>From: "Nathan Newman" <nathan at newman.org>
>Reply-To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
>To: <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com>
>Subject: Re: Supremes let Shell lawsuit proceed
>Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2001 13:17:53 -0500
>
>Actually, I think the case is better than that. There is an active
>strategy
>to use the 18th century Alien Torts Act to challenge human rights
>violations
>by US-based corporations in developing countries. For the Court to allow
>this case to go forward is a weakening of restrictive definitions of
>jurisdiction that often require the case to go to the country where the
>harm
>occurred.
>
>Of course, such developing nations have no economic capability to extract
>significant damages under threat of capital strike or just claims that
>there
>are no assets available in the local subsidiary, so to kick the case to
>such
>venues is to essentially allow them to die.
>
>Corporations are the political creatures of developed nations and it is
>appropriate for them to discipline them under international law. That does
>not prevent developing nations from disciplining them to the extent they
>can, but that should be in addition to the responsibility of the states who
>legally construct them and raise their capital under limited liability laws
>and then let them loose on the world.
>
>-- Nathan Newman
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Justin Schwartz" <jkschw at hotmail.com>
>To: <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com>
>Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2001 11:36 AM
>Subject: Re: Supremes let Shell lawsuit proceed
>
>
>Right. The Supremes haven't repealed the normally restrictive law of
>extraterritorial jurisdiction, or the sovereign immunity of foreign states.
>I haven't read the case yet; I will do so and report what it actually
>holds,
>as far as I can tell. --jks
>
>
> >
> >
> >On Tue, 27 Mar 2001, Wojtek Sokolowski wrote:
> >
> > > This decision clears the way for the US courts becoming defacto world
> > > courts - which is essentially a bad thing. Next time we will hear a
> >case
> > > against Cuba brought by some right wing Florida schmuck.
> >
> >I don't think this case lays that sort of precedent. I think the grounds
> >for letting the case go forward against Shell's protest that the courts
> >had no jursidction was that Shell had a big enough corporate footprint
> >here to make this count as a legitimate jurisdiction. I don't think that
> >argument would hold against Cuba or any similarly anathematized state.
> >
> >Michael
> >
> >__________________________________________________________________________
> >Michael Pollak................New York
>City..............mpollak at panix.com
> >
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
>
>
>
_________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com