Feb 12, 2021 | Cases, News
Today, the ICJ and The Corporate Responsibility (CORE) Coalition UK, welcomed the judgment of the UK Supreme Court in the case Okpabi et al. v Royal Dutch Shell plc et al as a major step forward for those seeking access to justice for corporate abuses in the Niger Delta and around the world.
The Supreme Court judgment allows the case to proceed in the UK courts, reversing earlier decisions by the Court of Appeal and the High Court, and reaffirming the precedent established in its own previous decision in Lungowe et al v Vedanta resources (2019).
Carlos Lopez, Senior Legal Advisor at the ICJ, said:
“The emphasis of the Supreme Court on the relevance of evidence from internal company documents is of utmost importance for the proper assessment of whether the parent company intervened, advised or controlled the relevant activities of its subsidiary that caused harm, including notably human rights abuses and environmental destruction.
“This should have an impact on future similar proceedings before courts in the UK and elsewhere.”
Mark Dearn, Director of CORE, said:
“This landmark ruling is a vital step towards justice for some 50,000 claimants from the Ogale and Bille communities. It sends a clear message to multinational corporations like Shell – you have a duty of care and you will be held to account for human rights abuses and environmental damage caused by subsidiaries you control.
“Shell brazenly claimed in court that the oil spills were due to ‘uniquely Nigerian problems’. But the unique problem long faced by communities in this region is Shell’s impunity, as it has repeatedly tried to dodge accountability for its catastrophic destruction of the environment and people’s livelihoods.”
“It’s now crucial that governments step up to the plate to create new corporate accountability laws so that businesses know exactly what is expected of them.”
In Vedanta, the Court affirmed that a parent company that sufficiently intervenes, controls or advises the relevant operations of its subsidiary may bear liability for the breach of its duty of care towards the people affected by those operations.
Okpabi and other nearly 50,000 claimants in total – sued Royal Dutch Shell (RDS -the UK based parent company) and its Nigerian subsidiary Shell Petroleum Development Corporation (SPDC) for their alleged involvement in the leakage of oil pipelines which destroyed their farming land, wiped out fish stocks and poisoned drinking water in the Niger Delta, Nigeria.
In 2018 the Court of Appeal dismissed the claimants’ case, but the claimants appealed to the Supreme Court. The ICJ and the CORE Coalition intervened before the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court has allowed the claim to proceed, focusing on whether the claim had a real prospect of success and the high relevance of the internal company documents for a proper assessment.
Find the judgment here.
Notes to Editors:
- This case was first launched in 2015 in the UK High Court. For a timeline of the case’s passage through the UK court system, see here.
- The ICJ and CORE Coalition submitted a legal brief to the Supreme Court setting out the applicability of comparative law and standards regarding companies’ responsibilities in relation to human rights and environmental protection. These standards showed that Royal Dutch Shell PLC (Shell) could have duty of care in relation to the communities affected by its Nigerian subsidiary’s activities.
- In 2018 the Court of Appeal dismissed the claimants’ case, ruling that Shell did not exercise sufficient control over its subsidiary SPDC for Shell possibly to hold a duty of care towards those affected by the oil spills.
- The Supreme Court judgment reverses that judgment, cautioning against dismissing such claims in “mini-trials” without proper access to all relevant facts and evidence that are in great part in the power of the company. The judgment clarifies the evidential threshold needed for the courts to hear such cases in the UK: “The resolution of the jurisdictional challenge depended upon whether the appellants’ claim satisfied the summary judgment test of real prospect of success.” (para 127 ref. Vedanta at para 45)
- In another section the Court also corrected the Court of Appeal’s view that the promulgation by a parent company of group wide policies or standards can never in itself give rise to a duty of care, saying: “that is inconsistent with Vedanta. Group guidelines … may be shown to contain systemic errors which, when implemented as of course by a particular subsidiary, then cause harm to third parties.” (para 143)
- In Lungowe v Vedanta Resources plc, which CORE and the ICJ similarly filed a joint intervention, the Supreme Court ruled that a duty of care was owed by the UK parent company, Vedanta. A settlement was subsequently reached. As the Supreme Court notes, this ruling was “very relevant to both the procedural and the substantive issues raised on this [Okpabi v Shell] appeal”.
Mar 22, 2019 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
The ICJ has joined with ten other leading human rights organisations to highlight the key outcomes of the 40th regular session of the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva, at its conclusion on 22 March 2019.
The joint NGO statement, delivered at the end of the session, reads as follows:
“We welcome the positive step the Council has taken in the direction to effectively protect environmental human rights defenders (EHRDs) from the grave reality they face every day. By adopting the resolution by consensus, the Council has collectively and explicitly recognized the vital role of EHRDS, including in attaining the SDGs sustainable development goals and ensuring that no-one is left behind, and called for their protection. We also welcome the call on States to provide a safe and empowering context for initiatives organised by young people and children to defend human rights relating to the environment. We, however, regret that the resolution does not squarely address the obligations of international financial institutions and investors.
We welcome South Africa’s leadership to put on the Council’s agenda emerging human rights issues, in bringing attention to the multiple and intersecting forms of discrimination that women and girls face in the field of sports, especially on the basis of race and gender.
The Council has ensured its continued attention to grave rights violations across the globe.
While we welcome the extension of Council attention on Sri Lanka for another two years, a concrete, transparent, and time-bound action plan is urgently needed to implement its commitments under resolution 30/1 in collaboration with OHCHR. Given the lack of progress and political will to implement these commitments, in the absence of immediate progress, the Council should consider additional measures or mechanisms for ensuring victims’ rights to truth, justice and reparations. Individual States need not wait to exercise universal jurisdiction.
We welcome the resolution on Myanmar and its strong focus on ending impunity and ensuring accountability, and we call for the swift operationalisation of the Independent Investigative Mechanism (IIM). We welcome steps taken to review the UN’s involvement in Myanmar. We urge the UN Secretary-General to ensure that it is independent and transparent, and present the findings and recommendations at the Council’s 43rd session.
We welcome the renewal of the mandate of the Commission on Human Rights in South Sudan, a vital mechanism for human rights reporting and evidence gathering. It sends the right message to the government and all parties to the conflict: There can be no lasting peace without justice.
The Council continued this session to initiate action on country situations based on objective criteria through resolutions and joint statements.
By adopting a resolution on Nicaragua, the Council sent a signal to victims of the current crisis that the international community will not allow impunity for the serious ongoing violations to prevail. We look forward to robust reporting from the OHCHR and we urge the Nicaraguan government to fully engage with the Office to ensure the victims’ rights to truth, justice and reparation.
The Council sent a strong message of support to human rights defenders in Saudi Arabia through the joint statement by 36 States, led by Iceland, calling for the release of detained women human rights defenders and called on the Saudi government to fully cooperate with the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions in her investigation into the killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi. We urge the Saudi authorities to respond fully to these calls, and States to follow up with a resolution at the June session to maintain attention to the situation until meaningful progress, including the release of defenders, is made.
LGBT people in Chechnya are being abducted, locked up in secret detention sites, tortured and sometimes killed purely because of their sexual orientation. We welcome the joint statement on Chechnya delivered by more than 30 States and join the call on the Russian authorities for the persecution to stop: for the immediate and unconditional release of all detained for their actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity, and for swift, thorough, and impartial investigations.
We welcome the Cameroon joint statement which advances both Council membership standards and its prevention mandate, and urge the Council to keep the matter under scrutiny.
While we have welcomed the Council’s attention to several situations of gross rights violations, we remain concerned about the lack of consistent and principled leadership by States, in particular by Council members.
We are disappointed that even though the demands of several EU and WEOG States to move the resolution on accountability for crimes committed in the Occupied Palestinian Territories from item 7 to item 2 was met, they still failed to support the resolution. This suggests that no matter the item number, some WEOG members continue in failing to protect the human rights of Palestinians, effectively shielding Israel from accountability.
We regret that States have yet again failed to initiate Council action on the Philippines amidst continued unlawful killings in the government’s so-called war on drugs, and increased targeting of independent media, civil society organisations, and human rights defenders. We reiterate our call on the Council to take action to mandate an independent investigation to establish the facts of human rights violations including extrajudicial executions and attacks against media and civil society, address impunity, and take steps towards justice and reparations for the victims and their families, and hope action will be taken in this regard at the next Council session.
We are deeply disappointed that the resolution adopted on Libya again lacks any meaningful accountability mechanism or mandate, despite the impunity for the widespread and systematic violations of international humanitarian and human rights law that prevail there.
We deplore that despite credible reports of the detention of up to 1 million Uyghurs and other Turkic Muslims in western China, the Council has yet again given a pass to China, permitting impunity for widespread and severe human rights violations. The efforts China has made to keep States silent, exemplified by intimidation and threats on the one hand and whitewashing the situation on the other, demonstrate the degree to which Council action could have had meaningful results if States had instead called clearly and collectively for an independent, unrestricted fact-finding mission.
On the resolution on the rights of the child, we regret the Council’s inability to emphasize the empowerment, autonomy and capacity of children with disabilities, and including to ensure that their sexual and reproductive health and rights must be respected, protected and fulfilled.
We applaud Mexico and other States’ resolve to safeguard the independence of the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights while countering terrorism and to resist any attempts to dilute, distract or distort its essential focus, ensuring that the Rapporteur can continue to have positive impacts both in preventing and responding to human rights violations committed in the name of countering terrorism and in relation to the human rights of victims of terrorism. We urge States to remain vigilant to resist future attempts to undermine the Special Procedures system- the eyes and ears of the Council.
We welcome the Council’s renewal of the mandates of the Special Rapporteur on Iran and the Commission of Inquiry on Syria, so that both can continue to perform their vital work fulfilling their respective mandates and addressing the dire human rights situations in both countries. We urge the Iranian and Syrian authorities to change their posture of noncooperation with the respective mandate .
Several of our organisations have urged the UN High Commissioner to publish the database on businesses in Israeli settlements and were alarmed at its further delay. We urge the High Commissioner to release the database with all due haste.
We welcome the renewal of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief mandate, and the maintenance of consensus on the Council resolution 16/18 framework for addressing religious intolerance . Rising intolerance and hate is a global concern, and States must move beyond rhetoric to action in implementing these standards.
The High Commissioner’s update on Venezuela during this session reflected the dire human rights situation in Venezuela. We urge all States to consider what more the Council can do to address the worsening human rights crisis in the country and to support all victims.
We note the highly disturbing report by the Special Rapporteur on adequate housing concerning grave reprisals by the Egyptian government against those who cooperated with her during her recent visit to the country and urge this Council to take action to address these attacks.
We welcome the passage of the resolution on Georgia and the continued attention devoted to the importance of full and unimpeded access for the Office of the High Commissioner and international and regional human rights mechanisms.”
Signatories:
- Amnesty International
- ARTICLE 19
- Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA)
- DefendDefenders (East and Horn of Africa Human Rights Defenders Project)
- Center for Reproductive Rights
- CIVICUS
- Human Rights House Foundation
- Human Rights Watch
- International Commission of Jurists
- International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH)
- International Service for Human Rights
Sep 19, 2018 | Events, News
The ICJ will host the side event, “Bitter Sugar in Dominican Republic: The Sugar Industry and Human Rights” on Monday, 24 September 2018 from 15:00-16:00, Room XXVII, at the Palais de Nations in Geneva.
Together with tourism, sugar production is one of the major industries and one of the biggest sources of employment in the Dominican Republic.
This small Caribbean State remains one of the world’s top sugar suppliers to the USA.
While sugar production and export in the Dominican Republic is a major source of income for the country, the adverse impacts of its production are various.
Destruction of the environment, reduced access to land for local communities, forced evictions and precarious working conditions in sugarcane plantations are unfortunately a reality in many regions of this Caribbean State.
Whilst the Dominican Republic has shown in past years a preparedness to abide by and implement international standards on matters related to business and human rights, the country continues to face many challenges and evidence of human rights violations on the ground still portrays a complicated reality.
Two recent examples involving the sugar cane industry illustrate ongoing concern about human rights abuses in the Dominican Republic.
In 2016, armed agents of one of the largest sugar producers in the country, Central Romana Corporation, forcibly evicted from their homes more than 60 families during the night.
No alternative accommodation or reparations have been provided to the victims to redress the destruction of their homes and the trauma caused by the violence of the evictions.
In 2017, the Vicini Group, the second main sugar producing company in the country, used the pesticide Glyphosate in such a way that many were in danger of death and that it destroyed the crops of peasant farmers and workers.
To date, the human rights violations in both cases continue to be unpunished.
There is a growing international concern that the sugar cane industry in the Dominican Republic is somehow able to act with impunity when it comes to human rights violations.
Bearing in mind the upcoming Universal Periodic Review of Dominican Republic, in which all UN Member States will examine the human rights situation in the country, this side event is aimed at informing and shedding light on this little known reality in the Dominican Republic as well as to brief State delegations about the importance of addressing this issue in their review of the Dominican Republic.
The event will also provide a space for constructive dialogue among various actors, including the Government of the Dominican Republic.
Panelists:
– Carlos Lopez, Senior Legal Adviser, International Commission of Jurists
– Fr. Damián Calvo Martin OP, Director, Centro de Teología Santo Domingo de Guzman
– María Magdalena Álvarez Gálvez, victim of forced evictions by Central Romana Corp.
