hum anrig hts vio lat ion s an d c rim es co mm itt ed

durin g arm ed

co nf lic ts” ). 40 1 London Charter est ablished t he Interna tional Mi litary Tribunal atNuremberg “for the just and 2 pro m

pt trial and punishment

of the major war criminals of the European Axis.” Agreement for 3 the Prosecut ion and Punishment of the Major War Criminals of the European Axis (the “London 4 Charter”) , § I, art. 1, Aug. 8, 1945, 59 Stat . 1544, 82 U.N.T.S. 279. Control Council Law No. 10 5 est ab lis he d th e U .S . M ili tar y T rib un al f

or t he “p ros ecutio n” an d “ punis hm en t” o f “ war cr im ina ls 6 and other si milar offenders.” Control Council Law 10, preamble, reprinted i n I Trials of W ar 7 Criminals Before t he Nuernberg Mil itary Tribunal s under Control Council

Law No. 10 , at xvi 8 (19 50 ). T he Int ern ati on al C rim ina l T rib un al f or t he Fo rm er Yug os lav ia and the Int ern ati on al 9 Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda were established to pr osecute and puni sh war criminals. The 25 10 parties to the Rome Statute of the Inter national Cri minal Court “[a]ff irm that the most serious 11 cr ime s o f co nc ern t o t he in te rn at io na l c ommun it y a s awho le mustno t g o u np un is he d. ” R ome 12 Statute, pr eamble, ¶ 4.06- 4800- cv, 06- 4876- cv

K i obe l v. R oy al D ut ch Pe t ro l eu m

Th e d ist inc tio n b etw een

cri m ina l an d c ivi l en fo rce m en t of int ern ati on al l awis a lso 26 rec og niz ed

in m any m

ult ilater al a gre em en ts. Mo st p rom ine ntl y, the To rture C onve nti on req uir es eac h S tat e p arty to cri m ina llypro sec ute act s o f t ort ure or t o e xtr ad ite the all eg ed tor tur ers to oth er S tat es f

or p ros ecutio n. Th en , o n th e su bje ct o f c om

pe ns ato ry c ivi l li ab ili ty, it o bli gates eac h S tat e p arty to “en sure i n it s le ga l sy ste m that th e v ict im

of anact of tor tur e . . . ha s an enforceable ri ght to fair and adequate compensation inc lud ing the m ean s f or a s f ull rehabili tation as possible.” Convent ion Against Torture and Other Cruel , Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, art. 14, Dec. 10, 1984, S. Treaty Doc. No. 100-20, 1465 U.N.T.S. 85. See, e.g. , Prosecutor v. Furundzija, Case No. IT-95- 17/1, Trial Chamber Judgment, ¶ 27 15 5 (D ec. 10 , 1 99 8) ( expla ini ng that vi cti m s o f o ff ici all y s an cti on ed

tor tur e “c ou ld b rin g a

civ il su it f or d am ag e in

a f ore ign co urt ”); VI Tr ial

s o f Wa r C rim ina ls B efo re t

he Nu ern be rg

Mil ita ry Tr ibu na ls 1207-08 (1952) (“ [T]here m ay be both civi l and criminal li abilit y growing out of the same transaction. I n this case Flick’s ac ts and conduct c ontribute d to a violat ion of Hague Re gu lat ion

46 [, ] t hat is , th at p riv ate pro pe rtym us t be res pe cte d.

. . . B ut h is a cts we re n ot w ith in his knowledge int ended to contr ibute to a pr ogram of ‘system atic plunde r’ [and therefore c annot be punis he d c rim ina lly ]. ”). See, e.g. , Rom e Statute, a rt. 5 (vest ing ICC with juris diction overthe crime of 28 ge no cid e, cri m es a ga ins t hum an ity , w ar c rim es, an d th e cr im e o f a gg res sio n); 41 1 Co ns ist en t w iththe ir c on sti tut ing ch art ers , inter natio na l cr im ina l tr ibu

na ls h av e ex erc ise d 2 only criminal juri sdiction t o punish offenders. None has ever exe rcised a powerto make 3 compensatory civil awar ds to victi ms. These tribuna ls have on occas ion made clear that t he 26 4 cri m ina l vi olatio ns the y f ound m aygiv e ri se t o a

cla im fo r ci vil co m

pe ns ato ry l iab ili ty, an d at 5 tim es, have expli cit ly s aid that co nd uc t w hic h d oe s no t jus tif

y c rim ina l pu

nis hm en t m ay 6 no ne the les s su

pp ort a cl aim fo r co m pe ns ato ry d am ag es. 27 7 Internat ional law not onl y recognizes differences between cr iminal and civil l iabili ty, but 8 tre ats the m

dif fe rently . Whil e inter

natio na l ins tit

uti on s h av e o cca sio na llybe enest ab lis he d to 9 im po se c rim ina l pu

nis hm en ts f

or e gre gio us vio lat ion s o f i nte rnatio na l law, an d tr eat ies of ten 10 im

po se o n n ati on s th e o bli gatio n to punis h c rim ina l vi olatio ns , the ba sic po sit ion of int ern ati on al 2806- 4800- cv, 06- 4876- cv

K i obe l v. R oy al D ut ch Pe t ro l eu m

Convention on the Preve ntion and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, art. V, Dec. 9, 1948, S. Ex ec. Do c. O, 81 -1 ( 19 49 ), 7 8 U .N .T .S . 2 77 (ob lig ati ng state p art ies “to en act , in acc ord an ce with theirrespecti ve Constituti ons, the necess ary legis lation t o give effect to the pr ovisions of the presentConvention, and, in par ticular , to provide effective penaltie s for persons guil ty of ge no cid e”)

. Upon his death in 2003, former Secretar y General Kofi Annan describe d Professor 29 Schachter as the “archi tect of the le gal framework which has guided United Nations peacekeeping for more than 50 year s.” Wolfgang Saxon, Oscar Schachter, 88, Law Profess or and U.N. Aide , N.Y. Tim es, Dec. 17, 2003, at C15. See, e.g. , Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Sabbatino , 376 U.S. 398, 422-23 (1964) (“The 30 tradit ional view of inter national l aw is that i t establ ishes subst antive pri nciples for det ermining whether one countr y has wronged another . Because of its pecul iar nati on-to-nat ion charact er the usual method for an individual t o seek reli ef is to exhaust l ocal remedies and then r epair to t he executive a uthoriti es of his own state t o persuade the m to cham pion his cla im in diplomacy or be fo re an inter

natio na l tr ibu

na l. A lth ou ghit i s, of

co urs e, tru e th at Unit ed

St ate s co urt s ap ply int ern ati on al l awas a

part o f o ur o wn

in a pp rop riate c irc um stanc es, the pu bli c law o f n ati on s can hardl y d ict ate to a

co untrywh ich

is i n th eo ry wron ge d h owto t reat th at wron g w ith in i ts domestic borders.” (c itati ons omitted)); Resta tement (Third) of the Forei gn Relations Law of the United States § 111, cmt. h (1987) (“In the abs ence of special a greement, it is ordi narily for the United States to decide how itwill carr y out its i nternati onal obligat ions.”); Ei leen Denza, The Relationshi

p Between Internat ional Law and National Law , in Internati onal Law , 423, 423 (Malcol m E vans ed., 2d ed. 2006) (“ [The law of nations] permeates and radical ly conditi ons natio na l le ga l or de rs, its rul es are a pp lie d and

en fo rce d b y n ati on al a

uth ori tie s, an d n ati on al courts ar e often asked to re solve its most fundam ental uncer tainti es. Ye t in ter na tio na l la w d

oes not itsel f prescri be how it should be appl ied or enforc ed at the nati onal level

. It asser ts its own pri m acy ov er n ati on al l aw s, but w ith out inva lid ati ng tho se l aw s o r intru din g into n ati on al l eg al 42 1 law with respec t to civi l liabi lity is that Stat es may im pose civil compensatory liabil ity on 2 of fe nd ers , o r no t, a s th eysee fi t. A s P rof ess or O scar S ch achter

expla ins , int ern ati on al l awdo es

29 3 no t or din ari ly s pe ak to “ the op po rtunit ies fo r pr ivate p ers on s to see k re dre ss i n d om est ic c ourts 4 fo r br eac he s o f i nte rnatio na l law b y S tat es. Th ere is n o g en era l re qu ire m en t in int ern ati on al l aw 5 that S tat es p rov ide su chrem ed ies . B y and lar ge , inter

natio na l law l eav es i t to the m to m eet the ir 6 obligati ons in such ways as t he State det ermines.” Oscar Schachter , Intern ati on al L aw in 3006- 4800- cv, 06- 4876- cv

K i obe l v. R oy al D ut ch Pe t ro l eu m

systems. National consti tutions ar e therefore free t o choose how they give effect to t reatie s and to customary interna tional l aw. Their choice of methods is ext remely varie d. ” (e m ph ase s added)); Loui s Henkin, Richard Crawford Pugh, Oscar Schacht er & Hans Smit, Internati onal La w: Ca ses an d Ma ter ial s 15 3 (3 d e d. 19 93 ) (“S inc e a s tat e’s res po ns ibi lity to giv e ef fe ct t o int ern ati on al o bli gatio ns do es n ot f all up on any p art icu lar

ins tit uti on of its go ve rnm en t, internati onal law does not requi re that domesti c courts apply and give eff ect to int ernational obligations

. . . . St ate s d if fe r as to whe the r inter

natio na l law i s in co rpo rat ed int o d om est ic l aw an d f orm s a p art

of the ‘law o f t

he lan d, ’ an d whe the r th e ex ecutiv e o r th e co urt s w ill giv e ef fe ct to norms of international law or to tr eaty provis ions in the absence of their i mplem entation by domestic legislat ion.” (emphasis added)) ; Louis Henkin, Internati onal Law: Politic s, Values and Functions 88 (19 90 ) (“ Th e inter natio na l sy ste m

req uir es t hat a S tat e m eet

its int ern ati on al obligati ons, but ordinaril

y the law has not re quired that a St ate meet those obligations in a particular

way or through partic ular insti tutions or l aws .” (em ph asi s ad de d)) ; id. at 251 (“C om pli an ce w ithint ern ati on al l awas t o c ivi l an d p oli tic al r ights .

. . tak es p lac e w ith in a St ate and depends on its legal syst em, on its courts and otherofficial bodies.”) ; Louis Henkin, Foreign Affairs and the Constituti on 224 (1972) (“I nternati onal law its elf, finally, does not r equire any particul ar react ion to viola tions of law . . . .”); M ichael Koebel e, Co rp orateResp on sib ili ty u nd er the Alien Tort

Statute: Enforcement of I nternational

Law Through U.S. Torts Law208 (2009) (“[ I] nte rnatio na l law l eav es i nd ivi du al l iab ili ty .

. . , b e it of a n atural or l eg al p ers on , large ly t o domestic law.”); Eric Mongelard, Corporate Civil Li ability for Violati ons of Inter national Humanitarian Law , 88 Int’l Rev. Red Cross 665, 671 ( 2006) (“Legal pe rsons can . . . have ob lig ati on s und er i nte rnatio na l la w, or at le ast

the re i s a s tro ng ten de nc y to that ef fe ct. Ho we ve r, virtual ly none of the above [human rights] instruments provides for a mechanism for the en fo rce m en t of

any li ab ili ty t

hat m ayari se o r lays do wn any o bli gatio n f

or n on -st ate en tit ies to make reparation; t hey leave itto the sta tes part y to the tr eaties t o choose how to apply the rul es. ”). 43 1 Th eo ry a nd

Prac tic e 240 (1991). 2 Th is fea tu re of i nt erna ti on al la w i s l ar ge ly ex pl ai ne d b y t he di ve rs it y o f l eg al sy st ems 3 throughout the world. Because the l egal syste ms of the world differ so dras ticall y from one 4 an oth er, any atte m pt t o d ict ate the m anne r in wh ich St ate s im ple m en t th e o bli gatio n to pro tec t 5 human rights would be impractical. “[G]iven the exi sting arr ay of legal syste ms w ithin the world, 6 a co ns en su s w ou ld b e v irt ua llyim po ssi ble to r eac h —

parti cu lar ly o n th e te chnic al a cco ute rm en ts 7 to an a cti on

— and it i s h ard ev ento i m ag ine that harm ony e ve r w ou ld c harac ter ize thi s is su e. ”06- 4800- cv, 06- 4876- cv

K i obe l v. R oy al D ut ch Pe t ro l eu m

44 1 Te l-O ren , 726 F.2d at 778 (Edwards, J., concur ring). 2 The ceding to Stat es of the fashioning of appropri ate remedies to enforce t he norms of the 3 lawof

natio ns is r ead ilyap parent in the so urc e d oc um en ts. Ch ara cte ris tic all y, m ult ilater al treatie s 4 pro tec tin g hum anrig hts inc lud e f ewde tai ls. Th eyge ne ral ly d ef ine the rig hts an d d

uti es i n 5 qu est ion , and

dir ect co ntr act ing St ate s to pro tec t su chrig hts un de r th eir loc al l aw s b y a

pp rop riate 6 means, som etimes, as noted above, comm anding criminal punishment, but rar ely dicta ting any 7 asp ect s o f c ivi l li ab ili ty. Fo r ex am ple , in the Ge no cid e C onve nti on , th e “c rim e o f g en oc ide ” is 8 defined as a number of “ ac ts ” co mm itt ed wi th “ int en t to de str oy , in wh ole or i n p art , a

natio na l, 9 et hn ic al , r ac ia l o r r el ig io us gr oup. ” C on ve nt io n o n t he Pr ev en ti onan d P un is hmen t o f the Cr ime 10 of Genocide, arts. I, I I, Dec. 9, 1948, S. Exec. Doc. O, 81-1 (1949), 78 U.N.T.S. 277. The 11 Co nv en tio n th enpro vid es i n A rti cle V t hat th e S tat e p art ies “und ert ak e to en act , in acc ord an ce 12 with theirrespecti ve Constituti ons, the necess ary legis lation t o give effect to the pr ovisions of the 13 present Conventi on, and, in parti cular, to pr ovide effective penal ties for pers ons guilty of 14 genocide.” The Conventi on leaves the details for realizi ng its objec tives to e ach nation. I t says 15 nothing about t he nature orform of “effective penaltie s” to be imposed. It says not hing about 16 civ il and

adm ini str ati ve rem ed ies . In sh ort , th e C onve nti on

de fi ne s th e il leg al a ct o f g en oc ide , 17 obligates State part ies to enforce i ts prohibi tion, and lea ves it to e ach State t o devise it s own 18 sy ste m

fo r gi vin g e ff

ect to t he Co nv en tio n’s no rm s. 19 In this r espect, the Convention is typi cal. The major instruments thatcodify the 20 humanitarian law of nations define forms of conduct that ar e illega l under int ernationa l law, and06- 4800- cv, 06- 4876- cv

K i obe l v. R oy al D ut ch Pe t ro l eu m

See, e.g. , Internat ional Covenant on Civi l and Politi cal Rights, ar t. 2(3), Dec. 16, 1966, 31 S. Exec. Doc. E, 95-2 (1978), 999 U.N.T.S. 171 (“Each State Par ty to the pr esent Covenant un de rtake s . . . To en sure that any p ers on wh os e ri gh ts o r f

ree do m s as he rei n re co gn ize d are vio lat ed sh all have anef

fe cti ve rem ed

y . . . .” ); C onve nti on

Ag ain st T ort

ure an d O the r C rue l, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, art. 2(1) , Dec. 10, 1984, S. Treaty Doc. No. 10 0-2 0, 14 65 U. N. T. S. 85 (“E ach St ate Partysh all tak e ef

fe cti ve leg islati ve, ad

mi nis tra tiv e, jud ici al o r o the r m ea su res to prevent a cts of tortur e in any territory unde r its j urisdict ion.” (emphasis added)); I nternati onal Convention to Suppr ess the Slave Trade and Slavery, art. 6, Se pt. 25 , 1 92 6, 46 St at. 21 83 , 6 0 L .N .T .S . 2 53 (pr ov idi ng that th e S tat e p art ies un de rtake “to ad op t th e n ece ssary m eas ure s in ord er t hat se ve re p en alt ies m aybe im po sed in r esp ect

of su ch infractions” ); United Nati ons Convention on the Law of the Sea, ar t. 105, op en ed for sig na ture De c. 10 , 1 98 2, 21 I.L .M . 1 26 1 (p rov idi ng that up on sei zure o f v ess el o r pe rso ns en ga ge d in piracy, “ [ t] he co ur ts o

f th e S tate w hic h c arrie d o ut t

he sei zu re m ayde cid

e u po n th e p en alt ies to be imposed, and may also dete rmine the acti on to be taken with regard to the s hips, aircraf t or prop ert y , s ub jec t to the rig hts of

thi rd p art ies act ing in g oo d f aith” (em ph asi s ad de d)) ; Internat ional Convention on t he Suppression and Puni shment of the Crim e of Apartheid, op en ed for sig na ture Nov. 30, 1973, art. IV(b), 1015 U.N.T.S. 243 (obligat ing State par ties “t o adopt leg islati ve, jud

ici al a nd ad mi nis tra tiv e m ea su res to prosecut e, bring to t rial and puni sh in accordance with t heir jurisdiction pe rso ns res po ns ibl e f or” that of

fe ns e (e m ph asi s ad de d))

. 45 1 obligate St ates to t ake appropri ate steps to prevent t he conduct. They do not instr uct on 31 2 whether, how, or under what c ircumstances a Stat e may im pose civil compensatory liabil ity. 3 They leave those questions t o be resolved by e ach individua l nation. 4 C. The majority’s nex t argument – that t he absence of wides pread agreement among the 5 na tio ns of t

he wo rld to i mp os e ci vil

lia bil ityon co rp orati on s m ea ns tha t th ey c an ha ve n o li ab ili ty 6 un de r in ter

na tio na l la w –

mi su nd ers tan ds intern ati on al l

aw an d is fur the rm or e in co ns isten t w ith 7 theru lings of t

he Su pr em e C ou rt a nd of t his circu it. Fo r th eir

ne xt argum en t, t

he m ajo rity 8 co ns tru ct t

he fo llo wi ng sy llo gis m . 1 ) T o d eter m ine wh eth er a

co rpo rat ion

can be he ld c ivi lly 9 liable for vi olation of inte rnational law, the place to look is t o internat ional law. 2) Pr inciples of 10 loc al l aw , e ve n th os e ac cep ted thr ou gh out th e w orl d, are no t ru les of int ern ati on al l aw , unle ss06- 4800- cv, 06- 4876- cv

K i obe l v. R oy al D ut ch Pe t ro l eu m

46 1 they are gene rally ac cepted thr oughout the civi lized world as obligatory rules of i nternational 2 law. 3) T he re i s n o g en era l ac cep tan ce i n th e w orl d o f a rul e o f i nte rnatio na l la

w i m po sin g c ivi l 3 lia bil ityon co rpo rat e d ef

en dants fo r vi olatio ns of

int ern ati on al l aw . Ergo , inter natio na l law d oe s 4 no t al low

fo r im po sit ion of civ il l iab ili ty o n c orp oratio ns . 5 I have no qu arr el w ithany o f t he thr ee p rem ise s. If

pro pe rlyun de rst oo d and ap pli ed , e ach 6 is corre ct. The problem lies in how the y are used in t he majority opinion and, i n particul ar, the 7 sp uri ou s le ap fr om the se p rop os iti on s to the m ajo rity’s co nc lus ion . D esp ite the surf ace 8 plausibil ity of the majority’s a rgument as it is st ated, when one scra tches below the surface, the 9 majority’s argument is il logical, i nternall y inconsist ent, contra ry to inte rnational law, and 10 inc om

patib le w ithrul ing s o f b oth the Su pre m e C ourt and

thi s ci rcu it. 11 I have no dis ag ree m en t w iththe fi rst pro po sit ion , th at the pla ce t o lo ok fo r an sw ers 12 whether any setof facts constitut es a violat ion of internat ional law is to international l aw. As 13 im

pro ba ble as i t m aysee m

that inter natio na l law w ou ld g ive a f ree pa ss t o c orp oratio ns to a bu se 14 fu

nd am en tal hum anrig hts , o ne canno t as sum e th e an sw ers to q ue sti on s o f i nte rnatio na l law 15 wi tho ut f

irs t explo rin g it s p rov isi on s. An d if we fo un d th at i nte rnatio na l law i n f act ex em pts 16 co rpo rat ion s f

rom lia bil ityfo r vi olatin g it s n orm s, we wo uld be fo rce d to acc ep t th at ans we r 17 whether it s eemed reasonable to us ornot. 18 Ho we ve r, whe n o ne loo ks to i nte rnatio na l law t o le arn wh eth er i t im

po ses civ il 19 co m

pe ns ato ry l iab ili ty o n th os e who vio lat e it s n orm s an d whe the r it dis tin gu ish es b etw een 20 natural a nd juridic al persons, t he answer inte rnational law furnishes is t hat it t akes no positi on on 21 the qu est ion . What inter natio na l law d oe s is it p res cri be s n orm s o f c on du ct. It i de nti fi es a cts06- 4800- cv, 06- 4876- cv

K i obe l v. R oy al D ut ch Pe t ro l eu m

Beth Stephens, Translating Filárti ga : A Co mp arati ve a nd Intern ati on al L aw

An aly sis 32 of Domestic Remedies f

or Internat ional Human Rights Violat ions , 27 Yale J. Int’ l L. 1, 17-34 (20 02 ) (r ev iew ing rea so ns fo rei gn co untri es h av e n ot e xe rci sed un ive rsa l to rt j uri sd ict ion ov er hum anrig hts vio lat ion s). Th e m ajo rity m isc harac ter ize my p os iti on wh enthe y attr ibute t o m e th e v iewthat 33 co rpo rat e li ab ili ty i s “m ere ly a qu est ion of rem ed y. ” Ma j. O p. 48 ; see also Maj. Op. 9, 46. As expla ine d throu gh out th is o pin ion , inter natio na l law o utl aw s ce rta in f orm s o f a bh orr en t co nd

uc t and in general leaves to i ndividual nat ions how to enforce the pr oscripti on. 47 1 (genocide, sl avery, war cri mes, piracy, etc.) tha t it prohi bits. At ti mes, it calls for the i mposition 2 of cri m ina l li ab ili ty f

or v iol ati on

of the law , whe the r by

ve sti ng a tr ibu

na l su chas t

he IC C w ith 3 jur isd ict ion

to p ros ecute s uc h c rim es o r by im po sin g o n S tat es a

duty t o m ak e th e cr im es 4 punis ha

ble un de r natio na l law. Th e m ajo rity’s pro po sit ion that on e lo ok s to the lawof natio ns to 5 determine whether ther e is civi l liabi lity for viol ation of its nor ms thus proves far less than t he 6 majority opinion cla ims. Yes – the question whether a cts of any type viol ate the l aw of nations 7 and give ris e to civil damages is referable to t he law of nations. And if the law of nations spoke 8 on the qu est ion , p rov idi ng that ac ts o f c orp oratio ns are no t co ve red bythe lawof

natio ns , I w ou ld 9 agree thatsuch a limitation would pr eclude suit s under the ATS to impose liabil ity on 10 co rpo rat ion s. 11 But inter

natio na l law d oe s n ot p rov ide that jurid ica l entit ies are ex em pt. An d a s f

or c ivi l 12 lia

bil ityof bo th n atural an d ju

rid ica l pe rso ns , th e an sw er g ive n b y th e law o f n ati on s (a s d isc us sed 13 ab ov e) i s th at e ach St ate is f ree to d eci de that qu est ion fo r it sel f. Whil e m os t natio ns of the wo rld 14 have not empowered their cour ts to impose civil l iabili ty for violati ons of law of nations, the 32 15 Un ite d S tat es, byen act ing the AT S, ha s autho riz ed civ il s uit s f

or v iol ati on

of the lawof

natio ns . 3306- 4800- cv, 06- 4876- cv

K i obe l v. R oy al D ut ch Pe t ro l eu m

48 1 In short, t he majority’s conte ntion thatthere can be no civil r emedy f or a violat ion of the 2 lawof

natio ns un les s th at p art icu lar fo rm of civ il r em ed

y h as b een

ad op ted thr ou gh out th e w orl d 3 misunderstands how the law of nations functi ons. Civil li abilit y under the ATS for violation of 4 the lawof

natio ns is n ot awarde d b eca us e o f a pe rce pti on

that inter natio na l law c om

m an ds civ il 5 lia bil itythr ou gh out th e w orl d. It i s aw ard ed in U .S . c ourts be cau se t

he lawof natio ns ha s 6 outlawed cert ain conduct, l eaving it t o each State t o resolve ques tions of civil liabil ity, and the 7 Un ite d S tat es h as c ho sen thr ou ghthe AT S t o im

po se c ivi l li ab ili ty. Th e m ajo rity’s rul ing de fe ats 8 the object ive of internat ional law to a llow each nati on to formulate its own approach t o the 9 enforcement of international law. 10 I turn t o th e m ajo rity’s sec on d and thi rd p rop os iti on s in

su pp ort of its sy llo gis m

– th at 11 pri nc ipl es o f l oc al l aw , e ve n if acc ep ted thr ou gh out th e w orl d, are no t ru les of int ern ati on al l aw 12 unless they a re general ly accepte d throughout the civili zed world as obli gatory rul es of 13 int ern ati on al l aw an d th at the re i s n o w ide sp rea d p rac tic e in the wo rld

of im po sin g c ivi l li ab ili ty 14 fo r vi olatio n o f t

he rul es o f i nte rnatio na l law . Th ese pro po sit ion s ar e al so tru e, but th eyare 15 irr ele vant t o th is c ontro ve rsy . If a d am ag e aw ard

un de r th e A TS we re p rem ise d o n th e th eo ry t hat 16 int ern ati on al l awco mm an ds that vi olator s o f i ts n orm s b e li ab le f or c om pe ns ato ry d am ag es, the n 17 we wo uld

ne ed to d ete rm ine wh eth er t

he re i s g en era l ag ree m en t am on g th e n ati on s o f t he wo rld to 18 su cha ru le o f i nte rnatio na l law. But th e aw ard of dam ag es u

nd er the AT S i s n ot b ase d o n a be lie f 19 that inter

natio na l law c om

m an ds civ il l iab ili ty. Th e cl aim that a t ort

ha s b een co mm itt ed

is 20 pre m ise d o n a

vio lat ion of the lawof

natio ns . T his fo llo ws fr om a d ete rm inatio n th at an a cto r ha s 21 done what international l aw prohibits. But i nternati onal law leave s the manner of remedy to the06- 4800- cv, 06- 4876- cv

K i obe l v. R oy al D ut ch Pe t ro l eu m

49 1 independent det ermination of each State. See supr a no tes 29 -30 an d a cco m pany ing tex t; cf. So sa , 2 542 U.S. at 730 (“The FirstCongress, which reflect ed the underst anding of the framing 3 ge ne rat ion

an d in clu de d s om e o f t

he Fr am ers , a ssum ed

that f ed era l co urt s co uld

prop erl y id en tif y 4 so meintern ati on al n or ms as en forcea blein t

he ex erc ise of

§ 1 35 0 ju

ris dic tio n. ” (e m

ph asi s 5 added)). The fact t hat other na tions have notchosen to exer cise the di screti on left to them by 6 internat ional law in favor of civi l liabi lity does notchange the fact t hat inter national l aw has left 7 the choice a s to civil liabil ity with eac h individual nation. 8 A further flaw in the majority’s reasoning i s its ide ntificati on of co rp orateciv il l iab ili ty a s 9 the princi ple that ha s failed to achi eve universa l approval a s a part of the l aw of nations. The 10 maj or it y’ s t he si s i s t ha t w he n aco rp or at io n c ommit s avi ol at io n o f the la w of na ti on s, th e v ic ti ms 11 m aysu e th e n atural pe rso ns wh o a cte d f or t he co rpo rat ion , b ut m ayno t su e th e co rpo rat ion . In 12 the majority’s vi ew, that is bec ause there is no widesprea d acceptance in the world of co rp orate 13 civil l iabili ty as a rul e of internati onal law. Se e Maj . O p. 10 (“[ T] he re w ou ld n eed to b e n ot o nly 14 a f

ew , b ut s o m any s ource s o f i nte rnatio na l law c all ing fo r co rpo rat e li ab ili ty t hat th e n orm

co uld 15 be regarded a s ‘univers al.’”). 16 But th is i s a m ist ak ende scr ipt ion of int ern ati on al l aw . Whil e it is t rue that th ere is n o ru le 17 of

int ern ati on al l awm ak ing co rpo rat ion s ci vil ly l iab le, that is m ere ly t he ine vit ab le c on seq

ue nc e 18 of

the fa ct t hat th ere is n o ru le o f i nte rnatio na l law m ak ing any p riv ate pe rso n c ivi llylia ble – 19 reg ard les s o f whe the r th e p ers on is n atural or j uri dic al –

an d th at i nte rnatio na l tr ibu na ls, wh ich 20 have be enest ab lis he d to cri m ina llypro sec ute vio lat ion s o f i nte rnatio na l law, have ne ve r be en 21 ve ste d w ithautho rity to im po se c ivi l, c om

pe ns ato ry l iab ili ty. If

the ab sen ce o f w ide sp rea d06- 4800- cv, 06- 4876- cv

K i obe l v. R oy al D ut ch Pe t ro l eu m

50 1 ag ree m en t in

the wo rld

as t o c ivi l li ab ili ty b ars im po sin g li ab ili ty o n c orp oratio ns , it bars 2 im po sin g li ab ili ty o n n atural pe rso ns as w ell

. 3 Th e ma

jo ri ty ’s ar gu mentth us co nfl ic ts wi th th e a ut ho ri ty of t hi s c ou rtan d t he Supr eme 4 Co urt . T he po int

of the AT S i s to pro vid e a c ivi l re m ed y to vic tim s o f t ort s co mm itt ed in 5 vio lat ion

of the lawof

natio ns . In

sp ite of the cle ar a

bs en ce o f a

rul e o f i nte rnatio na l law 6 providing for civi l liabi lity, we have r epeatedly i mposed civil liabil ity under t he ATS, and the 7 Supreme Court expressly sta ted in So sa , re jec tin g th e v iew s o f t

he Co urt m ino rity, that ci vil tor

t 8 lia bil itydo es l ie und er the AT S. Th e ab sen ce o f a wi de co ns en su s im

po sin g c ivi l li ab ili ty h as 9 never been const rued as barr ing civil liabil ity. The majority’s a rgument that such absence of 10 wi de co ns en su s b ars im po sit ion of lia bil ityon a co rpo rat ion

pla ces the m ajo rity in

irr eco nc ila

ble 11 co nf

lic t w iththe ho ldi ng s o f t his co urt an d th e te ach ing s o f t

he Su pre m e C ourt. 12 D. Ta king o ut o f co nte xt S os a’s ref ere nc e to a “ no rm ,”wh ich mu st c om ma nd vir tua lly 13 universal ac ceptance as a rul e of inter national law to qual ify as a rul e of inter national law, the 14 ma

jor ityop ini on att

rib ute s to tha t co nc ep t a m ea ning th e S up rem e C ou rt c ou ld n ot p os sib ly h av e 15 intended. Th e m ajo rity c lai m to fi ndsupp or t f orth ei r a rg umen t i n apa ss ag e o f the Supr eme 16 Co urt ’s So sa opinion. The Court caut ioned in So sa that, in or der to quali fy as a rule of 17 int ern ati on al l aw , a “n orm ” m

us t co mm an d v irt

ua llyun ive rsa l ac cep tan ce am on g th e ci vil ize d 18 nations as a rule of inter national l aw. 542 U.S. at 732. The majority opinion, disr egarding the 19 context of the Court’ s discussi on, construes t he “norm” under discussion a s a convention 20 concerning t he type of violatorof internati onal law upon whom civil tort l iabili ty may be 21 imposed. It postulate s that, where a corporati on has comm itted a t ort presc ribed by the l aw of06- 4800- cv, 06- 4876- cv

K i obe l v. R oy al D ut ch Pe t ro l eu m

51 1 nations, li abilit y may not be im posed on it unle ss there i s a “norm” generally ac cepted thr oughout 2 the wo rld

fo r th e im

po sit ion of tor t li ab ili ty o n s uc h a

co rpo rat e v iol ato r of

the lawof

natio ns , a s 3 opposed to the nat ural pers on tortfeasors who acted on the corporations’ behalf. 4 Th is i s n ot what th e S up rem e C ourt m eant. W hat th e C ourt w as a dd

res sin g in its 5 reference to “ norms” was standards of conduct. Some norm s (or sta ndards) – thos e prescri bing 6 the m os t eg reg iou s an d univ ers all y c on de mne d f orm s o f c on du ct, inc lud ing ge no cid e, war cr im es, 7 an d s lav ery

– e xp res s ru les of

the lawof

natio ns . O the r no rm s o f c on du ct, ev entho ug h w ide ly 8 accepted and e nforced in the world as rules of l ocal law , are not rul es of the law of nations and 9 are ther efore not obligat ory on States. What was requir ed was that the particul ar standar d of 10 conduct viola ted by the defendant be generall y accepted as a mandatory rule of internati onal law. 11 A reading of So sa , and of the cas es i t de scr ibe s in

thi s d isc us sio n a s “g en era llyco ns ist en t” 12 with its vi ew, m akes clearthat all of them are discussing the di stincti ons between conduct that 13 does, and conduct that does not, viol ate the law of nat ions. Reinforcing this l imitation, the So sa 14 opinion quoted wit h approval thi s court’s reference in Filartiga to conduct tha t renders one 15 “ hostis humani gener is, an enemy of all m ankind,” 630 F.2d at 890, Judge Edwards ’ formulation 16 – “a handful of heinous acti ons – each of which violat es definable, unive rsal, obli gatory norms,” 17 Te l-O ren , 726 F.2d at 781 (Edwards, J., concur ring), and t he Ninth Circuit ’s similar obser vation 18 that “[a]ctionabl e violati ons of internati onal law must be of a norm that is specific, univer sal, and 19 ob lig ato ry, ” In re Estate of Marcos Human Rights Lit ig. , 25 F.3d 1467, 1475 (9th Cir. 1994). The 20 discussion i n So sa us ed the wo rd “ no rm s” t o ref

er t o s tan dards of

co nd uc t. 21 To be sure, the di stincti on between conduct t hat does and conductthat does notviolate t he06- 4800- cv, 06- 4876- cv

K i obe l v. R oy al D ut ch Pe t ro l eu m

52 1 lawof

natio ns can

tur n o n whe the r th e co nd

uc t is do ne byor o n b eh alf of a S tat e o r by

a p riv ate 2 actor inde pendently of a State

. Sosa and Te l-O ren bo th s po ke of fo rm s o f c on du ct –

arb itr ary 3 de tentio n and

tor tur e – that m ight vi olate the lawof natio ns on ly i f d on e b y o r on be ha lf of a S tat e 4 an d n ot i f d on e b y a pri vate a cto r ac tin g in de pe nd en tlyof the St ate . B ut t

hat is a co m

ple tel y 5 different issue from the majority’s proposi tion. The majority are not speaking of conduct whic h, 6 be cau se d on e b y an a cto r of sp eci fi ed ch ara cte r, d oe s no t violate t he law of nations. By 7 de fi nit ion , whe n c on du ct d oe s n ot v iol ate the law of natio ns , it

canno t be the ba sis of

tor t li ab ili ty 8 un de r th e A TS fo r vi olatio n o f t he lawof natio ns . T he m ajo rity’s rul e en co m pa sse s co nd

uc t th at 9 indisputabl y do es violate t he law of nations, incl uding for example slavery, genoci de, piracy, and 10 of

fi cia l to rture ( do ne un de r co lor of St ate law ) – c on du ct f

or whic h th e n atural pe rso n to rtf eas ors 11 will be held l iable underATS, but for which, the majority insist , a corporat ion that ca used the 12 conduct to be done a nd that profite d from it, cannot be held liabl e. Nothing in Sosa inf ere nti all y 13 supports or e ven discusses this quest ion. 14 The Supreme Court, furthermore, could not have meant what the majority opinion 15 attri butes to it . The disagreement in So sa that divi ded the Court was on the question whetherthe 16 ATS in a nycircu ms tan ce authorize s an award of compensatory tort damages. The minority of the 17 Court argued vigor ously that no s uch damages could be awarded without furt her authori zing 18 legisla tion by the Congres s. So sa , 542 U.S. at 746-47 (Scal ia, J., concurr ing in the j udgment). 19 Th e m ajo rity o f t he Su pre m e C ourt d isa gre ed

an d f ound that th e A TS autho riz ed

aw ard s o f t ort 20 damages for violations of the norms of the law of nations without ne ed for any further legi slation. 21 Id. at 7 30 (m aj. op .). Ha d th e S up rem e C ourt m eant w hat m y c oll eag ue s as sum e it

did in t his06- 4800- cv, 06- 4876- cv

K i obe l v. R oy al D ut ch Pe t ro l eu m

The majority’s posit ion is als o inconsist ent with our cour t’s unders tanding in pr ior 34 cas es o f t he no rm s d ict ate d b y inter natio na l law. In p rio r op ini on s, we have loo ke d to internat ional law to de termine whether the defendant ’s conduct vi olated no rm s o f co nd uc t universal ly accepte d by the nations of the world as rule s of internati onal law. Three of our opinions conta in extensi ve discussi on of whether partic ular forms of conduct contravene customary internat ional law. In Flores v. Souther n Peru Copper Corp. , 4 14 F. 3d 23 3 (2 d C ir. 2003), a civil suit broughtunder the ATS against a corporat e defendant , we surveyed the sources on int ernationa l law and conclude d that act s of intranati onal pollut ion did not viol ate any no rm of int ern ati on al l awcap ab le o f s up po rti ng lia bil ityun de r th e A TS . In

rea ch ing thi s conclusion, ouropinion speaks r epeatedly of the “ offenses” or “conduct” t he corporat ion allegedl y engaged in, and whethersuch acts vi olate cust omary international law. See, e.g. , id. at 24 7 (“ Th e d ete rm inatio n o f what off en ses vio lat e cu sto m ary

int ern ati on al l aw. . . is no sim ple tas k. .” (em

ph asi s ad de d)) ; id. at 2 49 (“ [ O] ffe ns es that m aybe purel y intra -natio na l in the ir ex ecutio n, su chas o ff

ici al t ort ure , e xtr aju dic ial kil lin gs , and ge no cid e, do vio lat e cu sto m ary 53 1 passage, itcould not have maintained i ts disagr eement with the minority. There was no wide 2 adherence among the nations of the world to a rul e of civil li abilit y for violation of the l aw of 3 nations. Had the Supr eme Court m eant, as my colleagues at tribute to it, tha t no damages m ay be 4 aw ard ed

un de r A TS ab sent a univ ers all y s hared vie w am on g th e ci vil ize d n ati on s th at 5 int ern ati on al l awpro vid es s uc h a rem ed y, the Su pre m e C ourt w ou ld h av e b een fo rce d to 6 conclude, in ag

ree me nt wi th t

he m ino rity, that th e Filartiga lin e o f c ase s, wh ich aw ard ed 7 damages, was wrongly decided and thatthere coul d be no awards of damages under ATS. The 8 majority of the Court, however, spoke wit h approval of Filartiga an d th e su bs eq ue nt c ase s w hic h 9 had awarded damages and unmistakably concluded t hat damages were awardable underthe ATS 10 upon a showing of violation of the nor ms of conduct consti tuting part of the law of nations. 11 Th e m ajo rity’s cla im to f ind su pp ort fo r th eir po sit ion in t he Su pre m e C ourt’ s re fe ren ce t o 12 the ne ed

fo r a n orm

to e njo y univ ers al a cce ptanc e to qu ali fy as a rul e o f i nte rnatio na l law i s 13 simply a m isunderst anding of the Supreme Court’s discuss ion. 3406- 4800- cv, 06- 4876- cv

K i obe l v. R oy al D ut ch Pe t ro l eu m

internat ional law beca use the ‘nat ions of the world’ have demonstrated that suc h wrongs are of ‘mutual . . . concern,’ and capable of impairing international pe ace and secur ity.” (ci tations om itt ed an d e m ph asi s ad de d)) ; id. at 255 (“The pre cept that‘[h]um an beings are . . . entitl ed to a he alt hyan d p rod

uc tiv e li fe in h arm ony w ithnatu re, ’ . . . utte rlyfa ils to s pe cif y what co nd

uc t wo uld fa ll w ith in o r outsi de of

the law .” (em

ph asi s ad de d)) ; id. at 266 (“Because plainti ffs have fa ile d to su

bm it e vid en ce s uf

fi cie nt t o e sta

bli shthat intranati onal polluti on vio lat es c us tom ary int ern ati on al l aw , th e D istric t C ourt p rop erl y g ranted de fe nd an t’s m oti on

to d ism iss .” (em

ph asi s added)). Nothing i n the opinion eve n discussed whethe r the defendant might be exempt from liabil ity because of its corporat e charact er or whetherliabil ity was foreclose d because of the ab sen ce o f a

wi de ly a cce pte d c onve nti on am on g n ati on s f

or awardi ng civ il d am ag es. Again in Un ite d S

tates v . Y ou sef , 327 F.3d 56 (2d Cir. 2003), we conclude d that the a ct of placing a bomb on a airplane operated by a forei gn carrie r did not suppor t the exer cise of universal criminal juris diction, bec ause the nat ions of the world disa gree over which forms of co nd uc t co ns ti tu te “t erro ri sm.” Aga in , o urop in io n c on ta in s a n e xt en si ve di sc us si onof t he for ms of c on du ct that are proscribe d by internat ional law. See, e.g. , id. at 104 (“In modern times, the cla ss o f cr im es ov er whic h S tat es c anex erc ise un ive rsa l juris dic tio n h as b een ex ten de d to inc lud e w ar c rim es and

act s id en tif

ied af ter the Se co nd

W orl d W ar a s ‘c rim es a ga ins t hum an ity .’” (em

ph asi s ad de d)) ; id. at 1 06 (“Unli ke tho se off en ses su pp ort ing un ive rsa l jur isd ict ion

un de r cu sto m ary

int ern ati on al l aw– th at i s, pir acy , w ar c rim es, an d c rim es a ga ins t hum an ity– th at n owhave fa irl y p rec ise de fi nit ion s an d th at h av e ac hie ve d univ ers al co nd em natio n, ‘te rro ris m ’ is a te rm as l oo sel y d ep loy ed

as i t is po we rf

ull y c harge d. ” (e m

ph asi s ad de d)) ; id. at 1 07 (“[ T] he re c ontin ue s to be str enuo us dis ag ree m en t am on g S tat es about what ac tio ns do or do not consti tute ter rorism . . . .” (emphasis added)). And in Ab du lla hi v . P

fiz er, Inc

. , 562 F.3d 163, 183-84 (2d Cir. 2009), cer t. d en ied, 78 U.S.L.W . 3049, we wrote, “[T]he norm prohibiti ng nonconsensual medical exper imentation on human subjects has become firm ly embedded and has secured unive rsal acc eptance in t he co mm un ityof natio ns .” 54 1 IV . Th e ma

jor ity ’s m ist ake n c lai m th at c or po ra tio ns ar e n ot “ su bj ect s” of 2 international law 3 4 The majority attempt to bolste r theirargument by em ploying the ar cane terminology of 5 internat ional law. They ass ert thata corporat ion is not a “ subject” of int ernationa l law. Maj. Op. 6 18. Th e m ajo rity e xp lai n th e si gn if icanc e o f t

his ter m to b e th at o nly

su bje cts of int ern ati on al l aw 7 have “ri ghts, dutie s, an d li ab ili tie s” u nd er i nte rna

tio na l law. Maj . O p. 7. Be cau se, acc ord ing to 8 the majority, a corpor ation is nota subject of the l aw of nations, it may neither br ing suit for06- 4800- cv, 06- 4876- cv

K i obe l v. R oy al D ut ch Pe t ro l eu m

See, e.g. , Ka dic v. Ka ra dž i æ , 70 F.3d 232, 242 (2d Cir. 1995) (“[F]rom its incorporat ion 35 int o inter natio na l law, the pro scr ipt ion of ge no cid e h as a

pp lie d e qu all y to state and no n-s tat e ac to rs .” ); Ba si c P ri nc ip le s a ndGui de li ne s o n t he Ri gh t t o aRe medy an d Re pa ra ti onforVi ct ims of Gr os s V iol ati on s o f I nte rnatio na l H um anRi gh ts L awan d S eri ou s V iol ati on s o f I nte rnatio na l Hum an itarian L aw , a

rt. 15 , G .A . R es. 60 /14 7, U. N. Do c. A/ RE S/ 60 /14 7 (D ec. 16 , 2 00 5) ( “In cas es whe re a p ers on , a leg al p ers on , o r o the r en tit

y is fou nd lia blefor rep arati on to a vic tim , su chpartysh ou ld p rov ide rep aratio n to the vic tim or c om pe ns ate the St ate if

the St ate ha s alr ead y p rov ide d re parat ion

to t he vic tim ” (e m

ph asi s ad de d))

. 55 1 vio lat ion s o f t

he lawof natio ns no r be su ed

fo r of fe ns es u nd er the lawof

natio ns . 2 Th e m ajo rity, ho we ve r, c ite no autho rity in su pp ort of the ir a sse rti on

that a c orp oratio n is 3 no t a s ub

jec t of int ern ati on al l awan d is the ref ore inc ap ab le o f b ein g a

pla int if f o r a d ef en dant i n 4 an action bas ed on a violat ion of the law of nations. And ther e is str ong authorit y to the contr ary. 5 Th e id ea t

hat an en tity w as o r w as n ot a

“su bje ct” of int ern ati on al h ad

gre ate st p rom ine nc e 6 when the rules of int ernationa l law focused on the sover eign inter ests of States i n their r elations 7 with one another . To the extent t hat a part icular rule of internat ional law per tains only t o the 8 relati onship among States, it can be correctto say thatonly States a re subject s. However, as the 9 law of nations evolved t o recognize t hat “indivi duals and pri vate juri dical ent ities c an have any 10 status, capacity, ri ghts, or duti es given them by internat ional law or a greement,” Restatement 11 (T hir d) o f t

he Fo rei gn

Re lat ion s L awof

the Un ite d S tat es, pt. II, int rod uc tor y n ote , that

35 12 ter

m ino log y h as c om e to m ean no thi ng m ore than a sk ing wh eth er the parti cu lar no rm ap pli es t o 13 the type of indivi dual or enti ty charged wit h violati ng it, as some norms apply only to States a nd 14 oth ers ap ply

to p riv ate no n-s tat e ac tor s. 15 As early as t he Nuremberg trials, which r epresente d the dawn of the modern enforcem ent 16 of

the hum an itarian c om

po ne nt o f t

he lawof natio ns , c ourts rec og niz ed that co rpo rat ion s h ad06- 4800- cv, 06- 4876- cv

K i obe l v. R oy al D ut ch Pe t ro l eu m

Se e VI Tr ial

s o f Wa r C rim ina ls B efo re t

he Nu ern be rg

Mil ita ry T

rib un als (1952) (the 36 “F lic k T ria l”) ; V II, VI II Tr ial s o f Wa r C rim ina ls B efo re t

he Nu ern be rg

Mil ita ry T

rib un als (1952) (the “Farben Trial ”); IX Tr ial s o f Wa r C rim ina ls B efo re t

he Nu ern be rg

Mil ita ry Tr ibu na ls (19 50 ) (the “K

rup p T ria l”)

. 56 1 ob lig ati on s und er i nte rnatio na l la w ( an d w ere the ref

ore su bje cts of int ern ati on al l aw ). I n at le ast 2 thr ee o f t

ho se t ria ls, tri buna ls f

ound that co rpo rat ion s v iol ate d th e law o f n ati on s an d im po sed 3 jud gm en t on

ind ivi du al c rim ina l de fe nd an ts b ase d o n th eir co m pli city in the co rpo rat ion s’ 4 vio lat ion s. 36 5 Fo r ex am

ple , in the Farbe n c ase , th e F arb enpe rso nn el w ere ch arg ed in f ive co unts w ith 6 wi de -rang ing vio lat ion s o f i nte rnatio na l law, inc lud ing plu nd er o f o ccu

pie d p rop ert ies . V III 7 Farben Trial , at 1129. Nine defendants were found guilty on this c ount. The tribuna l’s judgment 8 makes clear that t he Farben company itself comm itted vi olations of int ernationa l law. Describi ng 9 the ap pli cab le l aw , th e tr ibu na l st ate d: 10 Where priva te indivi duals, including j uristic persons , proceed to expl oit the 11 military occupancy by ac quiring pri vate proper ty againstthe will and c onsent of 12 the former owner, such action, not be ing expressl y justified . . ., i s in violat ion of 13 internat ional law. . . . Similarly where a private i ndividual or a j uristic person 14 becomes a party to unlawful confiscat ion of public or pri vate proper ty by planning 15 and executing a well-defined desi gn to acquire such propert y permanently, 16 acq

uis iti on un de r su chcir cum stanc es s ub seq ue nt t o th e co nf

isc ati on co ns tit ute s 17 conduct in viol ation of [internat ional law]. 18 19 Id. at 1 13 2-3 3 (e m ph asi s ad de d). De scr ibi ng Farbe n’s act ivi tie s, the tri buna l w rot e: 20 [W ]e fi nd that th e p roo f e sta

bli sh es b ey on d a

rea so na ble do ub t th at o ff

en ses 21 against pr operty as defined i n Control Council Law No. 10 were comm itted by 22 Farben, and thatthese offenses were connect ed with, and an inext ricable part of 23 the German policy for occupied count ries as a bove describe d. . . . The action of 24 Farbe n and its rep res en tat ive s, un de r th ese cir cum stanc es, canno t be dif fe rentiated 25 fr om

act s o f p lun de r or

pil lag e co mm itt ed

byof fi cer s, so ldi ers , o r pu

bli c o ff ici als06- 4800- cv, 06- 4876- cv

K i obe l v. R oy al D ut ch Pe t ro l eu m

See, e.g. , Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Chem. Bank N.Y. Trust Co. , 822 F.2d 230, 236-37 37 (2d Ci r. 1 98 7); Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Chase Manhatt an Bank , 6 58 F. 2d 87 5, 89 4 (2 d C ir. 19 81 ); Banco Nacional de Cuba v. First Nat’ l City Bank of N.Y. , 4 78 F. 2d 19 1, 19 3 (2 d C ir. 19 73 ); Ba nc o N

ac ion al d e C ub a v . F arr , 3 83 F. 2d

16 6, 17 0, 18 5 (2 d C ir. 19 67 ); Banco Nacional 57 1 of the German Reich. 2 3 Id. at 1 14 0. Th en– a ft er c on clu din g th at F arb envio lat ed int ern ati on al l aw– th e tr ibu na l im po sed 4 criminal liabi lity on Farbe n’s employees because of theircomplicity in viola tions comm itted by 5 Farben. 6 As dis cu sse d a bo ve in P art

II. A, tw o op ini on s o f t

he Attor ne y G en era l of

the Un ite d S tat es 7 fu rth er r ef ute the m ajo rity’s vie w that co rpo rat ion s h av e n eithe r ri gh ts n or o bli gatio ns un de r 8 int ern ati on al l aw . In 19 07 , th e A tto rne y G en era l re nd ere d an o pin ion that an Am eri can 9 corporati on could be held l iable underthe ATS to Mexican nat ionals if the de fendant’s “diver sion 10 of

the water [o f t he Ri o G ran de ] w as an in jur y to su bs tantia l ri gh ts o f c iti zen s o f M ex ico un de r 11 the pri nc ipl es o f i nte rnatio na l law o r by tre aty .” 26 Op . A tt’ y G en . 2 52 , 2 53 (19 07 ). And in 12 17 95 , s ho rtl y a ft er t he en actm en t of

the AT S, the Attor

ne y G en era l op ine d th at a Br iti sh 13 corporati on could pursue a c ivil act ion under the ATS for injury caused to itin violat ion of 14 internat ional law by American citi zens who, in concertwith a French fleet , had attacke d a 15 settle ment m anaged by the corporation i n Sierra Leone i n violati on of internati onal law. Se e 1 16 Op . A tt’ y G en . 5 7 (1 79 5). 17 Th is c ourt s im ilarlyrec og niz ed cla im s o n b eh alf

of jur idi cal en tit ies (a c orp oratio n, a tr us t, 18 and a partner ship) agai nst Cuba, premised on Cuba’s expropri ation of theirproperty i n violati on 19 of

int ern ati on al l aw . Th ese de cis ion s cann ot b e re co nc ile d w iththe m ajo rity’s co nte nti on that 3706- 4800- cv, 06- 4876- cv

K i obe l v. R oy al D ut ch Pe t ro l eu m

de Cuba v. Sabbatino , 307 F.2d 845, 864 (2d Cir. 1962), rev’d on other grounds , 376 U.S. 398 (1964), superseded by st atute, 22 U.S.C. § 2370(e)(2). 58 1 corporati ons are not subj ects of under int ernationa l law. 2 V. Th e a bs en ce o f sc ho lar ly s up po rt f or th e ma

jor ity ’s r ul e 3 The majority contend thatthe “teac hings of the most highly qualified publ icists of the 4 various nat ions” supporttheir st range view of international l aw. Maj. Op. 28 n.36. The opinion 5 see m s to su gg est

that al l th os e w ork s o f s ch olarsh ip t hat di scu ss t

he act ua l st ate of

the law , a s 6 opposed to those whic h advocate for the s cholars’ aspirat ional prefere nces, agree wit h the 7 m ajo rity’s vie w. I have dis co ve red no pu bli sh ed wo rk o f s ch olarsh ip t

hat su pp ort s th e m ajo rity’s 8 rule. While they cit e eminent works of scholarship for many other proposi tions thatI do not 9 dispute, none of those works supports, or e ven addresses , the majority’s cl aim that corporati ons 10 are ex em

pte d b y inter

natio na l la

w f rom the ob lig ati on

to c om ply wi th i ts r ule s. 11 The majority open theirdiscussion by quot ing the Supreme Court’s well known 12 observati on in The Paquete Habana , 1 75 U. S. 67 7 (1 90 0), that “ the works of jurist s and 13 co mm en tat ors wh o b y y ear s o f l ab or, res ear ch , and expe rie nc e h av e m ad e th em sel ve s p ecu liarly 14 well acquaint ed with the subj ects of which they tr eat” can furnis h valuable “e vidence” of 15 customary internat ional law. Id. at 700 (emphasis added). The Supre me C ourt rel ied on the 16 lea din g tr eat ise s in the fi eld , s uc h a s Wharto n’s Di gest o f th e In ter

na tio na l L aw

of t he Un ite d 17 Sta tes and Wheaton’s treati se on inter national l aw, as well as on “l eading French t reatis es on 18 int ern ati on al l aw ,” su chas D e C us sy ’s Ph as es e t C au ses Ce leb res du Droit

Mar iti medes N

ati on s, 19 Or

tol an ’s Re gle s In ter na tio na les et D iplom ati e d e la Mer , and

De Bo eck ’s de la Pro

pr iete Priv ee06- 4800- cv, 06- 4876- cv

K i obe l v. R oy al D ut ch Pe t ro l eu m

The majority do cite one publ ished book, Micha el Koebele, Co rp orateResp on sib ili ty 38 Un de r th e A lie n T

or t St atu te: En forcem en t of

Intern ati on al L aw

Th ro ug h U .S . T or ts Law(N ijh of

f 2 00 9), in a

m anne r su gg est ing that it su pp ort s th e m ajo rity’s an aly sis , b ut o nc e again the quot ation is outof context. The majority quote t his work to the e ffect that it r emains the “p rev ail ing vie w” am on g s ch olars that inter natio na l law “ pri m ari ly r eg ulates St ate s an d in lim ite d in stanc es s uc h a s inter natio na l cr im ina l law, ind ivi du als , b ut n ot [ trans natio na l corporati ons].” Maj. Op. 43-44. This quotat ion appears t o support the majorit y’s positi on, but wh enon e p lac es i t in

co nte xt, the ap pe aranc e o f s up po rt d isa pp ear s. Ko eb ele ’s b oo k later ex pl ai ns th at“t he ATS , a lt ho ug h i nc or po ra ti ng in te rn at io na l l aw , i s s ti ll go ve rn edby an d fo rms part o f t ort s law whic h a

pp lie s eq ua llyto n atural an d le ga l pe rso ns un les s th e te xt o f a statut e pro vid es o the rw ise ,” an d th at i nte rnatio na l law d oe s n ot p rev en t a S tat e “f rom rai sin g it s stand ard s b y h old ing [t

ran sn ati on al c orp oratio ns ] whic h are i nv olv ed [i n] or c ontri bute t o vio lat ion s o f i nte rnatio na l law l iab le a s lo ng as t he cau se o f i nte rnatio na l law i s se rve d b eca us e int ern ati on al l awleave s in div idu al l iab ili ty ( as o pp os ed to S tat e li ab ili ty) , b e it

of a n atural or a legal per son, largel y to domestic law.” Koebele, su pra , at 208. Koebele thus recognizes that the im po sit ion of tor t li ab ili ty o n a

co rpo rat ion

un de r th e A TS is e nti rel y c on sis tent w ith internat ional law. 59 1 Ennemie sous Pavill on Ennemi

. 2 The majority opinion, in cont rast, does notcite a si ngle publishe d work of scholarship – 3 no tre ati se o n th e law o f n ati on s, no pu bli sh ed bo ok on the su bje ct, an d n o arti cle in a

sch olarly 4 journal – i n support of its posi tion. If the prescr iptions of inte rnational law against i nhumane 38 5 acts do not appl y to corporat ions, which are t herefore free to di sregard t hem w ithout li abilit y, one 6 wo uld

thi nk thi s w ou ld b e su ff

ici en tlyint ere sti ng to w arr an t co mm en t, o r at lea st 7 ack

no wl ed gm en t, i n s om e p ub lis he d w ork of sch olarsh ip. Th e m ajo rity c ite no ne . N o re fe ren ce 8 to t

his str an ge vie w i s f

ound fo r ex am ple inOppenheim’s Inter national Law , B rie rle y’s The Law 9 of Nations or the American Law Institute’s Resta tements of the Foreign Relati ons Law of the 10 United States , or in any of the numerous learned works the majority cit e. 11 Th e m ajo rity o pin ion cla im s th at i ts v iewis s up po rte d in tw o unp ub lis he d d oc um en ts –06- 4800- cv, 06- 4876- cv

K i obe l v. R oy al D ut ch Pe t ro l eu m

It is notself-evidentthat unpubli shed expert a ffidavits submitted in a different 39 litiga tion are whatthe Supreme Court had in mind in Paquete Habana wh enit a pp rov ed consultat ion of “ the works of jurist s and comm entators ” and, under thatrubric, ci ted leadi ng works of published schola rship. 60 1 af fi davit s b y law p rof

ess ors su bm itt ed in ano the r li tig ati on

byco rpo rat e d ef

en dants in an e ff

ort to 2 ge t th e ca se a ga ins t th em dis m iss ed

. (T he m ajo rity o pin ion ign ore s o pp os ing af

fi davit s f ile d in 39 3 the same litigat ion.) My coll eagues asser t that t hose affidavits by two renowned pr ofessors of 4 int ern ati on al l aw , P rof ess ors Jam es C raw fo rd and Chris top he r G ree nw oo d, “h av e f orc ef ull y 5 de clared

. . . th at c us tom ary

int ern ati on al l awdo es n ot r eco gn ize lia bil ityfo r co rpo rat ion s th at 6 violate i ts norms.” Maj. Op. 43. This charact erizat ion is not st rictl y speaking false butany 7 implication thatthe professors’ affidavits support t he majority’s view – tha t corporat e violati ons 8 of internati onal law can give rise to c ivil li abilit y of the natural pe rsons who acted for the 9 corporati on but not of the corpor ation it self – is completely unwarra nted. 10 Pr of

ess or C raw fo rd’ s af

fi davit , whic h w as f

ile d b y th e co rpo rat e d ef

en dant i n 11 Pr esb

yte ria n C hu rch of t he Su da n v . T

ali sm an En erg

y, Inc

. , D kt. No . 0 7-0 01 6, do es n ot d isc us s, 12 m

uc h le ss e sp ou se, the m ajo rity’s the ory . It s su bje ct m att er i s v ery

lim ite d. Th e af

fi davit wa s 13 prepared i n response to a question put t o the lit igants duri ng argument of the appeal by Judge 14 Cabranes. Judge Cabrane s requeste d further b riefing on the ques tion: 15 What country orinternat ional judi cial tr ibunal has r ecognized cor porate li abilit y, 16 as opposed to indi vidual li abilit y, in a civil or criminal contexton the basis of a 17 violati on of the law of nations or cust omary international law? 18 19 Professor Crawford makes clear in his a ffidavit that he l imits himself to answering that quest ion – 20 whether any int ernationa l or foreign judi cial deci sion has imposed liabil ity on a corpor ation06- 4800- cv, 06- 4876- cv

K i obe l v. R oy al D ut ch Pe t ro l eu m

Professor Crawford’s affidavit does nottake the posi tion thatthere is any obstacle to a 40 natio na l co urt

ho ldi ng a co rpo rat ion

civ ill y li ab le –

on ly t hat no su chde cis ion

ha s y et h as b een rendered. The affidavitnotes thata study by the I nternati onal Comm ission of Juris ts on co rpo rat e co m

pli city in hum anrig hts vio lat ion s st ate s th at c orp oratio ns are in a “zo ne of leg al risk,” Crawford Decl. ¶

7, but ci tes no ex am

ple s o f d eci sio ns act

ua llyho ldi ng the m

lia ble . In speaking of the exper ience of the United Kingdom, Professor Crawford charact erizes t he qu est ion of co rpo rat e li ab ili ty a s “l arg ely untes ted .” Id. ¶

8. An d a s f

ar a s inter natio na l tr ibu

na ls are co nc ern ed , th e P rof

ess or e xp lai ns that th e re aso n f or t he ab sen ce o f j ud gm en ts a ga ins t corporati ons is thatthe inter national t ribunals do nothave juris diction t o award such judgments. “N on e h av e juris dic tio n o ve r co rpo rat ion s as res po nd en ts. ” Id. ¶ 9. 61 1 “under inte rnational law as such.” Crawford Decl. ¶ 5. The Professor answers t hat he knows of 2 no such decisi on. 40 3 I have no quarr el with Professor Cra wford’s statement that no nat ional courtoutside the 4 United States or inter national j udicial t ribunal has as yet imposed civil l iabili ty on a corpora tion 5 on the ba sis of

a v iol ati on

of the lawof

natio ns . It

ad ds no thi ng to o ur d eb ate . T o b eg in w ith , h is 6 observati on is parti cularly wit hout significanc e as justi fication of the majority’s distinct ion 7 be tw een

lia bil ityof natur al p ers on s an d li ab ili ty o f c orp oratio ns be cau se P rof ess or C raw fo rd d oe s 8 not state that any nat ion outside t he United State s awards civi l damages against any cat egory of 9 de fe nd an t f

or v iol ati on s o f t

he lawof natio ns . If

the re are n o c ivi l ju dg m en ts o uts ide the Un ite d 10 St ate s ag ain st n atural pe rso ns , th e f act that th ere are no civ il j ud gm en ts a ga ins t co rpo rat ion s ei the r 11 in no way supports t he distinc tion the majority a re making. 12 Pr of

ess or C raw fo rd’ s af

fi davit fu rth erm ore do es n ot a dd

res s th e ru le the m ajo rity attr ibute 13 to international l aw. Internat ional tr ibunals do not ha ve jurisdi ction to i mpose civil liabil ity on 14 pri vate a cto rs, an d th e f act that ot he r natio ns ’ co urt s h av e n ot awarde d c ivi l dam ag es a ga ins t 15 co rpo rat ion s d oe s n ot s up po rt the m ajo rity’s the ory that th e ab sen ce o f j ud gm en ts i m po sin g c ivi l06- 4800- cv, 06- 4876- cv

K i obe l v. R oy al D ut ch Pe t ro l eu m

62 1 liabil ity somehow ba rs a national court, such as a U.S. court acti ng under the ATS, from 2 imposing civil liability on a corporati on for its viola tion of interna tional l aw. 3 I do not contend t hat the la w of nations imposes civil damages, eitheron corporati ons or 4 on natur al p ers on s. Qu ite to t he co ntr ary , th e law o f n ati on s d oe s n ot t ak e a p os iti on on civ il 5 lia bil ityof eithe r natur al p ers on s o r co rpo rat ion s. It l eav es t he qu est ion

of civ il l iab ili ty t o e ach 6 natio n to res olv e f or i tse lf . B y p ass ing the AT S, Co ng res s re so lve d th at q ue sti on fo r th e U nit ed 7 States, unli ke the greatmajority of nations, in favor of civil liabil ity. Nothing in Pr ofessor 8 Crawford’s affidavit is to t he contrary. 9 In fac t, Pr ofe ss orCr aw for d’ s a ffi da vi t s ee ms r at he r t o e xp re ss ob li qu e s up po rtformy 10 view. In noting t hat no nationa l tribuna l outside t he United State s has imposed civil li abilit y on a 11 co rpo rat ion

on the ba sis of

a v iol ati on

of the lawof

natio ns , th e P rof

ess or n ote s th e n eed

fo r a 12 “cl ari fi cat ion .” He the n e xp lai ns , 13 Whe n th e te rm s o f an inter natio na l tr eat

y b eco m e p art

of the lawof

a g ive n s tat e – 14 whether (as i n most common law jurisdictions) by being enacte d by parliament or 15 (as in many civil la w jurisdict ions) by vir tue of constitut ional approva l and 16 promulgation which give a sel f-executing tr eaty the force of law – corporations 17 may be civill y liable f or wrongful conduct c ontrary to the enacted te rms of the 18 tre aty just as t hey may be liable for any other c onduct recogni zed as unlawful by 19 that lega l system. 20 21 Id. ¶

