2002年，奥戈尼族生存运动组织(MOSOP)成员、奥戈尼族活动人士巴瑞南∙基奥贝勒博士(Dr. Barinem Kiobel)的妻子埃丝特∙基奥贝勒(Esther Kiobel)及其他十一位来自奥戈尼地区的尼日利亚人共同向美国联邦法院提起了对荷兰皇家壳牌公司的诉讼。MOSOP对奥戈尼地区石油开采过程中所造成的环境破坏展开抗议活动，并且主张奥戈尼族享有更多的自治权。1994年，巴瑞南∙基奥贝勒及其他MOSOP成员遭到军方的非法隔离监禁，之后，军政府成立的特别法庭在违反国际公平审判标准的程序下将他们以谋杀罪名处决。该诉讼称，壳牌通过其下属企业——尼日利亚壳牌石油开发公司（SPDC）为尼日利亚军队提供交通便利，允许军方将公司产业作为打击奥戈尼族的军事战备区，并且为士兵提供食品和军饷。原告称，被告公司合谋参与了施虐、非法处决、以及其他有违《外国人侵权索赔法》(ATCA)的行为。
2008年3月，州地方法院批准了被告的请求，以不具备属人管辖权(Personal Jurisdiction)为由驳回了原告的起诉。2009年11月16日，原告提出再议申请，要求法院就司法管辖权问题重新进行调查。这一请求获得了批准。法庭在提案中表示，该案适用《外国人侵权索赔法》的条件是美国与SPDC之间必须存在直接业务联系。2010年6月21日，地区法院作出判决，认为原告方未能证明存在这一直接业务联系。因此，法官驳回了针对SPDC的诉讼请求。原告对这一判决提起上诉。2010年9月17日，上诉法庭就企业被告是否适用ATCA给出最终意见。大部分意见支持下级法院做出的驳回起诉的决定。此外，法庭还认为，ATCA不适用于控告企业违反国际法的情况。 然而，上诉法院合议庭第三位法官却单独撰写了一份意见书，虽同意多数法官做出的裁决，但同时也强烈反对他们就这一裁决给出的理由。 他写道，多数法官的意见给“国际法及国际法保护基本人权的宗旨带来了严重打击。”2010年10月14日，原告方提交复议申请，请求全院庭审对案件进行复议。2011年2月4日，上诉法庭拒绝对案件进行复议。2011年6月原告向最高法院提起申诉，要求最高法院审理下级法庭作出的上诉裁决 。2011年10月17日，最高法院宣布将审理原告的上诉，并于2012年2月28日举行了口头辩论。3月5日最高法庭宣布本次开庭期内将不会对案件做出裁决。法庭要求原被告双方提交补充材料，并且将在下次开庭期间审理该案件 。法庭要求双方就联邦法院是否有权根据《外国人侵权索赔法》对发生在美国境外的涉嫌违反国际法的案件进行审理提交说明材料。2012年10月1日，法庭复审了该案件。2013年4月17日，最高法院下发判决，认为《外国人侵权索赔法》并不适用于美国境外发生的行为，并维持了驳回起诉的裁决。此页列出了所有与最高法院复议本案相关的文件。
- "Companies Shielded as U.S. Court Cuts Human-Rights Suits", Greg Stohr, Bloomberg, 17 Apr 2013
- "Views on Kiobel v. Shell", Salil Tripathi, Institute for Human Rights and Business, 9 Oct 2012
- "Alien torts in America's courts", Editorial, Los Angeles Times, 8 Oct 2012
- "Shell, Corporate Responsibility and Respect for the Law", Amol Mehra & Katie Shay, International Corporate Accountability Roundtable, 3 Oct 2012
- "Argument recap: In search of an [Alien Tort Statute] compromise", Lyle Denniston, SCOTUSblog, 1 Oct 2012
- "Supreme Court may narrow law in human rights cases", Jonathan Stempel, Reuters, 1 Oct 2012
- "The U.S. Supreme Court must preserve the Alien Tort Statute for international corporate human rights cases", Marco Simons, EarthRights International, 13 Jun 2012
- "Torture Suits Against Companies Including Shell Draw U.S. High Court Review", Greg Stohr, Bloomberg, 17 Oct 2011
- "US court upholds key Shell ruling in Nigeria case", Jonathan Stempel, Reuters, 4 Feb 2011
- [PDF] Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Corp. y los litigios transnacionales sobre derechos humanos, Francisco Javier Zamora Cabot, julio 2011
- "2nd Circuit Rejects Corporate Liability in Alien Tort Cases", Mark Hamblett, New York Law Journal, 20 Sep 2010
- “Nigeria Torture Case Decision Exempts Companies From U.S. Alien Tort Law”, Bob Van Voris & Patricia Hurtado, Bloomberg, 17 Sep 2010
- “Judge Kimba Wood Dismisses Defendant from Aliant Tort Statute Class Action for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction”, Russell Jackson, Jackson on Consumer Class Actions & Mass Torts, 25 Jun 2010
Esther Kiobel, et al. v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Company et al.