Moderator: Rory Gogarty, High Court of England and Wales
Interpretation: Will be provided from English to Spanish and Spanish to English
Dominican Republic Sugar Industry Side Event Flyer 24 Sept. (flyer of the event in pdf)
Jul 24, 2018 | News
For many years, human rights defenders in Izabal have been the victims of persecution because of their opposition to the Phoenix nickel mining project.
This project has been operated by the Guatemalan Nickel Company (CGN), formally owned by Hudbay and now owned by the Solway Group.
“The ICJ expresses its deep concern about the persecution of human rights defenders opposing to nickel mining operations that are causing serious environmental damage and irreparable harm to the Lake of Izabal.
The local communities’ peaceful resistance contrasts with the violent repression that they face,” Ramon Cadena, Director of the Central American Office of the ICJ, said today.
Ramon Cadena added: “the Guatemalan government must urgently put an end to the criminalization and persecution of community leaders, journalists and all human rights defenders in the Department of Izabal.
Internal disciplinary measures should be taken against judges who through their acts contribute to the persecution of persons exercising their legitimate rights and freedoms.
The State should provide reparations for the harm and prejudice caused to human rights defenders by the public authorities. Furthermore, the International Commission against Corruption and Impunity in Guatemala (CICIG) should fully investigate these acts.“
Eduardo Bin Poou, Vice-President of the Izabal Fishers’ Association was recently detained and falsely accused without any evidence that he had committed any crime.
Last year, on 27 May 2017, Carlos Maas Coc, a leader of the Fishers’ Association was assassinated, and another fisherman, Alfredo Maquín Cocul, was wounded and these crimes remain in impunity today.
From 18-20 July, 2018, the ICJ carried out a visit to the Department of Izabal. On 19 July, the ICJ observed the hearing when the case against Jerson Xitumul, a community journalist, was dismissed for lack of evidence of any wrongdoing, at the Court for Criminal, Narcotics and Environmental Offences in Puerto Barrios.
The ICJ then held a meeting with the Izabal Fishers’ Association and on 20 July, the ICJ interviewed the Vice President of the same Association, Eduardo Bin Poou, arbitrarily detained in the Puerto Barrios prison.
The ICJ is deeply concerned by the role that judges in the Department of Izabal have played in the criminalization of human rights defenders.
Judge Edgar Aníbal Arteaga López has often abused his office by imposing exemplary punishments against human rights defenders.
This judge has handed down arbitrary sentences against journalists, fishermen, community leaders, land rights’ defenders and all those opposed to the nickel operations or who defend community rights in the Department.
For example, because of the arbitrary actions of Judge Arteaga, the community leader, Abelardo Chub Caal, remains in detention although there is no evidence that he has committed any crime.
There are other cases including that of Maria Magdalena Cuc Choc, from the Chabilchoch community, who was detained on 17 January 2018 in Puerto Barrios.
The single Judge for Criminal Proceedings, Narcotics and Environmental Offences in Puerto Barrios, Ana Leticia Peña Ayala, despite the evidence, absolved the retired Colonel Mynor Ronaldo Padilla González (former chief of security for the CGN nickel company) of all charges and ordered his immediate liberty.
During the court case, the Judge Peña Ayala prohibited the public and journalists from entering the court room for so-called “security reasons”, so that most of the proceedings were carried out behind closed doors. With this ruling, the assassination of Adolfo Ich remains in impunity and those responsible have not been punished.
In this same case, Germán Chub was left quadriplegic and the circumstances of the attack against him have never been resolved.
In the hearing on 19 July in the case of Jerson Xitumul, without any justification, Judge Arteaga also prohibited the presence of journalists and international and national observers in the court room.
Both judges flagrantly violated the principle of public hearings established in the Guatemalan Penal Code. A formal complaint was submitted to the Auxiliary of the Human Rights Attorney of the Department of Izabal concerning the actions of Judge Arteaga on 19 July.
The ICJ has stated on a number of occasions that the Guatemalan authorities have persecuted human rights defenders by charging them with crimes of land appropriation or aggravated land appropriation.
In this way, the Guatemalan authorities seek to criminalize the legitimate right to resist, enshrined in article 45 of the Guatemalan Constitution, accusing environmental human rights defenders and others of crimes such as incitement to crime, illegal detention, threats, damages, illicit meetings and marches and other acts. In practice, the State is penalizing the legitimate exercise of the rights of expression and association.