4 (emphasis added). That is more or less the cir cumstance when a plaintiff sues in U.S. 22 courts underthe ATS to impose civil compensatory liability for a vi olation of inte rnational law. 23 Th e A TS pro vid es j uri sd ict ion ov er “ a to rt o nly , c om

m itt ed in v iol ati on

of the lawof

natio ns or a 24 treaty of the Unit ed States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1350. Norms of international l aw, such as the outl awing 25 of genocide by the Genocide Convent ion, have the force of law in t he United State s and may be06- 4800- cv, 06- 4876- cv

K i obe l v. R oy al D ut ch Pe t ro l eu m

An oth er a sp ect

of the m ajo rity’s cit ati on

of Pr of ess or C raw fo rd’ s d ecl aratio n re qu ire s 41 clarifica tion. The majority opini on quotes the dec larati on as saying, “[n]o national court [outside the United Stat es] and no internat ional judi cial tr ibunal has so far r ecognized corporate li abilit y, as op po sed to i nd ivi du al l iab ili ty , in a civ il o r cr im ina l co nte xt on the basis of a viol ation of the law of nations.” Maj . Op. 43 (first emphasis added). The manner of presenting t he quotation could lead t he reader t o understand t hat the Professor , like the majorit y, is saying t hat when a corporati on violates the law of nations, t hat law recogni zes civil liabil ity of natural per sons who acted for the corporation, but not of the cor porations. That is not what t he Professor was saying. When Professor Crawford responded t hat no nationa l court out side the Unit ed States or int ern ati on al j ud ici al trib un al h ad im po sed co rpo rat e li ab ili ty, “as op po sed to i nd ivi du al liabil ity,” he was merely adheri ng to the prec ise questi on asked. He was not suggest ing, as the m ajo rity o pin ion

do es, that ci vil lia

bil ityof natur al p ers on s is jud ge d d if fe rentlyfr om

civ il liabil ity of corporat ions. His affidavit cont ains no discus sion whatsoeverof whether any natio na l co urt

or i nte rnatio na l ju dic ial tri buna l ha s re co gn ize d c ivi l li ab ili ty o f n atural pe rso ns , and he makes no statement one way or the otheron the questi on of such liabili ty.

63 1 the su

bje ct o f a su it und er the AT S. Be cau se t he lawof natio ns leave s ea chnatio n f ree to 2 determine for itself whetherto impose civil li abilit y for such violati ons of the norms of the law of 3 nations, and bec ause the Unite d States by enac ting the ATS has opted for ci vil tortliabil ity, U.S. 4 courts, as a matter of U.S. law, entertain sui ts for compensatory damages under the ATS for 5 vio lat ion s o f t

he lawof natio ns . T he AT S c on fe rs j uri sd ict ion byvir tue of the de fe nd an t’s 6 violati on of the law of nations. Damages are properl y awarded under the ATS not because any 7 rule of inter national l aw imposes dam ages, but becaus e the United Sta tes has exer cised the opt ion 8 left to it by i nternati onal law to al low civil sui ts. Nothing in i nternati onal law bars s uch an award, 9 and nothing in ProfessorCrawford’s affidavit suggests the contra ry. 4106- 4800- cv, 06- 4876- cv

K i obe l v. R oy al D ut ch Pe t ro l eu m

One of the m ain problems with the majority’ s theory is its incohe rence res ulting from the fact that ittreats the absence of any int ernationa l law precede nt for imposition of damages on co rpo rat ion s as barri ng su chanaw ard un de r th e A TS , whil e ac kn ow led gin g th at d am ag es are pro pe rlyaw ard ed

ag ain st n atural pe rso ns no tw ith stand ing the ve ry s am e ab sen ce o f i nte rnatio na l lawpre ced en t f

or s uc h awards

. The quotation from Professor Crawford’s affidavit in the m ajo rity o pin ion

so un ds as i f t

he Pr of ess or i s sayin g th at i nte rnatio na l law d ist ing uis he s b etw een civ il l iab ili ty o f n atural pe rso ns , whic h it all ow s, an d c ivi l li ab ili ty o f c orp oratio ns , whic h it do es no t al low . B ut t

he Pr of ess or w as n ot s ay ing that. H is a ff idavit do es n ot d isc us s, m

uc h le ss su pp ort , th e m ajo rity’s the ory that, whe n a

co rpo rat ion

vio lat es t he lawof natio ns , c ivi l li ab ili ty under the ATS may be imposed on the natural persons who acted for

the corporati on but not on the corpora tion. The ambiguity in Professor Cra wford’s sentence does not indicat e adoption of the majority’s i ncoherent and i nconsistentpropositi on. Th e m ajo rity c onten d th at I cri tic ize the m fo r ci tin g a ff

idavit s. Th eyass ert

that 42 af fi davit s, be cau se t

he y are m ad e und er p en alty o f p erj ury , are a s re lia ble a so urc e as lawrev iew art icl es “ wh os e ac curac y is co nf irm ed on ly b y e ff

ort s o f t he stu de nt s taf

f o f l awjou

rna ls. ” Ma

j. Op. 44 n.47. I do not crit icize t he majority for citing t he affidavits of learned pr ofessors. I have on ly q ue sti on ed wh eth er unp ub lis he d li tig ati ng af fi davit s ar e what th e S up rem e C ourt h ad in mind in Paquete Habana as the “te achings” of publici sts. Regardle ss, I have no cr itici sm of the affidavits of Professors Crawford and Greenwood. The problem with the majority’s citati on of 64 1 Th e m ajo rity a lso qu ote fr om anaf fi davit of Pr of ess or C hri sto ph er G ree nw oo d, fi led in 2 the dis tri ct c ourt i n th e Talisman cas e. Th e m ajo rity’s qu otatio n f rom the Gr eenwo od

af fi davit 3 co ntr ibutes no thi ng to t his dis pute. Ac co rdi ng to t he m ajo rity, the Pr of

ess or’ s af fi davit states , 4 “[ T] he re i s n ot, an d n ev er h as b een , anyass ert ion of the cri m ina l li ab ili ty o f c orp oratio ns in 5 internat ional law.” Ma j. Op. 43. As I have explai ned above, I have no quar rel with t hat asser tion, 6 but it has no be aring on whethercorporati ons may be held civilly l iable underATS for violations 7 of int ern ati on al l aw . T he rea so ns int ern ati on al trib un als do no t im po se cri mi na l liabil ity on 8 corporati ons have to do only wit h the nature of criminal lia bil ityan d a

wi de sp rea d p erc ep tio n th at 9 cri mi na l li ab ili tyis neithe r theoret ically s ound nor practi cally efficacious when imposed on a 10 juridic al entit y. This says nothi ng about the imposition of compensatory civi l liabi lity. 4206- 4800- cv, 06- 4876- cv

K i obe l v. R oy al D ut ch Pe t ro l eu m

tho se a ff idavit s is that th e af

fi davit s d o n ot s up po rt the m ajo rity’s the sis

. Int’l Comm . of Jurists, Co rp orateCo mp lic ity& L eg al A cco un tab ili ty (2008), av ail ab le 43 at htt p:/ /w ww .ic j.o rg/ de fa ult .a sp ?no de ID =3 50 &lang ag e=1 &m yP ag e=P ub lic ati on s. See infra note 46. 44

65 1 Th e m ajo rity c ite no wo rk o f s ch olarsh ip t hat su pp ort s th eir

po sit ion , and

fa il t o 2 ack

no wl ed ge sch olarsh ip t

hat re jec ts the ir v iew . P rof

ess or S ch achter

an d o the r sc ho lar s as ser

t 3 that inter

natio na l law l eav es t

he qu est ion

of civ il l iab ili ty t o b e d ete rm ine d b y in div idu al n ati on s. 4 Se e supra no te 2 9 and acc om pany ing tex t. Athr ee- vo lum e re po rt o f t he Int ern ati on al 5 Commission of Jurists on the subj ect of “Corporate Complicity and Lega l Accountabil ity” 43 6 dis tin gu ish es b etw een cri m ina l an d c ivi l li ab ili ty and pro vid es a s to civ il l iab ili ty t hat “ the law of 7 civil r emedies will always have the abil ity to deal with the conduct

of companies, indi viduals and 8 sta te a uth or iti es .” 3 Int’l Comm. of Jurists , Co rp orateCo mp lic ity& L eg al A cco un tab ili ty 5 9 (20 08 ). T he rep ort m aintai ns that th is i s th e ca se n otw ith stand ing that “s ign if icant o pp os iti on

to 10 the imposition of cri mi na l san cti on s o n c om panie s as leg al e nti tie s re m ain s, ” f or “ rea so ns [t

hat] 11 appear to be br oadly conceptua l, and at ti mes political.” 2 Int’l Comm . of Jurists, Co rp orate 44 12 Co mp lic ity& L eg al A cco un tab ili ty 57 (20 08 ) (e m ph asi s ad de d). Mic ha el K oe be le’ s w ork ass ert s 13 that li ab ili ty u

nd er the AT S “ ap pli es e qu all y to natur al and leg al p ers on s” and

that inter natio na l 14 lawdo es n ot b ar S tat es f rom im po sin g li ab ili ty o n a

co rpo rat ion , a s inter

natio na l law l eav es c ivi l 15 liabil ity to domestic law. Mi chael Koebele, Co rp orateResp on sib ili ty U nd er t he Al ien To rt06- 4800- cv, 06- 4876- cv

K i obe l v. R oy al D ut ch Pe t ro l eu m

Whil e th e m ajo rity d ism iss Pr of ess or S tev enR. Ratne r’s dis cu ssi on as m ere ly 45 asp iratio na l, t

he y d o n ot a ck

no wl ed ge his ass ert ion , b ase d o n a rep ort of the Int ern ati on al Co un cil on

Hum anRi gh ts, jud gm en ts o f t he Nurem be rg T rib un als , m

ult ilater al i ns trum en ts im po sin g o bli gatio ns on

co rpo rat ion s, the m

ult im ill ion

do llar se ttl em en ts a gre ed to b y G erm an co m panie s al leg ed

to h av e b een

co m pli cit in t he warti m e hum anrig hts vio lat ion s o f t he Th ird Re ich , and

the pra cti ce o f t

he Europ ean

Un ion , th at “ int ern ati on al l awha s alrea dyeff ect ive ly recognized duties of corpora tions.” Steve n R. Ratner, Co rp orati on s a nd Hu ma n R igh ts: A Th eo ry o f L eg al R esp on sib ili ty , 111 Yale L.J. 443, 475 (2001) (e mphasis added). The majority criti cize the r eport of the Int ernationa l Comm ission of Juris ts and the 46 Stephens tre atise as biased sourc es. Maj. Op. 44 n.47. They point outthat cer tain author s of the St ep he ns tre ati se s erv e as co un sel fo r th e P lai nti ff s in thi s ca se. Th at i s in de ed a re aso n to vie w the co nc lus ion s o f t

he tre ati se w ithsk ep tic ism . T he m ajo rity’s co nd em natio n o f t

he Int ern ati on al Commission of Jurists, on the gr ound that it“promot[es] the understanding and obser vance of the rul e o f l awan d th e le ga l pr ote cti on of hum anrig hts thr ou gh out th e w orl d, ” is les s co nv inc ing . I d o n ot u

nd ers tan d whyanorg an izatio n’s co mm itm en t to up ho ldi ng the law jus tif ies the vie w that th e o rganiz ati on is b ias ed as t o th e co nte nt o f t

he law . B ut i n anyev en t, the views expre ssed in those scholarl y works are consi stent with t he views of scholars t he majority have not quest ioned. In contr ast, no work of scholars hip, whether int erested ornot interes ted, has support ed the majority’s vi ew. 66 1 Statute: Enforcement of I nternational

Law Through U.S. Torts Law 20 8 (2 00 9). Tw o tr eat ise s 45 2 on the AT S m aintai n th at a

co rpo rat ion

m aybe he ld c ivi llylia

ble fo r en ga gin g in

co nd uc t th at 3 violates the law of nations. Beth St ephens et al ., Internati onal Human Rights Litigat ion in U.S. 4 Co ur ts 31 0 (2 d e d. 20 08 ) (“ No thi ng in t he So sa de cis ion

de m an ds m ore of

pla int if fs see kin g to 5 ho ld c orp oratio ns acc ounta ble fo r hum anrig hts vio lat ion s th anthe str ict ev ide nti ary

req uir em en ts 6 imposed generally . . . .”); Peter Henner, Hu ma n R igh ts a nd theAl ien To rt S

tatute : L aw

, H istor y, 7 an d A na lys is 215 (2009) (“All eged perpetr ators of crimes under int ernationa l law that do not 8 require a ny showing of state act ion, includi ng piracy, genoci de, crimes against humanity, 9 enslavement, and slave t rading, can be s ued under the ATS. Generall y, thepros pe cti ve p riv ate 10 de

fen da nts ca n b e in div idu als , c or po ra tio ns , o r o the r en tit ies

. ” (e m ph asi s ad de d))

. 4606- 4800- cv, 06- 4876- cv

K i obe l v. R oy al D ut ch Pe t ro l eu m

Because I agre e that int ernationa l law does not of its own force impose liability on 47 co rpo rat ion s, the m ajo rity a sse rt that “Jud ge Le va l do es n ot d isa gre e w ithPart I I” o f t he ir op ini on . M aj. Op . 4 5. To the co ntr ary , whil e ce rta in f act s m en tio ne d th ere are en tir ely acc urate, I d is ag re e w it h n umer ou s u nwa rr an te d i nfe re nc es an d c on cl us io ns th e ma jo ri ty dr aw fr om the m.

67 1 To be sure, the sc holarship of int ernationa l law include s statements of scholars to the 2 ef fe ct t hat inter natio na l law i m

po ses no lia

bil iti es o n p riv ate jur idi cal pe rso ns . T his is e nti rel y 3 acc urate, but it

do es n ot m ean

wh at the m ajo rity c onten d. It i s tr ue that inter

natio na l law, of

its 4 own f

orc e, im po ses no lia

bil iti es o n c orp oratio ns or o the r pr ivate j uri dic al e nti tie s. Int ern ati on al 47 5 cri m ina l tr ibu

na ls, fo r re aso ns that re lat e so lel y to the natur e o f c rim ina l li ab ili ty and punis hm en t, 6 do no t ex erc ise jur isd ict ion ov er c orp oratio ns . A nd

as f or c ivi l li ab ili ty o f p riv ate pe rso ns , 7 internat ional law le aves indivi dual nations free to decide whet her to implement its norms of 8 conduct by providi ng civil compensatory l iabili ty to vict ims. Se e su pra notes 29-30 and 9 accompanying text. Accordingl y, it is abs olutely cor rect tha t the rul es of internat ional law do not 10 provide civi l liabi lity agai nst any priva te actorand do not provide for any form of liabilit y of 11 co rpo rat ion s. In n o w ay , h ow ev er, do es i t f oll owthat inter

natio na l law’ s ru les do no t ap ply to 12 co rpo rat ion s. 13 No work of scholarship cit ed in the majority opi nion supports t he majority’s rul e, and 14 many w orks of scholarshi p assert t he contrary. 15 VI . Re sp on se t o th e ma jor ity ’s c rit ici sm o f myar gu men ts 16 Th ereis n o in co ns isten cy b etw een my pr ese nt p os iti on an d m

y p rio r en do rse me nt i n 17 Talisman of the re asoning set f orth by Judge Katzmann in Khulumani. Th e m ajo rity a sse rt that06- 4800- cv, 06- 4876- cv