- [PDF] Opinion of US Supreme Court, 17 Apr 2013
- Petitioners/plaintiffs (Kiobel) - Supplemental Reply Brief, 31 Aug 2012
- Respondents/defendants (Shell) - Supplemental Brief, 1 Aug 2012
- [PDF] Supplemental brief for petitioners/plaintiffs (Kiobel), 6 Jun 2012
- [PDF] Kiobel, et al. v. Royal Dutch Petroleum - Brief for Respondents, 27 Jan 2012
- [PDF] Kiobel, et al. v. Royal Dutch Petroleum - Brief for Petitioners, 14 Dec 2011
- [PDF] Kiobel, et al. v. Royal Dutch Petroleum - Petition for Writ of Certiorari, 6 Jun 2011
- US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit: [PDF] Kiobel, et al. v. Royal Dutch Petroleum, et al., 4 Feb 2011 [order denying plaintiffs' petition for rehearing]
- [PDF] Petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc for Plaintiffs-Appellants-Cross-Appellees, 14 Oct 2010
- US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit: [PDF] Order affirming District Court’s dismissal of lawsuit, 17 Sep 2010
- US District Court for the Southern District of New York: [PDF] Opinion and Order [regarding 2008 motion to dismiss], 21 Jun 2010
- Opinion and Order re Plainitffs' motion for reconsideration, 16 Nov 2009
- Opinion and Order, 25 Jun 2009
- [PDF] Kiobel, et al. v. Royal Dutch Shell Petroleum Co., et al. - Brief for the United States as amicus curiae supporting petitioners, 21 Dec 2011
- [PDF] Kiobel, et al. v. Royal Dutch Shell Petroleum Co., et al. - Brief of Former US Senator Arlen Specter, Human Rights First, and the Anti-Defamation League as amici curiae in support of petitioners, 21 Dec 2011
- [PDF] Kiobel, et al. v. Royal Dutch Shell Petroleum Co., et al. - Brief of Earth Rights Intl. as amicus curiae supporting petitioners, 21 Dec 2011
在基奥贝勒诉讼案之前，1996年，肯∙维瓦(Ken Wiwa)（在1995年与巴瑞恩∙基奥贝勒一起被处决的已故奥戈尼族活动人士肯∙萨罗-维瓦之子）与其他MOSOP成员也曾就相关案由提起诉讼。维瓦诉讼案的被告公司与基奥贝勒案相同。该案诉称，为了镇压MOSOP组织的活动，尼日利亚军政府和安全部队折磨和杀戮该组织的成员，犯下了违背人权的罪行，而荷兰皇家壳牌公司则合谋参与了这些侵犯行为。原告方赢了多项预审裁决 ，包括法庭否决了被告方提出驳回起诉的申请。
2009年6月初，原被告双方宣布达成1550万美元的和解协议。根据和解协议，十名原告将获得补偿，被告也将替原告支付一部分诉讼费用。此外，还将设立 Kiisi 基金，旨在造福奥戈尼族，由独立董事管理。基金将为奥戈尼族的教育、妇女项目、成人扫盲、小型企业等提供资金支持。
- “Shell settles human rights suit for $15.5M”, Chris Kahn, Associated Press, 8 Jun 2009
- [video] Shell in court over alleged Nigeria crimes, Al Jazeera English, 3 Jun 2009
- "Juicio contra la petrolera Shell por la muerte del poeta nigeriano Saro-Wiwa", Sandro Pozzi, el País, 27 mayo 2009
- "Shell must defend Nigerian rights suit, judge says", David Glovin, Bloomberg, 23 Apr 2009
- “Shell Faces Human Rights Grilling”, Tim Webb, Independent [UK], 11 Apr 2004
- “Big Oil and an Activist's Death: Family Sues to Probe Role Played by Shell in Nigerian's Execution”, Elizabeth Neuffer, Boston Globe, 03 Jun 2001
- [PDF] Statement of the Plaintiffs in Wiwa v. Royal Dutch/Shell, Wiwa v. Anderson, and Wiwa v. SPDC, Lucky Doobee, Monday Gbokoo, David Kiobel, Karalolo Kogbara, Blessing Kpuinen, James N-nah, Friday Nuate, Ken Saro-Wiwa, Jr., Michael Vizor, Owens Wiwa, 8 Jun 2009
- [PDF] Statement of Plaintiffs' Attorneys in Wiwa v. Royal Dutch/Shell, Wiwa v. Anderson, and Wiwa v. SPDC, 8 Jun 2009
- EarthRights International (NGO representing plaintiffs): Wiwa v. Royal Dutch Petroleum (Shell) [includes links to court opinions and plaintiffs’ complaints filed in this case]
- Center for Constitutional Rights (NGO representing plaintiffs):
- Wiwa v. Royal Dutch Petroleum [synopsis]
- [PDF] On Eve of Trial, Settlement Agreements Provide $15.5 Million for Compensation to Nigerian Human Rights Activists and to Establish Trust Fund, 8 Jun 2009
- The Case Against Shell [joint project of EarthRights International and Center for Constitutional Rights]: Wiwa v. Shell
- US Circuit Court for the Second Circuit:
- [PDF] Wiwa v. Shell, 14 Sep 2000 [reversal of lower court’s dismissal of the case]
- US District Court for the Southern District of New York:
- [PDF] Wiwa v Shell – Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release, 8 Jun 2009
