In 2001, eleven Indonesian villagers sued ExxonMobil in U.S. courts, alleging that the company had contracted with abusive Indonesian forces to provide security for its natural gas project in Aceh, and that they had committed numerous abuses against the local population. In 2007, four more victims filed suit. Last year, however, a federal court in Washington, D.C., dismissed both suits, and the plaintiffs have appealed.
On September 13, ERI submitted an amicus brief to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, supporting the Indonesian villagers' claims. ERI's brief addresses two key issues that are important for the future of transnational litigation as a vehicle for obtaining justice for victims of human rights abuses. First, ERI's brief argues that claims brought by the victims under state law, including D.C. law, should not be dismissed due to supposed interference with U.S. foreign policy. (ERI submitted similar briefs on this issue in Mujica v. Occidental Petroleum, von Saher v. Norton Simon Art Museum, and Movsesian v. Victoria Versicherung.) There is no barrier for a court to hear a case alleging assault and wrongful death, whether the abuses occurred in Washington, D.C., or in Indonesia, and ordinary tort claims typically do not implicate serious foreign policy concerns.
Second, ERI's brief addresses the question of liability for aiding and abetting abuses under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS), a law that allows victims to bring cases for violations of international human rights law. The district court in the ExxonMobil cases dismissed claims brought under the ATS, finding that those who aid and abet human rights abuses could not be held liable. ERI's brief argues that established federal law doctrines, including aiding and abetting liability, apply in ATS cases. Anyone who knowingly provides substantial assistance to the perpetrator of a human rights abuser should be equally responsible for the abuse. ERI has filed similar briefs in several cases, most recently in our brief asking the Supreme Court to review the decision in Presbyterian Church of Sudan v. Talisman Energy, a case involving complicity in crimes against humanity in Sudan.
The ExxonMobil case is a significant and closely-watched lawsuit, and several other groups also submitted amicus briefs. Two groups of scholars submitted briefs, arguing that there is no barrier to foreigners seeking justice in U.S. courts, and that the plaintiffs' claims are well-established under international law. Finally, the University of Minnesota Human Rights Clinic also submitted a brief, arguing that corporations can also be sued under the Torture Victim Protection Act, which allows suits for torture and extrajudicial killings.