K i obe l v. R oy al D ut ch Pe t ro l eu m

68 1 the positi on I now take contr adicts t he position I took in Talisman when I approved the r easoning 2 Judge Katzmann set forth in Khulumani . T he y s ayI no w “ ign ore ” th e inter natio na l tr ibu

na ls 3 whose rulings I and Judge Katzmann previously found control ling, thatI ignore “t he second step” 4 of Judge Katzmann’s approach, and that I “look to int ernationa l tribuna ls only when they suppl y a 5 norm with which [I agree].” Maj. Op. 48. These crit icisms m isunderst and both Judge 6 Katzmann’s arguments and m ine. There is no inconsist ency between my prior endorsement of the 7 views Judge Katzmann expressed in Khulumaniand those I expr ess here. I do not ignore t he 8 jud gm en ts o f i nte rnatio na l tr ibu na ls. I m ere ly d ecl ine to d rawill og ica l an d unw arr an ted 9 conclusions from them. 10 In Khulumani , one of the main issues in disput e was whether civi l liabi lity for viol ations 11 of

int ern ati on al l awm aybe im po sed on anact or who parti cip ate d in the vio lat ion

of an 12 int ern ati on al l awno rm as an a ide r an d a

be tte r. T he dis tri ct c ourt h ad dis m iss ed

cla im s ag ain st 13 alleged ai ders and abet ters on the ground that i nternati onal law recogni zed no civil liabil ity for 14 aiding and abet ting. Se e N tse be za v. Ci tig

ro up , In c. , 346 F. Supp. 2d 538, 554 (S.D.N.Y. 2004). 15 Although numerous judgments in criminal proceedings ha d imposed criminal liabili ty for aiding 16 an d a

be tti ng , th e d istric t co urt

acc ord ed the m no sig nif icanc e, be cau se t

he y w ere criminal 17 judgments which the distr ict courtbelieved were inapplica ble to civi l liabi lity. Judge Kat zmann 18 fo un d th is r eas on ingerr on eo us an d p ointed out th at w e h av e “c on sis tentlyrel ied on cri m ina l law 19 no rm s in

est ab lis hin g th e co nte nt o f c us tom ary int ern ati on al l awfo r pu

rpo ses of the AT [S ]. ” 20 Khulumani , 5 04 F. 3d at 2 70 n. 5. He co nc lud ed that if int ern ati on al c rim ina l tr ibu na ls h ad rul ed 21 that aidi ng and abetti ng a violati on of the law of nations was its elf a violati on of the law of06- 4800- cv, 06- 4876- cv

K i obe l v. R oy al D ut ch Pe t ro l eu m

69 1 nations, thi s answered the que stion posed i n a civil s uit under t he ATS whether aiding and 2 ab ett ing vio lat ed

the lawof

natio ns . H e expla ine d, “O nc e a c ourt d ete rm ine s th at the de fe nd an ts’ 3 alleged conduc t falls withi n one of ‘the modest num ber of internat ional law viol ations with a 4 potential for personal li abilit y’ on the defendant’ s part . . . [t]he comm on law . . . permits the 5 ‘in de pe nd en t ju dic ial rec og nit ion of act ion ab le i nte rnatio na l no rm s. ’” Id. at 269-70 (ci tations 6 omitted). Judge Katzmann, in other words, looked a t the norms of conduct establi shed by 7 int ern ati on al c ourts as v iol ati on s o f i nte rnatio na l la w and co nc lud ed

that co nd uc t w hic h 8 constitut es a criminal viol ation of international l aw also violat es international l aw for purposes of 9 civil l iabili ty under the ATS. 10 I ag ree co m ple tel y w ithJu dg e K atz m ann’s rea so nin g. It d oe s n ot f oll ow , h ow ev er, that if 11 internat ional tr ibunals withhol d criminal liabi lity from juridical entiti es for reasons t hat have 12 no thi ng to d o w ithwh eth er the y v iol ate d th e co nd uc t no rm s o f i nte rnatio na l law, but re su lt o nly 13 from

a perceive d inappropri ateness of imposing criminal jud gm en ts o n arti fi cia l entit ies , th ere ha s 14 been no violat ion of the norms of international law. Nothing in Judge Katz mann’s opinion 15 suggests tha t he would adopt the majority’s posit ion or thathe would disagree with mine. 16 As I have m ad e cl ear , I d o n ot o pp os e lo ok ing to t he ins trum en ts o f i nte rnatio na l law t o 17 determine whether ther e has been a viol ation of international l aw. That is exact ly where one 18 sh ou ld l oo k. An d if the y ans we r th e q

ue sti on , th at ans we r is de ter m inativ e. What I o pp os e is 19 drawi ng ill og ica l an d unw arr an ted inf ere nc es f rom the jud gm en ts o f i nte rnatio na l tr ibu na ls, 20 especial ly when those inferenc es are used t o support rul es that under mine the objectives of 21 internat ional law.06- 4800- cv, 06- 4876- cv

K i obe l v. R oy al D ut ch Pe t ro l eu m

70 1 The majority likewise a ttribut e to Judge Katzmann the proposit ion that t here is no 2 dis tin cti on

in i nte rnatio na l law b etw een cri m ina l an d c ivi l li ab ili ty. Maj . O p. 46 . O nc e ag ain 3 qu oti ng out of

co nte xt, the m ajo rity m isu nd ers tan d Jud ge Katzm ann’s op ini on . A s n ote d a bo ve , 4 the distr ict courtin Khulumaniha d d isr eg ard ed the op ini on s o f i nte rnatio na l tr ibu na ls whic h 5 fo un d v iol ati on s b ase d o n a idi ng an d a be tti ng on

the gro un d th at tho se s ource s im po sed cri m ina l, 6 and not civil , responsibi lity. Judge Kat zmann’s observation meant nothing more than thatthe 7 dis tri ct c ourt w as wron g to co ns ide r cr im ina l ju dg m en ts i rre lev an t to wh eth er c on du ct c on sti tut ed 8 a violati on of internati onal law for purposes of civi l liabi lity. Judge Kat zmann did not endorse, or 9 ev enco mm en t on , th e m ajo rity’s ne w p rop os iti on that w ithho ldi ng of

cri m ina l li ab ili ty f

or a 10 rea so n h av ing no thi ngto d o w ithwh eth er the co nd uc t no rm s o f i nte rnatio na l law h av e b een 11 vio lat ed

req uir es t he co nc lus ion

that th ere ha s b een

no vio lat ion

of int ern ati on al l aw . N oth ing in 12 Judge Katzmann’s opinion suggest s that, in c onsidering t he norms that may be violated by a 13 private a ctor withoutState invol vement, internationa l law disti nguishes between t he liabil ity of 14 natur al and

jur idi cal pe rso ns . Cf. Khulumani , 5 04 F. 3dat28 2 ( Ka tz mann , J ., co nc urri ng ) ( “We 15 have rep eat ed ly t reated the iss ue of

wh eth er c orp oratio ns m aybe he ld l iab le und er the AT [S ] a s 16 ind ist ing uis ha

ble fr om the qu est ion

of wh eth er p riv ate ind ivi du als m aybe .” ). 17 To be sure, if int ern ati on al c rim ina l tr ibu na ls f oll ow ed a ru le that th e ac ts o f j uri dic al 18 persons cannotviolate i nternati onal law because internat ional law does notcover them, I, and 19 presumably Judge Katzmann as well, would regard suc h rulings as determinative for ATS 20 purpo ses . B ut i nte rnatio na l tr ibu na ls h av e m ad e n o s uc h ru lin gs . T he re i s n o in co ns ist en cy 21 be tw een

my e arl ier

en do rse m en t of

Ju dg e K atz m ann’s rea so nin g and the rea so nin g I f

oll owhe re.06- 4800- cv, 06- 4876- cv

K i obe l v. R oy al D ut ch Pe t ro l eu m

By “Com

plaint,” I refer to the a mended com plaint file d in May 2004. See infra Part 48 VII.A.3. 71 1 The majority’s othercriti cisms of m y opinion merely resta te theirarguments. I have 2 an sw ere d th ese ab ov e. 3 VII. The Complaint must be dism issed because it s factual al legations f ail to plead a 4 vio lat ion of t he law of n ati on s. 5 Al tho ug h I d o n ot s hare m y c oll eag ue s’ und ers tan din g o f i nte rnatio na l law, I am in 6 complete agreement that the cl aims against Appellant s must be dismissed. That is becaus e the 48 7 pertinentallegat ions of the Complaint fall short of mandatory standar ds establi shed by decisi ons 8 of this court and t he Supreme Court. W e recentl y held in Pr esb yte ria n C hu rch of S

ud an v. 9 Ta lis ma n E

ne rg y, Inc

. , 5 82 F. 3d

24 4 (2 d C ir. 20 09 ), t

hat li ab ili ty u

nd er the AT S f

or aiding and 10 abetting in a

vio lat ion of int ern ati on al hum anrig hts lie s o nly wh ere the aid er and

ab ett or a cts wi th 11 a p ur

po se to bring aboutthe abuse of human rights. Id. at 2 59 . F urt he rm ore , th e S up rem e C ourt 12 ruled in Ashcroft v. I qbal , 129 S. Ct. 1937 (2009), that a complaint is insufficient a s a matter of 13 law unless itpleads speci fic facts that “a llow[] the court to dra w the reasonabl e inference tha t the 14 de fe nd an t is lia

ble fo r th e m isc on du ct a lle ge d. ” Id. at 1949. When read together, Talisman and 15 Iqb al est ab lis h a

req uir em en t th at, fo r a c om

pla int to p rop erl y a lle ge a d ef

en dant’ s co m

pli city in 16 hum anrig hts ab us es p erp etr ate d b y o ff ici als of a f ore ign go ve rnm en t, i t m

us t pl ead sp eci fi c f act s 17 supporting a r easonable i nference that t he defendant acted wit h a purpose of bringing about the 18 ab us es. Th e al leg ati on s ag ain st A pp ell an ts i n th ese ap pe als do no t satis fy thi s st an dard. Whil e 19 the Complaint plausibly a lleges t hat Appellant s knew of hum an rights a buses comm itted by06- 4800- cv, 06- 4876- cv

K i obe l v. R oy al D ut ch Pe t ro l eu m

Because of changes in corporate form unrelated to t his lawsuit , Shell Petrol eum N .V. 49 an d S he ll T ran sp ort

an d T rad ing Co m

pany , L td. are the su cce sso rs t o th e n am ed de fe nd an ts Royal Dutch Petrole um C ompany and Shell Transport and Tradi ng Com pany PLC, respectivel y. 72 1 officials of the government of Nigeria and took ac tions which cont ributed i ndirectl y to the 2 co mm iss ion

of tho se o ff en ses , it do es n ot c ontai n a lle gatio ns su pp ort ing a re aso na

ble inf ere nc e 3 that Appella nts acted wit h a purpose of bringing about the all eged abuses. 4 A. Factual and procedural background 5 Be cau se t

he m ajo rity o pin ion

fo cu ses on

the leg al i ssu e o f whe the r inter natio na l law 6 allows a U.S. court t o impose liabilit y on a corporat ion, it is necessary t o set out the allegat ions of 7 the Co m

pla int an d th e h ist ory

of pri or p roc eed ing s in

de tai l. 8 1) Parties. As the majority note, Plai ntiffs are, or were, r esidents of the Ogoni r egion of 9 Ni ge ria . P lai nti ff

s al leg e th at the y (and

oth ers sim ilarlysit

uated wh om the y und ert ak e to 10 representas a class ) were vict ims of hum an rights a buses comm itted by t he government of 11 Ni ge ria , throu ghits m ili tar y and po lic e f orc es, wi th t

he aid of Sh ell . “ Sh ell ,” as t

he de sig natio n is 12 used in the Complaint and thi s opinion, refers collect ively to t he Royal Dutch Petrol eum 13 Com

pany and Shell Trans port and Tradi ng Com pany PLC. According to the allegat ions of the

49 14 Com

plaint, t hose two entit ies are hol ding companies organized r espective ly in the Nethe rlands 15 an d th e U nit ed

Ki ng do m . T he y c on du ct p etr ole um explo rat ion

an d p rod uc tio n o pe rat ion s in 16 Ni ge ria

thr ou gha N ige rian s ub sid iar y n am ed Sh ell Pe tro leum

De ve lop m en t C om

panyof Ni ge ria , 17 Ltd. (herei nafter “SPDC”). SPDC was nam ed as a defendant, and i s not a part y to this appe al. 18 The distri ct court di smissed the suit agai nst SPDC for lack of personal juri sdiction on J une 21,06- 4800- cv, 06- 4876- cv

K i obe l v. R oy al D ut ch Pe t ro l eu m

The designati on “Shell,” as not ed above, repre sents holdi ng companies in England and 50 Ho lland , whic h who llyown T he Sh ell Pe tro leum Co m panyLt d. , a

ho ldi ng co m

pany , whic h in tur n o wn s S PD C. SP DC is the so le o pe rat or and 30 % owne r of

a jo int ve ntu re e ng ag ed

in o il explorati on, refinement, and extracti on in Nigeria. 73 1 2010. 2 2) A llegati ons of the complai nt . Plaintiffs’ suitasserts the liabi lity of Shell on t he ground 3 that S he ll a ide d and ab ett ed Ni ge rian g ov ernm en t f

orc es i n th e co mm iss ion

of vario us hum an 4 rights abus es, direct ed against Pl aintiffs. The Complaint alleges t he following: 5 Si nc e 1 95 8, SP DC , h as b een en ga ge d in

oil explo rat ion

an d p rod uc tio n in Ni ge ria , 6 conducting ext ensive opera tions in t he Ogoni region. Ogoni resident s initi ated the Move ment 50 7 fo r S urv iva l of

Og on i P eo ple (MO SO P) to p rot est envir onm en tal dam ag e ca us ed bySP DC ’s 8 op eratio ns . B eg inn ing in 1 99 3, the Ni ge rian m ili tar y e ng ag ed

in a cam pa ign of vio len ce a ga ins t 9 MOSOP and the Ogoni, which was “instiga ted, planned, facil itated, c onspired, and coope rated in” 10 by Shell and SPDC. 11 In F eb ruary 1 99 3, fo llo wi ng a d em an d b y M OS OP fo r ro ya lti es f or t he Og on i pe op le, 12 Sh ell an d S PD C o ff ici als m et i n th e N eth erl an ds an d E ng lan d in Fe bru ary 19 93 to “ fo rm

ulate a 13 strate gy to suppress M OSOP and to return to Ogonila nd.” In April 1993, SPDC called for 14 ass ist an ce f

rom go ve rnm en t tr oo ps . T he Ni ge rian g ov ernm en t tr oo ps fi red on Og on i re sid en ts 15 protesti ng a new pipeline, ki lling el even. Later, SPDC’s divis ional manager wrote to t he 16 Go ve rno r of

Ri ve rs S tat e (i n whic h O go ni i s loc ate d) and req ue ste d “ the us ua l as sis tan ce” to 17 protect t he progress of SPDC’s further work on the pipeline. I n August through October1993, 18 the Ni ge rian m ili tar y atta ck ed

Og on i vi lla ge s, kil lin g large num be rs o f c ivi lians . S PD C p rov ide d06- 4800- cv, 06- 4876- cv

K i obe l v. R oy al D ut ch Pe t ro l eu m

74 1 a helicopt er and boats for r econnaissanc e, provided tr ansportat ion to the Niger ian forces invol ved, 2 pro vid ed

SP DC pro pe rtyas a

sta gin g area

fo r the att ack s, an d p rov ide d f oo d and co m pe ns ati on to 3 the so ldi ers inv olv ed in t he att ack s. In an o pe rat ion in O cto be r 19 93 , S PD C e m plo ye es 4 acc om

panie d N ige rian m ili tar

y p ers onne l in

an S PD C c harte r bu s to a v ill ag e whe re the m ili tar y 5 pe rso nn el f

ire d o n unarm ed

vil lag ers . 6 In December 1993, SPDC’s m anaging dire ctor, with t he approval of Shell, a sked the 7 Ni ge rian P oli ce I ns pe cto r G en era l to inc rea se s ecu rity in ex ch an ge fo r pr ov idi ng Ni ge rian f orc es 8 with salary, housing, equipment, and vehicle s. Shortly the reafter, the Nigerian government 9 cre ate d th e R ive rs S tat e Inter na l S ecu rity T ask Fo rce (IS TF ). S he ll and SP DC pro vid ed

fi nanc ial 10 su

pp ort fo r th e IS TF ’s o pe rat ion s, as w ell as t ran sp ort ati on , f

oo d, an d amm

un iti on fo r it s 11 pe rso nn el. In A

pri l 19 94 , th e R ive rs S tat e Mi lit ary Ad m ini str ato r or de red

the IS TF to “ ‘sanit ize ’ 12 Ogoniland, in orderto ensure t hat those ‘ carrying outventures . . . wit hin Ogoniland are not 13 m ole ste d. ’” T he he ad of the IS TF res po nd ed

in M aythat “S he ll o pe rat ion s st ill im po ssi ble un les s 14 ruthless military operat ions are under taken for smooth economic activities to comm ence.” 15 From May to August 1994, the ISTF engaged in numerous nightti me raids on Ogoni 16 towns and villa ges. During these raids, the ISTF “broke into homes, shooting or be ating anyone 17 in t

he ir p ath , in clu din g th e el de rly , w om enan d c hil dre n, rap ing , f orc ing vil lag ers to p ay 18 ‘settl ement fees,’ bribes and rans oms to secure their r elease, forci ng villager s to flee and abandon 19 their homes, and burning, dest roying or loot ing propert y,” and kille d at leastfifty Ogoni residents. 20 Plaintiffs and other s were arre sted and deta ined without formal charges and wit hout access t o a 21 civili an court syst em, som e for more than four weeks. In the detent ion facilit y, Plaintiffs and06- 4800- cv, 06- 4876- cv

