You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Doe v. Unocal Corp.

Citations: 395 F.3d 932; 2002 Daily Journal DAR 10794; 161 Oil & Gas Rep. 599; 2002 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 9585; 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 19263Docket: Nos. 00-56603, 00-57197, 00-56628, 00-57195

Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; September 18, 2002; Federal Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

This case involves allegations of severe human rights violations, including forced labor, murder, rape, and torture, committed by the Myanmar Military in connection with a gas pipeline project. Villagers from Myanmar's Tenasserim region filed claims against Unocal under the Alien Tort Claims Act (ATCA), Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), and state law, asserting Unocal's complicity in these abuses. The District Court initially dismissed the federal claims and granted summary judgment in favor of Unocal, concluding that Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate Unocal's engagement in state action or active participation in forced labor. However, the appellate court partially reversed this decision, finding genuine issues of material fact regarding Unocal's liability under the ATCA for aiding and abetting forced labor, murder, and rape. The court affirmed the dismissal of claims against the Myanmar Military and Myanmar Oil due to sovereign immunity, and upheld the summary judgment on the RICO claim, citing lack of extraterritorial jurisdiction. The case was remanded for further proceedings, focusing on Unocal's potential aiding and abetting liability for human rights violations without requiring state action.

Legal Issues Addressed

Act of State Doctrine

Application: The act of state doctrine does not bar the plaintiffs' claims, as the alleged violations are jus cogens norms that are universally condemned.

Reasoning: The Second Circuit has indicated that cases where the act of state doctrine precludes suit under the Alien Tort Claims Act (ATCA) are rare, and this case is not among them.

Aiding and Abetting Liability under International Law

Application: Unocal may be held liable under international law for knowingly providing substantial assistance to the Myanmar Military in committing human rights violations.

Reasoning: The standard for aiding and abetting under the ATCA requires knowing practical assistance or encouragement that significantly contributes to the crime.

Alien Tort Claims Act (ATCA) Liability for Forced Labor

Application: The case involves claims against Unocal for aiding and abetting forced labor by the Myanmar Military, which constitutes a violation of international norms under the ATCA.

Reasoning: In this case, plaintiffs claim that Unocal's involvement led to ATCA liability for forced labor, murder, rape, and torture by the Myanmar Military.

Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) and Jurisdiction

Application: The FSIA grants immunity to the Myanmar Military and Myanmar Oil, as the claims did not meet the criteria for exceptions under the FSIA.

Reasoning: The District Court found that the Doe-Plaintiffs’ claims against these entities did not meet the criteria for the second and third exceptions under FSIA regarding acts performed in the U.S. in connection with commercial activities.

Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) Extraterritorial Application

Application: The District Court ruled that it lacked extraterritorial jurisdiction over the RICO claim due to insufficient conduct or effects in the U.S.

Reasoning: The District Court granted summary judgment to Unocal on the RICO claim due to a lack of extraterritorial subject matter jurisdiction.