- [PDF] Wiwa v. Shell - Denial of Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, 23 Apr 2009
- [PDF] Wiwa v. Shell – Dismissal of RICO claims against defendants, 18 Mar 2009
作者: John M. Eubanks, Motley Rice LLC (Petitioners’ Counsel in Jesner v. Arab Bank)
Imagine a situation where an international bank with a presence in Manhattan holds accounts for known terrorists and serves as the end-payor to beneficiaries of a fund created for the explicit purpose of supporting an armed uprising typified by suicide bombings and indiscriminate killing of civilians carried out by known terrorist organizations with whom the bank’s accountholders are directly affiliated. Then, picture this international bank being immune from lawsuits filed by the victims of these suicide bombings and indiscriminate killings solely on the basis of its corporate form. This is precisely the issue with which the Supreme Court will grapple in Jesner v. Arab Bank, to be argued before the Court on October 11, 2017.
Jesner addresses the same question that was raised in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co. during the October Term 2011. That question is whether the Alien Tort Statute (ATS), creates a categorical bar to corporate liability for violations of the law of nations, or customary international law…
…The language of the ATS does not explicitly exempt corporations. In fact, the text of the statute…specifically lays out who can sue (“an alien”), but it provides no limitation for who can be sued.
…[W]here a corporation engages in conduct that it knows will facilitate violations of the law of nations such as terrorism, crimes against humanity, or even genocide, can that corporation be held liable under the ATS to the victims of those violations? The answer is a simple “yes” based on the statutory text and common law’s interpretation of tort liability, and it is up to the Supreme Court to make this determination.
作者: John F. Sherman III, Shift, on Clarion
[Article starts p. 12]
…[I]n Jesner, the petitioners, who are victims of terrorist bombings and attacks, are suing the respondent Arab Bank, a multinational corporation based in Jordan, under the ATS. A jury found that the bank had knowingly used its New York branch as a clearinghouse to facilitate the financing of such actions…
The District Court ultimately overturned the verdict and dismissed the claim on the ground that corporations are not subject to suit under the ATS. The Second Circuit affirmed…
…[T]he Guiding Principles remain highly relevant in Jesner. First, their background and content show that international law does not preclude corporate responsibility for violations of human rights. Second, their widespread uptake helps to show that the existence of potential ATS liability benefits businesses abroad much more than it burdens them…
作者: William Dodge, University of California, on Just Security
On October 11, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Jesner v. Arab Bank, PLC on the question whether corporations can be sued for human rights violations under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS). This will be the second time the question of corporate liability has come before the Court. In 2011, the Supreme Court granted cert to consider the same question in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., but after oral argument the Court asked for additional briefing on the geographic scope of the ATS cause of action. Ultimately, the Supreme Court affirmed dismissal of the claims in Kiobel on the ground that they did not “touch and concern” the United States with sufficient force to displace the presumption against extraterritoriality. The Court did not reach the question of corporate liability under the ATS, leaving the Second Circuit’s categorical rule against such liability intact...