K i obe l v. R oy al D ut ch Pe t ro l eu m

75 1 others were be aten and were pr ovided inadequat e medical care, food, and sanit ary facilit ies. 2 SPDC of

ficials “frequent ly visit ed the . . . detent ion facilit y” and “regula rly provide d food and 3 log ist ica l su

pp ort fo r th e so ldi ers ” who wo rke d th ere . 4 In 1994, the Nigeri an military crea ted a “Specia l Tribunal” to try le aders of MOSOP, 5 including Dr. Bari nem K iobel, a River s State poli tician who obje cted to the tactic s of the ISTF 6 and supported MOSOP. Co un sel to t ho se b rou gh t be fo re the Sp eci al T rib un al w ere “su bje cte d to 7 act

ua l or thr eat en ed

be ati ng s o r ot

he r phys ica l harm .” Th e C om pla int all eg es a lso that, w ith 8 Sh ell ’s c om

pli city, wi tne sse s w ere bri be d to giv e f als e te sti m ony b ef

ore the Sp eci al T rib un al. In 9 January 1995, the Nige rian military vi olently putdown a protest aga inst Shell ’s operat ions and 10 the Special Tribunal, and t he protest ers who were detai ned were subject ed to “floggings, beat ings 11 an d o the r to rture[ ,] an d m on eywa s ex tor ted to o bta in r ele ase s. ” D r. K iob el and oth ers we re 12 condemned to death by the Special Tribunal and exe cuted in November 1995. 13 3) Prior proceedi ngs . In September 2002, Plaintiffs filed a puta tive cla ss action i n the 14 United States DistrictCourt for the Southern Dis trictof New York alleging torts in violat ion of 15 the law of nations, pur suant to the ATS. The am ended complaint filed in May 2004 ( “the 16 Com

plaint”) charged seven c ounts of violati ons of the law of nations agai nst Shell and SPDC. 17 W ith respe ct to each c ount, the Complaint allege d that Shell and SPDC “aided and abetted,” 18 “f

aci lit ate d, ” “p art ici pated

in, ” “c on sp ire d w ith ,” an d/o r “c oo pe rat ed wi th” the Ni ge rian m ili tar y 19 in its vi olations of the l aw of nations. 20 Sh ell m ov ed to d ism iss on

sev era l gr ound s, inc lud ing that th e C om pla int fa ile d to state a 21 vio lat ion

of the lawof

natio ns wi th t

he sp eci fi city re qu ire d b y th e S up rem e C ourt’ s ru lin g in06- 4800- cv, 06- 4876- cv

K i obe l v. R oy al D ut ch Pe t ro l eu m

Sh ell als o m ov ed

to d ism iss on

the gro un ds that P lai nti ff s’ c lai m s ar e b arr ed

bythe act 51 of state d oc tri ne an d b y th e d oc tri ne of int ern ati on al c om ity . A ll o f t he se m oti on s w ere de nie d and were not appeal ed. Ki ob el , 456 F. Supp. 2d at 459. 76 1 So sa . Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Pet roleum Co. , 456 F. Supp. 2d 457, 459 (S.D.N.Y. 2006). The 51 2 dis tri ct c ourt g ranted the m oti on

in p art an d d en ied

it i n p art

. 3 Th e co urt

fi rst de ter m ine d th at “ wh ere a ca

us e o f a cti on

fo r vi olatio n o f an inter

natio na l 4 no rm

is v iab le und er the AT S, cla im s f or a idi ng an d a

be tti ng that vi olatio n are v iab le a s w ell .” 5 Id. at 463-64. Turning t o the substant ive counts, t he distri ct court di smissed the claims of aiding 6 an d a

be tti ng pro pe rtyde str

uc tio n, fo rce d e xil e, ex tra jud ici al k ill ing , and

vio lat ion of the rig hts to 7 lif e, lib erty, sec uri ty, an d a sso ciatio n, on the gro un d th at i nte rnatio na l law d id n ot d ef ine tho se 8 violati ons, as alle ged, with the par ticular ity requi red by So sa . By contrast, t he court deni ed the 9 motion to dismiss the claims that Shell a ided and abett ed the Nigeri an government’s comm ission 10 of

tor tur e, arb itr ary

arr est an d d ete nti on , and

cri m es a ga ins t hum an ity , c on clu din g th at s uc h a cts 11 are clea r violat ions of the law of nations. Id. at 464-67. 12 The distri ct court c ertified i ts order for i nterlocut ory appeal pur suant to 28 U.S.C. § 13 1292(b). Id. at 4 68 . O n D ece m be r 27 , 2 00 6, we grante d P lai nti ff s’ p eti tio n and

Sh ell ’s c ros s14 petiti on to entert ain the int erlocutor y appeal. Se e Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Pet roleum Co. , N os . 15 06-4800-cv, 06-4876- cv (2d Cir. Dec. 27, 2006). 16 B. Ad

eq ua cy o f th e p lea dings ag

ain st S he ll 17 Sh ell co nte nd s th e C om pla int do es n ot s uf

fi cie ntl y p lea d f

act s th at w ou ld r en de r it

lia ble06- 4800- cv, 06- 4876- cv

K i obe l v. R oy al D ut ch Pe t ro l eu m

Pl aintif fs co nte nd

we sh ou ld n ot c on sid er this qu est ion be cau se t he dis tri ct c ourt d id 52 not considerit and Shell did not rai se the iss ue in its pe tition for per mission to appeal. On int erl oc uto ry a

pp eal pursu an t to § 1 29 2(b ), h ow ev er, “o ur C ourt ‘ m ayad dre ss anyiss ue fa irl y included withi n the cert ified order,’ as ‘it i s the orderthat is appealable, a nd not the contr olling qu est ion ide nti fi ed

bythe dis tri ct c ourt. ’” Ca l. P ub . E mp loy ees ’ R et. Sy

s. v. Wor ldC

om , In c. , 368 F.3d 86, 95 (2d Cir. 2004) (quot ing Yamaha Motor Corp. v. Calhoun , 51 6 U .S . 1 99 , 2 05 (19 96 )); seeals o Merican, I

nc. v. Caterpill ar Tractor Co. , 713 F.2d 958, 962 n.7 (3d Cir. 1983) (“On a § 1 29 2(b ) ap pe al w e co ns ide r al l gr ound s whic h m ight re qu ire a re ve rsa l of the ord er a

pp eal ed from .”). The issue ha s been fully brie fed and I see no reas on not to conside r it. 77 1 fo r ai din g and

ab ett ing Ni ge ria ’s v iol ati on s o f t he lawof natio ns . In m

y v iew , th is argum en t is 52 2 dis po sit ive

. 3 1) Sta nd

ar d o f re vie w . Whether a complaint as serts a c laim upon which relief may be 4 granted is a question of law. This cour t reviews a di strictcourt’s ruling on a such a que stion de 5 no vo . Se e Ch ap ma n v . N ew Yo rk S tate D iv. for

Yo uth , 546 F.3d 230, 235 (2d Cir. 2008). “To 6 survi ve a m oti on

to d ism iss , a

co m pla int m us t co nta in s uf

fi cie nt f act ua l m att er, acc ep ted

as t rue , 7 to ‘ state a

cla im to r eli ef that is pla us ible o n it

s fa ce .’” Iqbal , 1 29 S. Ct . at 19 49 (em ph asi s 8 added) (quoti ng Be ll A tl. Co rp . v . T wo mb ly , 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “Facial plausibil ity” 9 m ean s th at the pla int if f’ s f act ua l pl ead ing s “a llo w[ ] t

he co urt to d rawthe rea so na

ble inf ere nc e 10 that th e d ef

en dant i s li ab le f

or t he m isc on du ct a lle ge d. ” Id. A c om pla int that pl ead s f

act s th at are 11 “merely consistentwith” a defendant’s liabil ity is notplausible

. Id. 12 Conclusory all egations t hat the defendant vi olated the standards of law do not s atisfy the 13 need for plausibl e factual all egations. Tw om bly , 550 U.S. at 555 (holding tha t “courts are not 14 bound to accept a s true a l egal conclus ion couched as a factual alle gation” (i nternal quot ation 15 m ark s o m itt ed )); see also Kirch v . Liberty Me dia Corp. , 449 F.3d 388, 398 (2d Cir. 2006)06- 4800- cv, 06- 4876- cv

K i obe l v. R oy al D ut ch Pe t ro l eu m

78 1 (“[C]onclusory allegat ions or lega l conclusi ons masquerading as factual conc lusions will not 2 suffice to [defeat] a m otion to dis miss.” (internal quotation marks and cit ation omitted) (s econd 3 altera tion in ori ginal)) . This requir ement applies to plea dings of intent as well as conduct

. Se e 4 Iqbal , 129 S. Ct. at 1954. 5 2) Ina de qu ac y o f th e p lea dings . The Com plaint as serts t hree theor ies of Shell’s l iabili ty. 6 Fi rst , it

all eg es t hat S he ll i tse lf

aid ed an d a be tte d th e g ov ernm en t of Ni ge ria in t he go ve rnm en t’s 7 co mm iss ion

of vario us hum anrig hts vio lat ion s ag ain st t he Og on i. A lte rnativ ely , it ass ert s th at 8 Sh ell is l iab le o n e ith er o f t wo the ori es f

or t he act ion s o f i ts s ub sid iar y S PD C – eithe r as SP DC ’s 9 alter e go, or as SPDC’s principa l on an agency the ory. I addres s each theory in turn. 10 a) Sh ell ’s d ire ct i nv olv em en t as aid

er a nd ab etter . T he Co m

pla int ple ad s in a g en era l 11 m anne r th at S he ll 12 wi llf ull y . . . aid ed

an d a be tte d S PD C and

the Ni ge rian m ili tar

y 13 regime in the jointplan to carry out a deli berate ca mpaign of terror 14 an d intim idatio n throu ghthe us e o f e xtr aju dic ial kil lin gs , to rture, 15 arb itr ary arr est an d d ete nti on , m ili tar

y a ssa ult ag ain st c ivi lians , 16 cruel, inhuman and degrading t reatment, crimes against humanity, 17 forced exile, r estric tions on asse mbly and the confiscation and 18 destruct ion of private and c omm unal propert y, all for the pur pose of 19 pro tec tin g S he ll p rop ert y and enhanc ing SP DC ’s a

bil ityto e xp lor e 20 for and extractoil from areas where Plaint iffs and m embers of the 21 Class resi ded. 22 23 It pleads also in concl usory form that the Nigerian milita ry’s campaign of violence agai nst the 24 Og on i w as “ ins tig ate d, plann ed , f aci lit ate d, co ns pir ed

an d c oo pe rat ed

in” bySh ell . S uc h 25 pleadings ar e merely a conclusory ac cusation of viola tion of a legal s tandard and do notwithstand 26 the testof Tw om bly and Iqb al. Th eyfa il t o “ state a cla im up on wh ich rel ief can be grante d. ”06- 4800- cv, 06- 4876- cv

K i obe l v. R oy al D ut ch Pe t ro l eu m

79 1 Fe d. R. Ci v. P. 12 (b) (6) ; seeTw om bly , 5 50 U. S. at 5 55 ; Ki rch , 449 F.3d at 398. 2 The Com

plaint goes on to assert(1) thatSPDC and Shell m et in Europe i n February 1993 3 and “formulate[d] a strategy to suppre ss MOSOP and to return t o Ogoniland,” (2) t hat “[b]ased on 4 pa st b eh av ior , S he ll and SP DC kn ewthat th e m ean s to be us ed [b y th e N ige rian m ili tar

y] in t hat 5 endeavor would incl ude military viole nce againstOgoni civili ans,” and (3) t hat “Shell a nd 6 SP DC ” p rov ide d d ire ct, phys ica l su pp ort to t he Ni ge rian m ili tar

y and po lic e o pe rat ion s co nd

uc ted 7 ag ain st the Og on i by , f or e xam ple , p rov idi ng trans po rtatio n to the Ni ge rian f orc es; uti liz ing Sh ell 8 pro pe rtyas a

sta gin g area

fo r attac ks ; an d p rov idi ng fo od , c lot hin g, ge ar, an d p ayfo r so ldi ers 9 involved. 10 These allega tions are legally i nsufficient to plea d a valid cl aim of aiding and abetting 11 be cau se t

he y d o n ot s up po rt a

rea so na ble inf ere nc e th at S he ll p rov ide d s ub stanti al a ssi stanc e to 12 the Ni ge rian g ov ernm en t wi th a pu rp os e to ad va nc e o r fa cil ita te the Ni ge rian g ov ernm en t’s 13 vio lat ion s o f t

he hum anrig hts of

the Og on i pe op le. As outli ne d in Ju dg e K atz m ann’s op ini on in 14 Khulumani , 5 04 F. 3d 25 4, an d a do pte d a s th e g rou nd s o f o ur r ece nt d eci sio n in Talisman , 582 15 F.3d 244, “a defendant may be held liable unde r international l aw for aiding and abett ing the 16 violati on of that law by another[only if] the defendant (1) provide s practi cal assi stance to t he 17 principal which has a substa ntial effect on the perpetra tion of the cri me, and (2) does so with the 18 pu rp os e of

fa cil itatin g th e co mm iss ion of that cr im e. ” Id. at 258 (emphasis added) ( quoting 19 Khulumani , 504 F.3d at 277). 20 Th e al leg ati on that re pre sentat ive s o f S he ll and its Ni ge rian s ub sid iar

y m et i n E uro pe “to 21 fo rm

ulate a str ate gyto s up pre ss M OS OP an d to ret urn to O go nil an d” im

pli es n eithe r an

int en t to06- 4800- cv, 06- 4876- cv

K i obe l v. R oy al D ut ch Pe t ro l eu m

I no te the all eg ati on

of the Co m pla int that “S PD C M an ag ing Di rec tor Ph ili p B . W att s, 53 wi th t he ap pro va l of

Sh ell , re qu est ed

the Ni ge rian P oli ce I ns pe cto r G en era l to inc rea se S PD C’ s sec uri ty .

