ERI has filed two amicus briefs in the appeal of Sarei v. Rio Tinto PLC, a case arising out of the Rio Tinto mining company's operations on the island of Bougainville, in Papua New Guinea (PNG). The plaintiffs allege that Rio Tinto abetted the PNG military forces in committing various abuses against local indigenous groups, including Alien Tort Statute (ATS) violations such as crimes against humanity, racial discrimination, and pollution in violation of the law of the sea. The case was originally dismissed by the district court under the "political question" doctrine, which precludes courts from hearing disputes that should be dealt with by Congress or the President (the "political branches"). Read more »
On October 5, 2009, ERI filed an amicus brief in Von Saher v. Norton Simon Art Museum, a case in which the daughter-in-law of a Dutch art dealer sued a California art museum for restitution of two Renaissance masterpieces that were stolen by German occupying forces during the Second World War and eventually found their way into the museum's collections. Ms. von Saher sued under California's section 354.3, a law that revived restitution claims for Nazi-looted art that would have been prohibited by the statute of limitations. A three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit invalidated Section 354.3, reasoning that the state statute interfered with the federal government's constitutional powers to manage foreign affairs and resolve wars. The plaintiff filed a petition for rehearing to the Ninth Circuit, and ERI's brief supported that petition. Read more »
On September 21, 1999, EarthRights International filed an amicus brief on behalf of human rights organizations in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in the case Movsesian v. Read more »
On behalf of several human rights organizations, EarthRights International filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in the Romero v. Drummond Company case. The case involves allegations that Drummond, a U.S.-based coal mining company, conspired with paramilitaries to assassinate members of a trade union at Drummond's mine in Colombia. The brief deals with the question of "state action," which is an important issue in human rights litigation because some abuses only violate international law if they were committed with the involvement of governmental officials. The brief explains that private parties (such as paramilitaries or corporations) can be considered state actors in a variety of circumstances involving cooperation with state officials.
Amicus brief arguing that executions pursuant to the Military Tribunal constituted extrajudicial killings, as do killings by government forces without any judicial process.
Los Angeles-based Occidental Petroleum (Oxy) has been one of the biggest oil producers in Latin America, and it is currently involved in oil production in Colombian, among other places. On December 13, 1998, the Colombian military bombed the village of Santo Domingo, guided by an airplane provided by Oxy and piloted by its security contractor. According to the plaintiffs, Oxy instigated the raid in a meeting with the military at its own offices. The bombing killed seventeen people, including three family members of Luis Galvis Mujica, who brought a lawsuit under the Alien Tort Statute against Oxy in California for its role in the bombings.
In 2005, the district court dismissed the case. The court found that the Alien Tort Statute claims were "political questions" that should not be considered by the court system, and that the state-law claims were precluded because they interfered with the federal government's foreign affairs powers. EarthRights International filed an amicus brief with the court of appeals to challenge the court's unprecedented view that any state-law claims that might have an effect on foreign policy were automatically preempted by the federal government's role in foreign affairs.
From 1998 until 2003, the Canadian oil company Talisman Energy was a major operator in the oilfields of southern Sudan, which was then in a long-running civil conflict. As part of that conflict, Sudanese government forces and their allies committed well-documented human rights abuses, bombing and strafing villages with gunships, and engaging in raids on civilian populations perceived to be sympathetic to rebel militias. According to this lawsuit, as part of an effort to secure the oilfields and continue its production, Talisman assisting the Sudanese government forces in their illegal operations, including providing airstrips for government bombers and other forms of support. Talisman is accused of aiding and abetting crimes against humanity, among other things.
In 2006, the district court dismissed the case, partly because of its conclusion that Talisman was insulated from liability by its corporate structure. It rejected the plaintiffs' arguments that Talisman could be held liable on theories of parent-subsidiary liability, agency liability, and joint venture liability. One of the problems with the decision, however, is that it relied on a variety of different sources of law--including the law of New York, the United Kingdom, Canada, the Sudan, and even Mauritius, where one of the corporate subsidiaries was incorporated--to determine Talisman's liability. In this brief, EarthRights International argues that uniform standards should apply to determine liability for violations of international law under the Alien Tort Statute. Read more »
These cases were filed by residents of the Ecuadorian and Peruvian Amazon who were harmed by toxic pollution from Texaco's oil operations. Read more »
The plaintiffs in this case are Ecuadorian villagers harmed by the spraying of toxic herbicides by DynCorp, a contractor for the U.S. government's anti-narcotics program in Colombia. Read more »
