Comment, Pirates, Incorporated?: Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co. and the Uncertain State of Corporate Liability for Human Rights Violations Under the Alien Tort Statute

In Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., the Second Circuit ruled that the Alien Tort Statute (ATS) could not hold corporations liable for human rights violations committed abroad, contradicting other circuit court holdings and creating litigation uncertainty. The ATS permits foreigners to sue in federal court for torts violating the law of nations or U.S. treaties. Since 1980, it has provided accountability for international human rights abuses committed by multinational corporations. However, courts divide sharply on whether ATS permits corporate liability for extraterritorial human rights violations. Karnes analyzes Kiobel's implications and the Supreme Court's subsequent reconsideration, examining whether ATS applies extraterritorially. She surveys circuit court disagreement: the Second Circuit (Kiobel), Seventh Circuit (Flomo v. Firestone Natural Rubber Co.), and Ninth Circuit (Sarei v. Rio Tinto, PLC) held ATS permits corporate liability, while other circuits restricted it. The Supreme Court heard Kiobel in October 2011 and ordered reargument on the broader extraterritoriality question. Karnes argues that Congress should clarify ATS's scope regarding corporate liability for human rights violations, as current judicial uncertainty undermines accountability mechanisms for multinational companies engaged in substandard human rights practices.

Topics: International Law · Civil Rights

Keywords: Alien Tort Statute · corporate liability · human rights · Kiobel · extraterritorial application · multinational corporations