A U.S. District Court judge ruled today that a lawsuit may proceed against a Canadian oil company for its alleged involvement in the Sudanese genocide. Both the U.S. and Canada have pushed to have the suit dismissed, but the judge refused, saying that any potential chilling effect of Canadian and American business in Sudan did not outweigh the allegations that Talisman Energy Inc. aided in ethnic cleansing, rape, enslavement, and war crimes.
Talisman and the Sudanese government collaborated on a plan for the security of oil fields, according to the suit, with Talisman hiring its own advisers to coordinate military strategy with the government. Talisman mapped out areas intended for exploration and discussed how to dispose of civilians in those areas, according to the suit.
The ruling allowing the suit to proceed came Tuesday after U.S. District Judge Denise Cote reviewed a diplomatic letter from the Canadian Embassy calling the case an "infringement in the conduct of foreign relations by the government of Canada" that would have a "chilling effect" on Canadian firms in the Sudan.
The judge said Canada had indicated that once Sudan peacefully resolved its internal disputes and Canadian trade support services resumed, Canadian companies would avoid joining Sudan's economic revitalization "out of fear of U.S. courts."
[...]
The lawsuit, which seeks unspecified damages, was brought in 2001 by the Presbyterian Church of Sudan on behalf of current and former residents of southern Sudan.
The American federal court has jurisdiction over this matter because of the Alien Tort Claims Act, which allows foreign victims of human rights abuses to bring suit against the perpetrators in U.S. courts.
The ATCA was written in 1789, one of the first laws of the new American republic. The text of the law reads, in its entirety: The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action by an alien for a tort [personal injury] only, committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States.
So the ATCA grants U.S. courts jurisdiction in any dispute where it is alleged that the law of nations, or international laws, are broken. This is significant because it gives foreigners the right to seek compensation for violations of international law in U.S. courts.
The original intent of the law was probably to persuade European countries that the new United States would not become a haven for pirates. But in the modern age, its equally important that the United States not be a haven for human rights abusers.
There was no human rights movement in 1789, and there was no international human rights law. However, by 1979 torture was a violation of the law of nations. So, the father and sister of Joel Filartiga, a seventeen-year-old who had been tortured to death in Paraguay, used the act against Joels torturer, who was living in Brooklyn at the time.
In the Filartiga case, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals decided that the Alien Tort Claims Act allows victims to sue in U.S. courts for serious violations of international human rights law.
Joels family members never collected a dime of the $10 million damages they won in the Second Circuit. But they won the satisfaction of seeing justice done, of knowing that the crimes of Joels torturer had entered into the public record.
The plaintiff church in the present case alleges that Talisman "knowingly assisted Sudan in perpetrating a campaign of genocide and crimes against humanity, not that Talisman merely transacted business in and with Sudan." In other words, this is not just a fringe suit brought by middle-class liberals looking to take down evil Western oil companies. The situation is Sudan is appalling and heartbreaking. This lawsuit could bring a lot more atrocity to light, and perhaps it may finally capture Western interest in the genocide.
Just a small piece of proof that corporations world wide, regardless of origin are doing really scummy things in with other countries, with both their home and a local government right in on the act. I hope that this court doesn't back down to The Canadian and American governments "concerns" and charges thease purportrators like any other criminal. If corporations want and get protection under the law like citizens. Then they should be punished when convicted like citizens. When they've committed a crime against humanity for sheer profit.
Note that in the long form of the article the U.S. Department Of Justice shares Canada's concerns. even though trade relations are at an all time low between Canada and America. It used to be, before globalization took hold. That trade disaggeements where fought out with all avialible means in hoping to leverage another countries original dispute. However, oil companies are pretty much owned internationally even if their base is in a particular country. Which by now should suprise no one.
This little article is like peaking behind the curtain and realizing that International first world nations, in cahoots with corporations are a rule of law unto themselves. Which might explain why people in third world countries detest F.W. creations like the WTO, NAFTA, etc. And why we a citizens of those countries should be appalled at how other people around the world are treated by our respective government Oligarqies.
Just a small piece of proof that corporations world wide, regardless of origin are doing really scummy things in with other countries, with both their home and a local government right in on the act. I hope that this court doesn't back down to The Canadian and American governments "concerns" and charges thease purportrators like any other criminal. If corporations want and get protection under the law like citizens. Then they should be punished when convicted like citizens. When they've committed a crime against humanity for sheer profit.
Note that in the long form of the article the U.S. Department Of Justice shares Canada's concerns. even though trade relations are at an all time low between Canada and America. It used to be, before globalization took hold. That trade disaggeements where fought out with all avialible means in hoping to leverage another countries original dispute. However, oil companies are pretty much owned internationally even if their base is in a particular country. Which by now should suprise no one.
This little article is like peaking behind the curtain and realizing that International first world nations, in cahoots with corporations are a rule of law unto themselves. Which might explain why people in third world countries detest F.W. creations like the WTO, NAFTA, etc. And why we a citizens of those countries should be appalled at how other people around the world are treated by our respective government Oligarqies.
Because they are going to be tried in AMERICA. Come on, since when has the guilty actually been punished here? Especially an oil company. I saw the outcome as soon as I read that the US has jurisdiction.
misstyrios
NEWSWIRE
Allston, MA
AUG 31, 2005 12:53 PM