. . to d ete r an d q ue ll c om m un itydis tur

banc es. ” E ve n a ssum ing thi s al leg ati on su ff ice s to allege action for which Shell would be responsibl e, a requestfor increased s ecurity a nd a qu ell ing of

dis tur banc es i s n ot a

req ue st f or h um anrig hts vio lat ion s, su chas t ort ure , arbi trary arrest , crimes against humanity, or extr ajudicia l killi ng. 80 1 vio lat e hum anrig hts no r th e p rov isi on of su bs tantia l as sis tan ce i n hum anrig hts ab us es. Ne ith er 2 of the all eg ed

go als – to “su

pp res s MO SO P” and

“re tur n to Og on iland ” –

im pli es t hat hum an 3 rig hts ab us es w ou ld b e invo lve d in car ryi ng the m

out. T he ad dit ion al a lle gatio n th at S he ll 4 “knew” the Nigeri an military would use “militar y violence aga inst Ogoni civi lians” as part of the 5 ef fo rt t o s up pre ss M OS OP als o d oe s n ot s up po rt an in fe ren ce t hat S he ll inten de d

fo r su ch 6 vio len ce t o o ccu

r. As Talisman m ad e cl ear , p roo f t hat a p riv ate de fe nd an t kn ewof the loc al 53 7 go ve rnm en t’s int en t to vio lat e th e law o f n ati on s is no t su ff ici en t to su

pp ort aid er and ab ett er 8 liabil ity. Talisman , 582 F.3d at 259. 9 Th e f

urt he r al leg ati on s o f p rov idi ng phys ica l su pp ort to t he op eratio ns of

the Ni ge rian 10 military and polic e, including t ransporta tion, use of SPDC property for stayi ng, food, clothing, 11 gear, and pay for soldi ers fail for the s ame reasons as those which compelled the award of 12 judgment to the defendant in Talisman. In Talisman , the evidence showed that Tali sman Energy, 13 an oil devel oper with opera tions in Sudan, had i mproved roads and air str ips used by the 14 Sudanese military to s tage att acks on civil ians, paid r oyalties to the Sudanese gove rnment, and 15 provided fuel for military ai rcraft thatpartici pated in bombing missions. Talisman , 5 82 F. 3d at 16 261-62. We ruled that the sui t could not be maintaine d because the e vidence failed t o show a 17 pu rp os e of

fa cil itatin g th e S ud an ese go ve rnm en t’s hum an rig hts ab us es. Th e p lai nti ff s’ e vid en ce06- 4800- cv, 06- 4876- cv

K i obe l v. R oy al D ut ch Pe t ro l eu m

81 1 showed that the oi l company provided assist ance to the Sudane se government in order t o receive 2 sec uri ty r eq

uir ed fo r th e d ef

en dant’ s o il e xp lor ati on , and wa s su ff ici en t to sh owthe ass ist an ce 3 was provided with knowledge that th e S ud an ese go ve rnm en t w ou ld u se t he de fe nd an t’s ass ist an ce 4 in the inflic tion of human rights abuses. The evide nce, however, was insufficientto support t he 5 inf ere nc e o f a pu rp os e on the defendant’s pa rt to facil itate human rights a buses. Id. 6 Si m ilarly , in thi s ca se, Sh ell is a lle ge d to have pro vid ed fi nanc ial su

pp ort an d o the r 7 assista nce to the Niger ian forces with knowledge that they would e ngage in human rights abuses. 8 But th e C om

pla int fa ils to a lle ge fa cts (at

lea st s uf fi cie ntl y to sat isf

y th e Iqb al standard) showing 9 a purpose to adva nce or facili tate human rights abuse s. The provision of assi stance to t he 10 Nigerian militar y with knowledge that th e N ige rian m ili tar y w ou ld e ng ag e in

hum anrig hts ab us es 11 do es n ot s up po rt an in fe ren ce o f a purpo se o n S he ll’ s p art

to a dv an ce o r f

aci lit ate hum anrig hts 12 ab us es. An

en ter pri se e ng ag ed

in f inanc e m aywe ll p rov ide fi nanc ing to a go ve rnm en t, i n o rde r to 13 earn profits de rived from interest payments, with the knowledge that t he government’s operati ons 14 involve inflic tion of human rights abuses. Possess ion of such knowledge would not supportthe 15 inf

ere nc e th at the fi nanc ier

act ed wi th a purpo se t o a dv an ce t

he hum anrig hts ab us es. Li ke wi se, 16 an entity e ngaged in petr oleum exploration and ext raction may well provide financing and 17 assista nce to the l ocal government in orderto obtain pr otection ne eded for the petr oleum 18 operations with knowledge thatthe government acts abusi vely in provi ding the prot ection. 19 Knowledge of the government’s repeate d pattern of abuses and expectat ion that t hey will be 20 repeated, however , is not the s ame as a purpose to advance orfacilitat e such abuses, and t he 21 difference is signi ficant for this i nquiry.06- 4800- cv, 06- 4876- cv

K i obe l v. R oy al D ut ch Pe t ro l eu m

Th ere is an a dd iti on al r eas on why th e C om

pla int fa ils to s tat e a c lai m

on wh ich rel ief 54 ag ain st S he ll m aybe grante d: t he ple ad ing s d o n ot s up po rt a pla us ibl e in fe ren ce t

hat Sh ell , the parent holdi ng companies, themselves rendered ass istance t o the Nigeria n government. To the contrary, t he Com

plaint al leges thatthe Shell ent ities a re holding companies based i n England an d th e N eth erl an ds , and

that th eyop erate i n N ige ria on ly “ thr ou gh ” su

bs idi ari es, sp eci fi cal ly SP DC . In

lig ht o f t he se c on cre te a lle gatio ns reg ard ing co rpo rat e f orm , th e co nc lus ory all eg ati on s th at S he ll w as c om pli cit in i ts s ub sid iar

y S PD C’ s re nd iti on

of aid to t he Ni ge rian government does not meet the plausibi lity thr eshold of Iqbal . On the assumption that the Com plaint ade quately ple ads actions of SPDC sufficient to const itute ac tionable a iding and abetting of Nigeri a’s human rights abuses, t he mere addition of the name of a European holding company to the allegati on does not plausi bly plead the holding company’s involvement. 82 1 In s um , th e p lea din gs do no t as ser t f act s whic h s up po rt a

pla us ibl e as ser

tio n th at S he ll 2 ren de red

ass ist an ce t o th e N ige rian m ili tar y and po lic e f or t he purpo se o f f

aci lit ati ng hum anrig hts 3 ab us es, as o pp os ed to r en de rin g s uc h a ssi stanc e for thepu rp os e of

ob tai nin g p rot ect ion

fo r it s 4 pe tro leum

op eratio ns wi th awaren ess that N ige rian f orc es w ou ld a ct a

bu siv ely . In

cir cum stanc es 5 where an enter

prise re quires prot ection in or der to be abl e to carry out its oper ations, it s provision 6 of ass ist an ce t o th e lo cal go ve rnm en t in ord er t o o bta in t

he pro tec tio n, ev enwi th k no wl ed ge that 7 the local government will go beyond provisi on of legitimate protect ion and will ac t abusivel y, 8 do es n ot w ith out m ore su pp ort the inf ere nc e o f a

purpo se t o a dv an ce o r f

aci lit ate the hum anrig hts 9 ab us es and

the ref ore do es n ot j us tif

y th e im po sit ion of lia bil ityfo r ai din g and

ab ett ing tho se 10 ab us es. 5406- 4800- cv, 06- 4876- cv

K i obe l v. R oy al D ut ch Pe t ro l eu m

Because we are deal ing with the Engli sh and Dutch parent s of a Nigerian corpor ation, a 55 full conflict of laws anal ysis may reveal thatcomm on law vicari ous liabil ity standa rds are not applicabl e. As both parti es have argued t heir posit ions on the basi s of the comm on law, however, I employ the blackle tter common law f ormulations descri bed below for purposes of determining whether Plai ntiffs have adequatel y stated a c laim with respect t o vicarious liabil ity. In anyev en t, t

he Dutch lawof ve il p ier cin g is sim ilar to co mm on lawalt er e go do ctr ine , in that it req uir es a sh ow ing that th e co rpo rat e f orm ha s b een dis reg ard ed

or a bu sed to avo id a

leg al obligati on. Se e Nicola M.C.P. Jägers & Marie- José van der Heij den, Co rp orateHu ma n R igh ts Violations: The Feasibili ty of Civil Recourse in the Netherlands , 33 Brook. J. Int’l L. 833, 841- 42 & nn. 28, 30 (2008). Likewis e, under English l aw (which is subst antiall y similar to the l aw of Nigeria), a court will hold a parentcorporati on liable when t he subsidiar y is so tota lly under t he control of the par ent that i t cannot be sa id to be carrying on its own business or when the su bs idi ary is a m ere sh am

or f aca de

. See Creasey v. Breachwood Mot ors, Ltd. , [1993] BC LC 48 0, [1 99 2] BC C 6 38 (Q .B .); Jones v. Lipman , [ 19 62 ] 1 W .L .R . 8 32 , 8 35 (C h. ) (E ng .).

83 1 b) V

icarious l iabilit

y of shell for the act

s of SPDC. In a dd iti on

to a sse rti ng Sh ell ’s 55 2 lia bil ityfo r it s o wn

act s o f a idi ng an d a

be tti ng in h

um anrig hts vio lat ion s, the Co m pla int ass ert s 3 that Shell is liabl e for the acts of it s subsidiar y SPDC, either as an alt er ego or as a principal for 4 the acts of it s agent becaus e Shell “dominated and contr olled SPDC.” “It is a general pr inciple of 5 co rpo rat e law d eep ly i ng rai ne d in our ec on om ic and

leg al s ys tem s th at a

parent co rpo rat ion

. . . is 6 no t li ab le f

or t he act s o f i ts s ub sid iar ies .” United States v. Bestfoods , 524 U.S. 51, 61 (1998). 7 Ho we ve r, t

his pri nc ipl e o f c orp orate s ep araten ess m aybe dis reg ard ed wh ena su

bs idi ary act s as 8 an agent of its par ent. See Kingston Dry Dock Co. v. Lake Champlain Transp. Co. , 31 F.2d 265, 9 267 (2d Cir. 1929) (L. Hand, J.)

. The Restatement (Second) of Agency § 1 defines agency a s “the 10 fi du ciary r elatio ns hip wh ich res ult s f rom the m an if

est ati on of co ns en t by

on e p ers on

to ano the r 11 that th e o the r sh all act on his be ha lf

an d s ub jec t to his co ntr ol, an d c on sent by the oth er s o to act .” 12 A principal i s liable for the acts of an agentacting withi n the scope of the agenc y. Se e Me yer v.06- 4800- cv, 06- 4876- cv

K i obe l v. R oy al D ut ch Pe t ro l eu m

84 1 Ho lle

y , 5 37 U. S. 28 0, 28 5 (2 00 3); Ka rb ian v. Co lum bia Un ive rsi ty , 1 4 F .3 d 7 73 , 7 80 (2d Ci r. 2 19 94 ); Restatement (Second) of Agency § 219. A principa l may also be liable for t he 3 unauthorize d acts of its age nt if, for example, the agent’s conduc t is aide d by the exist ence of the 4 agency rela tionship, Rest atement (Second) of Agency § 216 cmt. a, or the princi pal rati fies the 5 agent’s ac ts, Ph ela n v . L oc al 3 05 of U nited As s’n of J

ou rn eym en , 9 73 F. 2d

10 50 , 1 06 2 (2 d C ir. 6 19 92 ). 7 A parent corpor ation may also be held li able for the act s of its subsidi ary when the 8 su bs idi ary is m ere ly an a lte r eg o o f t he parent. A lte r eg o li ab ili ty e xis ts whe n a parent or owne r 9 us es t

he co rpo rat e f

orm “to ach iev e f

rau d, or whe n th e co rpo rat ion ha s b een so do m inated

byan 10 ind ivi du al o r an oth er c orp oratio n (u su all y a parent co rpo rat ion ), and

its sep arate i de nti ty s o 11 dis reg ard ed , th at i t pr im ari ly t ran sac ted the do m inator ’s b us ine ss r ath er than it s o wn .” Ga rtn er v . 12 Sn

yd er , 6 07 F. 2d

58 2, 58 6 (2 d C ir. 19 79 ) (i nte rpr eti ng Ne w Y ork law ). I n d eci din g whe the r to 13 pierce t he corporat e veil, “cour ts look to a va riety of factors, i ncluding the i ntermingling of 14 corporate and [shareholder] funds, undercapi taliza tion of the corpor ation, failur e to observe 15 co rpo rat e f

orm ali tie s su chas t

he m ainten an ce o f s ep arate b oo ks an d re co rds , f ail ure to p ay 16 dividends, ins olvency at t he time of a transaction, s iphoning off of funds by the dom inant 17 sh are ho lde r, and

the ina cti vit

y o f o the r of

fi cer s an d d ire cto rs. ” Br idgeston e/F iresto ne, In c. v. 18 Re co ver

y C red it S erv s. , In c. , 98 F.3d 13, 18 (2d Cir. 1996). 19 Th e C om pla int all eg es t hat, “ [s ]i nc e o pe rat ion s b eg anin N ige ria in 1 95 8, Sh ell ha s 20 do m inated

an d c ontro lle d S PD C. ” T his co nc lus ory all eg ati on

do es n ot s ati sf

y th e Iqbal 21 requirement to plea d facts that pl ausibly suppor t an inference t hat would justi fy disregard of the06- 4800- cv, 06- 4876- cv

K i obe l v. R oy al D ut ch Pe t ro l eu m

Pl aintif fs cit e to anop ini on

of the Un ite d S tat es D ist

ric t C ourt f

or t he No rth ern

Di str ict 56 of Illinois for t he principl e that agenc y is a questi on that must survive a motion to dismiss. Se e Cu mi s In s. So c. , In c. v. Pe ter

s , 983 F. Supp. 787, 796 (N.D. Ill. 1997). Plaint iffs’ reliance on that case is misplaced. In Cu mi s , the distr ict courtnoted that, “ [w]hile the existence and extent of the ag en cyrel ati on sh ip i s a q ue sti on of fa ct, the pla int if

f m us t su ff ici en tlyall eg e th at an ag en cyrel ati on sh ip e xis ted in o rde r f

or h is c om

pla int to s urv ive a R

ule 12 (b) (6) m oti on

to dis m iss .” Id. There, the cour t found that the exi stence of an agency r elations hip between the plainti ff and the defendant was sufficiently plea ded where the complaint al leged thatthe plaint iff had made an agreement with the defendant, a coll ection agenc y, that the de fendant would pursue claims on the plaint iff’s behalf. Id. No com parable agr eement is alleged i n this case

. 85 1 co rpo rat e f

orm or a fi nd ing of

anag en cyrel ati on sh ip. Th e f urt he r al leg ati on s d esc rib ed

ab ov e – 2 that Shell and SPDC representati ves met in Europe after November 1992 to discuss st rategie s for 3 su pp res sin g M OS OP an d th at S PD C d id c ert ain act s w iththe ap pro va l of Sh ell – are l ike wi se 4 ins uf

fi cie nt. 5 Or din ari ly, su bs idi ary co rpo rat ion s ar e n ot d eem ed to b e th e ag en ts o f t

he ir c orp orate 6 parents. Se e K

ing sto n D ry D oc k , 3 1 F .2 d at 26 7 (“ Co ntr ol t hro ug h th e o wn ers hip of

sh are s d oe s 7 no t f

us e th e co rpo rat ion s, ev enwh enthe dir ect ors are co mm on to e ach .” ). T he Co m

pla int do es 8 not even plead t hat Shell and SPDC had an agree ment establishing an a gency relat ionship. Cf

. 9 Cleve lan d v . C

ap law En ter s. , 4 48 F. 3d

51 8, 52 3 (2 d C ir. 20 06 ) (f ind ing a p lea din g o f c orp orate 10 ag en cyad eq

uate whe re the co m

pla int inc orp orat ed

byref ere nc e an ag en cyag ree m en t). No r do es 11 it plead fact s showing that t hey conducted the ir operat ions in an agenc y relati onship. The 56 12 all eg ati on s th at S he ll a pp rov ed cer tai n c on du ct und ert ak enbySP DC do es n ot s ho w an a ge nc y 13 relati onship. 14 Si m ilarly , a cla im su ff ici en t to “o ve rco m e th e p res um pti on of sep araten ess af

fo rde d to 15 rel ate d c orp oratio ns ,” DeJes us v. Se ar s, Ro eb uc k & C

o. , In c. , 87 F.3d 65, 70 (2d Cir. 1996)06- 4800- cv, 06- 4876- cv

K i obe l v. R oy al D ut ch Pe t ro l eu m

86 1 (internal quotati on marks om itted) , is not est ablished by t he bare all egation tha t one corpora tion 2 dominated and controlle d another. No facts al leged in the Com plaint pl ausibly suppor t the 3 inf

ere nc e th at S PD C w as a

m ere ins trum en t of

its co rpo rat e p are nts . T he re i s n o a lle gatio n th at 4 SP DC wa s und erc ap ita liz ed , f ail ed to m aintai n c orp orate f

orm ali tie s, or t

hat it s o ff ice rs c ed ed 5 control t o Shell, from which we m ight infer domination. See Bridgestone /Firestone , 9 8 F .3 d at 6 18 . T he m ere all eg ati on that “S he ll and

SP DC ” en ga ge d in

cer tai n c on du ct d oe s n ot p lau sib ly 7 plead speci fic facts which would justi fy treating SPDC as the al ter ego of Shell. 8 Accordingly, on the facts allege d, the Complaint fails to plea d a basis for a cl aim of 9 agency or alt er ego lia bility. 10 CO NC LU SI ON 11 Fo r th e f

ore go ing rea so ns , I a gre e w iththe m ajo rity th at a ll o f t he cla im s p lea de d a ga ins t 12 the Ap pe llants m us t be dis m iss ed . I c anno t, h ow ev er, joi n th e m ajo rity’s cre ati on of an 13 un

pre ced en ted

co nc ep t of

int ern ati on al l awthat ex em pts jur idi cal pe rso ns fr om co m pli an ce w ith 14 its rul es. The majority’s rul e conflicts wit h two centurie s of federal precedenton the ATS dating 15 fr om

17 95 , and

de als a b low

to t he ef fo rts of int ern ati on al l awto p rot ect hum anrig hts

.