The arguments in Jesner fall into three groups:
1) whether customary international law permits corporate liability;
2) whether, as a matter of U.S. domestic law, the ATS cause of action should be interpreted to permit corporate liability;
3) whether the case against Arab Bank should be dismissed on some other ground...
作者: Amnesty International France
“États-Unis. Le cabinet d'avocats de Shell refuse de transmettre des éléments essentiels dans l'affaire des « neuf Ogonis »”; 10 septembre 2017
Le cabinet d'avocats américain de Shell refuse de remettre plus de 100 000 documents internes essentiels à une procédure judiciaire intentée aux Pays-Bas, dans laquelle le géant pétrolier est accusé de complicité dans l'arrestation, la détention et l'exécution illégales de neuf hommes au Nigeria dans les années 1990…
Au terme d'une bataille de 20 années pour obtenir justice, le 28 juin, quatre des veuves de ces hommes, emmenées par Esther Kiobel, ont intenté une action en justice contre Shell aux Pays-Bas. Shell tente d'empêcher la transmission d'informations cruciales dans cette affaire.
Le 12 septembre, la cour fédérale d'appel du deuxième circuit à New York examinera le premier appel déposé par Cravath, Swaine & Moore, LLP, le cabinet d’avocats de Shell, contre l'injonction d’une cour fédérale de remettre les documents.
« Shell se donne beaucoup de mal pour ne pas divulguer ces informations essentielles. Les documents en question étant très anciens, il est peu probable qu'il existe des motifs commerciaux légitimes pour les garder confidentiels. Alors, qu’est-ce que Shell cherche à cacher ?, a déclaré Audrey Gaughran, directrice générale chargée des recherches à Amnesty International.
Le 24 janvier 2017, une cour fédérale de district de New York a ordonné à Cravath de lui remettre les documents…
作者: Miriam Rozen, American Lawyer
Amnesty International has zeroed in on Cravath, Swaine & Moore, claiming in a Sept. 8 release that the New York firm is refusing to hand over "critical" evidence in long-running litigation against the oil giant Royal Dutch Shell…
Kiobel is now looking to the Dutch courts. And for that, she wants documents—in the possession of Shell's former lawyers at Cravath—related to her unsuccessful case in the United States.
In January, U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein of the Southern District of New York in Manhattan ordered Cravath to give Kiobel the requested documents, which previously had been placed under protective order…
Cravath challenged Hellerstein's ruling, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit is scheduled to hear the appeal on Sept. 12…
"Suing a U.S. law firm should not be a back door to secure documents from foreign clients, who are outside of U.S. jurisdictional boundaries," Haslam [who is Shell’s spokesperson] wrote in an email…
Backing Cravath in friend of the court briefs are the New York City Bar Association, the National Association of Manufacturers, the Association of Corporate Counsel, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce…
The Chamber of Commerce, Association of Corporate Counsel and National Association of Manufacturers…argue that the ruling harms the U.S. discovery regime. "The clear message of the district court's decision is not only that protective orders are not protective, but also that a litigant who places faith in a protective order may suffer for its misplaced reliance decades later. By allowing such ready—and calamitous—circumvention, the district court's decision will undermine confidence in the protective orders that are the lifeblood of discovery."
Not surprisingly, Kiobel's lawyer, Marco Simons of the nonprofit EarthRights International, disagrees.
"None of this material is privileged. The only materials at issue were previously produced in discovery," Simons said…
作者: Cletus Ukpong, Premium Times (Nigeria)
The civil suit filed against Shell in the Netherlands for its alleged complicity in the killing of Ken Saro-Wiwa and eight other Ogoni activists by the Nigerian government has taken an interesting turn, as lawyers to the oil giant are being accused of refusing to hand over evidence said to be critical to the case.
The nine men, popularly referred to as ‘Ogoni Nine’ were executed in 1995 by Nigeria’s military regime under controversial circumstances.
The widows of four of the men, led by Esther Kiobel, are the plaintiffs in the case which was first filed in 2001 in the U.S.
The U.S. Supreme Court in 2013, without hearing the substance of the case, had ruled that the U.S. did not have jurisdiction.
The widows filed the lawsuit in the Netherlands on June 28...
mnesty International directly accused Shell of trying to prevent the release of vital information.
Shell’s lawyers, according to the NGO, have appealed against the judgment of a U.S. federal court which ordered Shell to turn over the documents...
Shell has denied complicity in the killing of the Ogoni Nine...