May 25, 2017 | News, Op-eds
An opinion editorial by Daniel Aguirre, ICJ Legal Adviser in Myanmar.
Burma’s 2016 Investment Law and the implementing Investment Rules issued in April 2017 create space for the government and civil society to facilitate responsible investment and exclude investors that have track records of environmental destruction and human rights abuses.
This means that affected individuals and communities must now test Burma’s commitment to the rule of law.
There are new opportunities for civil society to use law to hold them accountable. In this regard, both international law and Burma’s constitution guarantee access to justice for rights abuses.
The Investment Rules instruct the Myanmar Investment Commission (MIC) to consider whether investors have demonstrated a commitment to responsible investment. In considering the good character and reputation of the investor, the MIC may study whether the investor or any associate with an interest in the investment broke the law in Burma or any other jurisdiction.
The rules explicitly mention environmental, labor, tax, anti-bribery and corruption or human rights law.
What this means is that if an investor is determined to have committed a crime, has violated environmental protection standards or was involved with human rights abuses, the MIC should not grant it a permit.
If such a company applies for an investment permit, civil society should bring its record to the attention of the MIC and advocate for the rejection of a permit.
Successive governments in Burma have focused on increased investment to develop the country and improve its people’s standard of living.
At the same time, human rights and environment proponents from civil society have opposed many investment projects, citing the impact on the environment and human rights of local communities.
They complain that land rights are not adequately protected, that environmental impact assessments are not implemented and that they lack access to justice for corporate human rights abuses.
There are challenges to using the law to protect human rights in Burma.
Disputes related to business activity are often considered sensitive political matters in which the courts are unable or unwilling to intervene.
They are reluctant to review crucial decisions of administrative bodies or to hold rights abusers accountable.
But community activists, human rights defenders and lawyers have increased opportunities to pressure the courts to apply the law and should do so.
Lawyers have an important role in protecting human rights by representing local communities.
Courts must become a venue to challenge administrative decisions that allow for irresponsible investment that does not comply with national law, and where appropriate, obtain remedies and reparations for victims of human rights violations.
The Investment Law and its rules, which govern both local and foreign investment except within special economic zones, provide legal guarantees for investors to access information and protections against expropriation including compensation and access to due process if changes in regulation affect their business.
Investors can also access long-term rights to use land.
Civil society should help to ensure that only responsible investors benefit from these protections.
According to the law, the MIC is the gatekeeper that issues permits and endorsements for many would-be national and international investments likely to cause a large impact on the environment and local community.
In order to ensure that the protective aspects of the law are effective, courts must have some power of review, at least to ensure that administrative bodies, such as the MIC, are acting reasonably and in accordance with the law, while respecting and protecting human rights.
If the MIC grants permits for companies that do not meet the requirements outlined in the Investment Rules, their decisions must be subject to review by the judiciary.
Burma’s courts have the authority to review administrative decisions, particularly through the application of constitutional writs.
Lawyers can use the writs of mandamus and certiorari to secure the performance of public duties and quash an illegal order already passed by public bodies such as the MIC.
This would help ensure the MIC uses its mandate to prevent irresponsible investment.
Likewise, investors that fail to respect human rights or unlawfully cause damage to the environment must be held accountable; but there are few options to do so in Burma.
Criminal prosecutions against companies, actions imposing administrative sanctions, and civil suits face a variety of procedural hurdles, particularly if involving joint ventures with state run enterprises.
For example, a negligence civil suit brought by villagers against the Heinda tin mine in Dawei District was unsuccessful because the 1909 Limitations Act demands complaints to be brought within one year of damage.
Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code requires prior notice and the names of plaintiffs to be given to the government two months before filing a suit against the government and allows small procedural defects to preclude a claim.
Lawyers are sometimes unfamiliar with these procedures and communities are reluctant to put their names to such cases fearing reprisals.
Clearly there are significant challenges to ensuring that investment in Burma does not adversely affect human rights.
To overcome these, civil society and lawyers must engage the administration—the MIC—to ensure only responsible investments is permitted and start to use the judiciary to review its actions.
Likewise, cases must continue to be taken against investors that abuse human rights and harm the environment.
Powerful investors must be constrained by the confines of the law, including human rights law.
Unless civil society and lawyers can use the legal framework to address these concerns, Burma’s judicial system is unlikely to develop; lawyers will not gain valuable experience and the public will remain distrustful.
The process is long and arduous but necessary to protect human rights and the environment from irresponsible investment.
