-
Motion for a New Trial denied by California District Court. Appeal Planned.
For the past four years, lawyers working on behalf of Burmese victims of human rights violations have sought to hold the American petroleum corporation Unocal accountable in a landmark lawsuit, John Doe I, et al. v. Unocal Corp., et al.
On August 31, the presiding judge found that Unocal did in fact know of and benefit from atrocities committed by Burma's army in connection with the building of the Yadana gas pipeline, a joint venture project in which Unocal was involved. The judge also ruled, however, that Unocal cannot be held liable and dismissed the case. People unfamiliar with the US judicial system may be surprised by this perplexing circumstance.
Thus it is important to be clear about what this decision means and what it does not mean.
First, what the decision means. In his opinion the judge completely validates the plaintiffs' factual allegations. Unocal can no longer deny that egregious abuses occurred on its project. Indeed, the judge observed, "[t]he violence perpetrated against Plaintiffs is well documented . . . and need not be recited in detail[.]"
In addition, the judge noted that the plaintiffs had presented evidence "demonstrating . . . that the [pipeline] project hired the military to provide security for the project, a military that forced villagers to work and entire villages to relocate for the benefit of the project; that the military, while forcing villagers to work and relocate, committed numerous acts of violence; and that Unocal knew or should have known that the military did commit, was committing, and would continue to commit these tortious acts." Further, he wrote, "the evidence does suggest that Unocal knew that forced labour was being used and that [Unocal and Total, another joint venture partner in the Yadana project] benefited from the practice[.]"
Such an acknowledgement is a major victory for the plaintiffs. In an interview following the decision, Unocal's spokesperson claimed that the company did not dispute its knowledge of the human rights violations. This statement is at odds with previous public relations efforts. Unocal has long denied that there is any evidence to support this suit.
Recent documentation of these atrocities -- murder, rape, torture, forced labour and relocation -- came in May of this year when EarthRights International released the most comprehensive report to date on the subject.
Now, what the decision does not mean. It doesn't mean that the case is over. The plaintiffs' lawyers are appealing the decision, a process that will take at least a year. But given the unprecedented nature of this lawsuit, it was always likely that it would go to an appeals court.
Nor does this decision mean that Unocal never can or will be found liable. The appeals court will review the legal standards the residing judge used in dismissing the case. Only if the appeals court determines that there is no way whatsoever for the plaintiffs to make their legal claims will it agree with the presiding judge. That is a very favourable position from the plaintiffs' standpoint, and plaintiffs' lawyers are confident that the appeals court will reverse the judge's decision and allow the case to go to trial.
That is as it should be. Beyond the legal issues involved, Doe v. Unocal is an early test case for determining the boundaries of corporate responsibility in the age of globalization.
Proponents of globalisation tout the many benefits of an increasingly integrated global economy; rarely are we given a picture of globalisation's downside, its flesh-and-blood victims. How the US court system ultimately handles the case is no less a moral than legal question.
Jed Greer works with EarthRights International (ERI). ERI is co-counsel in Doe v. Unocal.