作者: Amnesty International USA
Shell’s US law firm is refusing to hand over more than 100,000 internal documents crucial to a legal case in the Netherlands which is alleging the oil giant’s complicity in the unlawful arrest, detention and execution of nine men in Nigeria in the 1990s...
After a 20-year battle for justice, on June 28, four of the men’s widows, led by Esther Kiobel, filed a legal writ against Shell in the Netherlands. Shell is trying to prevent the release of information vital to the case.
On September 12, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York will hear the first appeal by Shell’s lawyers Cravath, Swaine & Moore, LLP against a federal court order to turn over the documents.
“Shell has gone to extraordinary lengths to withhold this critical information. Because the documents in question are so old, it is highly unlikely that there are legitimate business reasons for keeping them confidential. So what does Shell have to hide?” said Audrey Gaughran, Senior Director of Research at Amnesty International...
On January 24, 2017, a New York district court ordered Cravath to turn over the documents.
作者: Rebecca Ratcliffe, The Guardian (UK)
"Ogoni widows file civil writ accusing Shell of complicity in Nigeria killings", 29 June 2017
The widows of men who were hanged by Nigeria’s military government in the 1990s have launched a civil case against Shell, accusing it of complicity in their husbands’ executions. Esther Kiobel, the widow of Dr Barinem Kiobel, and three other women whose husbands were hanged in 1995, served a writ in a Dutch court this week, following a 20-year battle with the oil giant. Kiobel’s husband was executed along with the writer and human rights activist Ken Saro-Wiwa, and seven other men, who became collectively known as the Ogoni nine. They were hanged in a military court following a peaceful uprising by 300,000 Ogonis against Shell’s widespread pollution in Ogoniland...Amnesty International, which has supported Kiobel’s legal team, has accused Shell of complicity in the state executions. Shell has branded the allegations “false and without merit”...In a briefing published on Thursday, Amnesty alleges that Shell encouraged security forces and military authorities to stop the protests, even though the company knew this would lead to human rights violations....In a statement, Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria Limited said: “We have always denied, in the strongest possible terms, the allegations made by the plaintiffs in this tragic case...“SPDC has not had an opportunity to review the full report produced by Amnesty International but, based on a summary of its findings made available to us, the Amnesty allegations against Royal Dutch Shell and SPDC are false and without merit...
作者: Amnesty International
Oil giant Shell stands accused of complicity in the unlawful arrest, detention and execution of nine men who were hanged by Nigeria’s military government in the 1990s…following the launch of an explosive new case against the company in the Netherlands over four of the executions.
The civil case has been brought by Esther Kiobel… and three other women….Esther Kiobel [also] accuses Shell of… the violation of [her executed husband’s] personal integrity; the violation of his right to a fair trial and his right to life, and her own right to a family life…
The claimants are demanding damages for harm caused by Shell’s unlawful actions, and a public apology for the role that Shell played…
Shell Nigeria stated that: “The allegations cited in your letter against [Shell] are false and without merit. [Shell Nigeria] did not collude with the military authorities to supress community unrest and in no way encouraged or advocated any act of violence in Nigeria….We have always denied these allegations in the strongest possible terms.”…
Esther Kiobel first filed a case against Shell in New York in 2002, but in 2013 the US Supreme Court ruled that the US did not have jurisdiction, without hearing the substance of the case
In the 1990s Shell in Nigeria was a wholly owned subsidiary of Royal Dutch/Shell (they later merged), and its operations were overseen by a management structure known as the Committee of Managing Directors (CMD) based in Europe.
作者: Oladeinde Olawoyin, Premium Times (Nigeria)
The widows of four of nine men executed by Nigeria's military regime in 1995 have filed a civil lawsuit seeking compensation and an apology from Royal Dutch Shell…
According to a writ filed in a court in The Hague, the widows are seeking compensation from the company for alleged complicity in a military crackdown, leading to the deaths of their husbands…
But Shell, the largest oil producer in Nigeria, has repeatedly denied any involvement in the executions or the government's response to the unrest.
A statement by the multinational said....
"SPDC (Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria) did not collude with the authorities to suppress community unrest and in no way encouraged or advocated any act of violence in Nigeria. In fact, the company believes that dialogue is the best way to resolve disputes."…
"Shell and the military regime formed an alliance in the events leading to the deaths of the Ogoni 9," the writ [filed by the claimants] said.
"Their relationship was one of mutual dependence: the Nigerian state was dependent on the income from oil that Shell generated; in turn, Shell was dependent on the benevolence and protection of the regime to pursue its activities in Nigeria and in this way realise a substantial part of its turnover."...