Kiobel and what it means to U.S. Corporations

Based on the developments in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum, it is likely that the Supreme Court’s decision in the case may end up turning on the threshold issue of whether US courts are the proper vehicle in which to air extraterritorial grievances.  If this turns out to be the case, the fate of other ATS claims against corporations, particularly those with a US connection, remains unclear.

For example, Du v. Cisco – currently pending in the US District Court in Maryland (11-1538-PJM) – involves allegations by former and current citizens of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) that Cisco was involved in supporting torture and unlawful detention by the Chinese Communist Party based on speech against its government.  Notably, unlike Kiobel, the alleged human rights abuses at issue in Du have a direct connection to the US, in that Cisco, an American corporation, and its technologies are argued to have directly enabled the human rights abuses.

Unlike the murkier “foreign-cubed” scenario at issue in Kiobel, involving Nigerian nationals suing a Dutch company for acts that occurred in Nigeria, the line starts to become clearer in this circumstance.  That is, when US corporations knowingly decide and act to support oppressive and abusive regimes, they must be held accountable when those decisions result in torture and other grave human rights violations.  Further, US corporations in particular must not profit, but instead must be deterred, from such decisions.  Accordingly, in cases where a US connection is clear, the US and its courts should be a leader in upholding the rule of law relating to these blatant abuses of power.

Although the Court seemed skeptical of corporate liability in Kiobel last week, several of them were also uneasy declaring that corporations are not liable for any international law violations—especially those involving piracy and slavery.  Counsel for Royal Dutch Petroleum even admitted that individual corporate directors could be liable under the ATS.  It is, therefore, unlikely, that the Supreme Court’s decision, when it is ultimately issued, will end the Du case—a case against an American corporation and its directors.

If you have any information regarding Cisco’s ongoing support for the Chinese Communist Party’s continued oppression of its citizens, please do not hesitate to contact Daniel Ward.  Any such communications will be kept confidential.

Let Cisco Systems know that their continued and knowing support of the Chinese Communist Party’s efforts to violate the human rights of peaceful political dissidents like Du Daobin, Zhou Yuanzhi, and Liu Xianbin will no longer be tolerated.  Contact your elected representatives — let them know how you feel.  Finally, if you haven’t already done so, sign the Electronic Frontier Foundation’s petition – Tell Cisco: Stop helping China abuse human rights!.

Please visit the Ward & Ward Blog’s new home at, where you can find a recap of the Supreme Court Oral Argument in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum and all future posts.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

One Response to “Kiobel and what it means to U.S. Corporations”

  1. Will Kiobel Grant the Privilege to Commit Human Rights Violations? | Ward & Ward PLLC Says:

    […] a foreign company acting in a foreign land against foreign plaintiffs – commonly referred to as a “foreign cubed” situation. The Solicitor General, in an Amicus brief, indicated that while the foreign cubed […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,028 other followers

%d bloggers like this: