Ox
09-17-2010, 11:06 PM
I know several people on these boards have expressed hostility toward the concept of "corporate personhood": the legal doctrine by which corporations and corporate-like entities are treated similarly to individuals for certain purposes. While corporate personhood is a very common and controversial aspect of American law, it is not a universal principle. Some think we should take a lessons from our betters and abolish, or at least restrict, corporate personhood.
Well, it turns out the courts have listened. The Second Circuit (the federal appellate court covering New York, Connecticut, and Vermont) just decided (http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/3b6c7a2e-4d70-4306-973e-d0ed3eff5b40/1/doc/06-4800-cv_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/3b6c7a2e-4d70-4306-973e-d0ed3eff5b40/1/hilite/) a case under the Alien Torts Statute, a law that permits foreigners to sue Americans in American courts for violating the "law of nations." A funny quirk of the ATS is that it applies international law, not American law. American law says that corporations are people and can be sued; but international law does not:
"[I]nternational law has steadfastly rejected the notion of corporate liability for international crimes, and no international tribunal has ever held a corporation liable for a violation of the law of nations... violations of human rights can be charged against States and against individual men and women but not against juridical persons such as corporations.
But there's a twist: the ATS only allows you to sue if the person you're suing violated the law of nations. Since international law doesn't hold corporations responsible, this specific American law doesn't apply to them, either. As a result, several oil corporations who allegedly did some very nasty stuff in Nigeria are going to get away with it.
So, let's see: we've got greedy and rapacious oil companies, American courts applying foreign law, corporate personhood, judicial activism, Nuremburg and the Bush Administration's rejection of international tribunals, a fiery concurrence-that's-really-a-dissent, crimes against humanity, and frequent references to the Presbyterian Church. I think this case is capable of outraging everyone simultaneously. I kind of want to send the judges love letters.
I've linked to the opinion above, but fair warning: like most opinions dealing with international law, it's long and confusing. There's a good summary at the beginning that's about 12 pages or so; it should give you a good sense of the outlines of the case. I'll also link two legal blogs noting the decision here (http://opiniojuris.org/2010/09/17/goodbye-to-ats-litigation-second-circuit-rejects-corporate-liability-for-violations-of-customary-international-law/) and here (http://volokh.com/2010/09/17/further-thoughts-on-todays-second-circuit-ats-decision-on-corporate-liability/). Of course, now that I've said this is interesting, this thread will be met with a massive, "meh."
Well, it turns out the courts have listened. The Second Circuit (the federal appellate court covering New York, Connecticut, and Vermont) just decided (http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/3b6c7a2e-4d70-4306-973e-d0ed3eff5b40/1/doc/06-4800-cv_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/3b6c7a2e-4d70-4306-973e-d0ed3eff5b40/1/hilite/) a case under the Alien Torts Statute, a law that permits foreigners to sue Americans in American courts for violating the "law of nations." A funny quirk of the ATS is that it applies international law, not American law. American law says that corporations are people and can be sued; but international law does not:
"[I]nternational law has steadfastly rejected the notion of corporate liability for international crimes, and no international tribunal has ever held a corporation liable for a violation of the law of nations... violations of human rights can be charged against States and against individual men and women but not against juridical persons such as corporations.
But there's a twist: the ATS only allows you to sue if the person you're suing violated the law of nations. Since international law doesn't hold corporations responsible, this specific American law doesn't apply to them, either. As a result, several oil corporations who allegedly did some very nasty stuff in Nigeria are going to get away with it.
So, let's see: we've got greedy and rapacious oil companies, American courts applying foreign law, corporate personhood, judicial activism, Nuremburg and the Bush Administration's rejection of international tribunals, a fiery concurrence-that's-really-a-dissent, crimes against humanity, and frequent references to the Presbyterian Church. I think this case is capable of outraging everyone simultaneously. I kind of want to send the judges love letters.
I've linked to the opinion above, but fair warning: like most opinions dealing with international law, it's long and confusing. There's a good summary at the beginning that's about 12 pages or so; it should give you a good sense of the outlines of the case. I'll also link two legal blogs noting the decision here (http://opiniojuris.org/2010/09/17/goodbye-to-ats-litigation-second-circuit-rejects-corporate-liability-for-violations-of-customary-international-law/) and here (http://volokh.com/2010/09/17/further-thoughts-on-todays-second-circuit-ats-decision-on-corporate-liability/). Of course, now that I've said this is interesting, this thread will be met with a massive, "meh."