Defendants' Response Brief

Case 1:96-cv-08386-KMW-HBP Document 303 Filed 12/12/2008 Page 1 of 89 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK KEN WIWA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. 96 Civ. 8386 (KMW)(HBP) ROYAL DUTCH PETROLEUM COMPANY, et al., Defendant. KEN WIWA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. 01 Civ. 1909 (KMW)(HBP) BRIAN ANDERSON, Defendant. ESTHER KIOBEL, et al., Plaintiffs, v. 02 Civ. 7618 (KMW)(HBP) ROYAL DUTCH PETROLEUM COMPANY, et al., Defendants. DEFENDANTS’ MEMORANDUM OF LAW ON ISSUES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW PURSUANT TO THE COURT’S ORDER OF OCTOBER 7, 2008 Rory O. Millson Rowan D. Wilson Thomas G. Rafferty CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE LLP 825 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10019 212-474-1000 Attorneys for defendants Date: December 12, 2008 Case 1:96-cv-08386-KMW-HBP Document 303 Filed 12/12/2008 Page 2 of 89 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Table of Abbreviations and Citation Conventions...........................................................................v Preliminary Statement......................................................................................................................1 Argument .........................................................................................................................................2 I. SOSA REQUIRES A VIOLATION OF THE LAW OF NATIONS AS ACCEPTED BY THE CIVILIZED WORLD AND AS SPECIFICALLY DEFINED AS OFFENSES AGAINST AMBASSADORS, VIOLATIONS OF SAFE CONDUCT, AND PIRACY WERE.........................................................................2 A. Sosa Restricts ATS Claims to Universally Accepted and Specifically Defined Violations of Customary International Law...............................................3 B. The ATS Requires a More Searching Review of the Merits to Establish Jurisdiction Than Is Required Under the “Arising Under” Test of 28 U.S.C. § 1331...........................................................................................................6 C. Plaintiffs May Not Establish Universally Accepted and Definite Norms of International Law by Citing Incompetent Sources. ...............................................14 II. PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS FOR SUMMARY EXECUTION (COUNT ONE) DO NOT MEET SOSA’S REQUIREMENTS.........................................................................19 A. Plaintiffs’ “Summary Execution” (or “Extrajudicial Killing”) Claims Do Not Have “Definite Content” as Required By Sosa...............................................19 B. Plaintiffs’ Claims Also Fail Because Their Allegations Do Not Constitute Viable ATS Claims Against Defendants. ..............................................................24 C. The TVPA Has Displaced Plaintiffs’ Extrajudicial Killing—or Summary Execution—Claims Under the ATS.......................................................................25 D. Plaintiffs Do Not Have a TVPA Claim..................................................................29 E. The Shell Parties’ Ownership of SPDC Does Not Render Them Liable for Summary Execution...............................................................................................33 III. PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS FOR TORTURE (COUNT THREE) DO NOT MEET SOSA’S REQUIREMENTS..............................................................................................35 A. Plaintiffs’ Claims for “Torture” Do Not Allege A Violation of Customary International Law by Defendants...........................................................................35 i Case 1:96-cv-08386-KMW-HBP Document 303 Filed 12/12/2008 Page 3 of 89 B. The Shell Parties’ Ownership of SPDC Does Not Render Them Liable for Torture....................................................................................................................37 IV. PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS FOR CRUEL, INHUMAN, OR DEGRADING TREATMENT (COUNT FOUR) DO NOT MEET SOSA’S REQUIREMENTS............38 A. Plaintiffs’ Claims for Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment Are Not Actionable under Sosa. ..........................................................................................38 B. The Views of Professor Roht-Arriaza Do Not Meet Sosa’s Standard...................39 C. The “Practical Consequences” of Recognizing Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment Counsel Judicial Restraint. .................................................41 D. The Shell Parties’ Ownership of SPDC Does Not Render Them Liable for Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment...............................................................43 E. The TVPA’s History Compels Rejection of Plaintiffs’ CIDT Claims. .................44 V. PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS FOR CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY (COUNT TWO) DO NOT MEET SOSA’S REQUIREMENTS.......................................................45 A. “Crimes Against Humanity” Does Not Have “Definite Content” as Required under Sosa. .............................................................................................45 B. Plaintiffs’ Allegations Do Not Meet Any Definition of “Crimes Against Humanity”..............................................................................................................49 C. Ownership of SPDC Cannot Make the Shell Parties Liable for Crimes Against Humanity. .................................................................................................51 VI. PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS FOR “ARBITRARY ARREST AND DETENTION” (COUNT FIVE) DO NOT MEET SOSA’S REQUIREMENTS.......................................52 A. Plaintiffs’ “Arbitrary Arrest and Detention” Claims Are Not Well-Defined Under Customary International Law. ....................................................................52 B. The Shell Parties’ Ownership of SPDC Does Not Render Them Liable for Arbitrary Arrest and Detention. .............................................................................57 VII. PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS FOR “VIOLATION OF THE RIGHTS TO LIFE, LIBERTY, AND SECURITY OF PERSON, AND PEACEFUL ASSEMBLY AND ASSOCIATION” (COUNT SIX) DO NOT MEET SOSA’S REQUIREMENTS.............................................................................................................57 A. This Court Already Dismissed Plaintiffs’ Claims for “Violation of the Rights to Life, Liberty, and Security of Person, and Peaceful Assembly ii Case 1:96-cv-08386-KMW-HBP Document 303 Filed 12/12/2008 Page 4 of 89 and Association”, and Plaintiffs Still Cannot Prove the Existence of a Well-Defined Norm for Such Claims. ...................................................................57 B. The Shell Parties’ Ownership of SPDC Does Not Render Them Liable for Violations of the Rights to Life, Liberty, Security of Person and Peaceful Assembly and Association.....................................................................................61 VIII. THERE IS NO WELL-DEFINED AND UNIVERSALLY ACCEPTED NORM OF CIVIL SECONDARY LIABILITY UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW. .................62 IX. IF THE COURT WERE TO TAKE PLAINTIFFS’ IMPROPER APPROACH, PLAINTIFFS’ “VEIL PIERCING” AND “AGENCY” THEORIES WOULD REQUIRE A CHOICE OF LAW ANALYSIS. ................................................................66 A. Were The Court To Ignore Sosa’s Mandates And Apply Plaintiffs’ Approach, Nigerian and English Law Would Govern Any “Veil Piercing” Analysis..................................................................................................................67 1. Under Plaintiffs’ Improper Approach, Any Veil Piercing Analysis Must Be Conducted Under the Laws of the State of Incorporation of the Entity Whose Shareholders Are Sought To Be Held Liable. ..........67 2. Plaintiffs’ Latest Position That The “Federal Common Law” of Veil Piercing Should Apply Is Wrong.......................................................69 3. Nigerian Law Permits Piercing of The Corporate Veil Only When A Corporation Is Used As A Sham To Avoid Existing Obligations. ........72 4. English Law Permits Piercing the Corporate Veil Only When the Corporate Form Is Employed As A Façade To Avoid Existing Obligations.................................................................................................73 5. Plaintiffs Have Not Even Pleaded That SPDC or SPCo. Were Used As A Sham or Façade. ...............................................................................75 B. Were The Court To Ignore Sosa’s Mandates And Apply Plaintiffs’ Approach, Nigerian Law Must Govern Any “Agency” Analysis..........................75 1. Plaintiffs’ Application of the “Federal Common Law” of Agency Is Improper.................................................................................................78 2. Nigerian Law Permits Vicarious “Agency” Liability Only for the Torts of Another In Specific Circumstances..............................................79 3. Plaintiffs Have Not Even Alleged Facts to Suggest That An Agency Relationship for Purposes of Vicarious Liability Can Be Found. ........................................................................................................80 iii Case 1:96-cv-08386-KMW-HBP Document 303 Filed 12/12/2008 Page 5 of 89 X. PLAINTIFF BLESSING KPUINEN’S CLAIMS DO NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ATS. ....................................................................................80 iv Case 1:96-cv-08386-KMW-HBP Document 303 Filed 12/12/2008 Page 6 of 89 TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS AND CITATION CONVENTIONS Abbreviation Description Alston Decl. November 21, 2008 Declaration of Philip Alston (Wiwa Docket No. 297) Anderson Am. Compl., Amended Complaint against Brian Anderson, dated March 27, 2002 Mar. 27, 2002 (Anderson Docket No. 16) Aug. 31, 1997 Pls.’ Plaintiffs’ Memorandum of Law in Opposition to

Load more