Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Transnational Human Rights and Environmental Litigation: A Study of Case Law Relating to Shell in Nigeria

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Human Rights in the Extractive Industries

Part of the book series: Interdisciplinary Studies in Human Rights ((CHREN,volume 3))

Abstract

In June 2017, four widows of Nigerian environmental activists initiated a civil lawsuit against Royal Dutch Shell and its Nigerian subsidiary Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria before the Hague District Court in the Netherlands. This is one of six cases to have been pursued in recent years before courts in the US, the UK and the Netherlands in relation to the detrimental impacts of Shell’s oil exploration and production activities in Nigeria on human rights and the environment. These cases form part of a broader international trend towards foreign direct liability litigation, which is closely connected to contemporary socio-political debates on international corporate social responsibility. The likely success of this type of litigation is determined by four main factors: (1) jurisdiction, (2) applicable law, (3) legal basis and accompanying requirements, and (4) procedural rules and practices. In this article, I will analyse and compare the six cases mentioned with a view to understanding how cases that essentially share the same socio-political background may work out differently depending on their particular legal context, as reflected by differences in these four factors.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 139.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Prakken d’Oliveira, Shell summoned to court for involvement in unlawful executions in Nigeria. Human Rights Lawyers, 29 June 2017, http://www.prakkendoliveira.nl/en/news/shell-summoned-to-court-for-involvement-in-unlawful-executions-in-nigeria/ (last accessed 1 October 2018).

  2. 2.

    Amnesty International, In the dock – Shell’s complicity in the arbitrary execution of the Ogoni Nine. Amnesty International Ltd. 2017, https://www.amnestyusa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/FINAL-KIOBEL-BRIEFING.pdf (last accessed 1 October 2018).

  3. 3.

    See for an overview: Business & Human rights Resource Centre, Shell lawsuit (re Nigeria - Kiobel & Wiwa). https://business-humanrights.org/en/shell-lawsuit-re-nigeria-kiobel-wiwa (last accessed 21 August 2018); Center for constitutional rights, Wiwa et al v. Royal Dutch Petroleum et al. https://ccrjustice.org/home/what-we-do/our-cases/wiwa-et-al-v-royal-dutch-petroleum-et-al (last accessed 1 October 2018).

  4. 4.

    See for an overview: Center for constitutional rights, Factsheet: The Case Against Shell. 24 March 2009, https://ccrjustice.org/home/get-involved/tools-resources/fact-sheets-and-faqs/factsheet-case-against-shell (last accessed 1 October 2018).

  5. 5.

    Supreme Court of the United States, Case No. 10-1491, Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 133 S.Ct. 1659 (2013).

  6. 6.

    See for an overview: Milieudefensie, Timeline: the course of the lawsuit. Friends of the Earth Netherlands https://en.milieudefensie.nl/shell-in-nigeria/timeline-the-course-of-the-lawsuit (last accessed 1 October 2018).

  7. 7.

    See for an overview: Leigh Day, Nigeria - oil spills. https://www.leighday.co.uk/International/Corporate-accountability-by-issue/Environmental-damage/Nigeria (last accessed 1 October 2018) and Leigh Day, The Bodo Community v. Shell claim. https://www.leighday.co.uk/International/Further-insights/Detailed-case-studies/The-Bodo-claim (last accessed 21 August 2018).

  8. 8.

    Schrempf-Stirling and Wettstein (2017); Enneking (2012a); Zerk (2006), pp. 198–240; Frynas (2004).

  9. 9.

    Frynas (2004), pp. 371–373; Frynas (1999).

  10. 10.

    Christensen and Hausman (2016), with respect to ATS-based litigation before US federal courts; Enneking (2017a), pp. 40–42; Enneking et al. (2016), with respect to claims brought before courts in six European countries.

  11. 11.

    Enneking (2017a), p. 48; Enneking et al. (2016), p. 81; Enneking (2012a), pp. 107–117.

  12. 12.

    See in more detail: Nigeria Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative, https://eiti.org/nigeria (last accessed 1 October 2018). See also, for instance: Yakubu (2017), pp. 8–9.

  13. 13.

    Yakubu (2017) and Ite et al. (2016).

  14. 14.

    See in more detail, with a focus on the Ogoniland region of the Niger Delta: United Nations Environment Programme, Environmental assessment of Ogoniland. 2011, https://postconflict.unep.ch/publications/OEA/UNEP_OEA.pdf (last accessed 1 October 2018).

  15. 15.

    United Nations Environment Programme, Environmental assessment of Ogoniland. 2011, https://postconflict.unep.ch/publications/OEA/UNEP_OEA.pdf (last accessed 1 October 2018), p. 25; Yakubu (2017), pp. 2–5.

  16. 16.

    United Nations Environment Programme, Environmental assessment of Ogoniland. 2011, https://postconflict.unep.ch/publications/OEA/UNEP_OEA.pdf (last accessed 1 October 2018), pp. 138–151.

  17. 17.

    United Nations Environment Programme, Environmental assessment of Ogoniland. 2011, https://postconflict.unep.ch/publications/OEA/UNEP_OEA.pdf (last accessed 1 October 2018), pp. 205–206, 228.

  18. 18.

    Ezeamalu B, 10 months after Nigerian govt’s launch of Ogoni clean-up, “not a drop of oil cleaned”. Premium Times, 5 April 2017, https://www.premiumtimesng.com/regional/south-south-regional/227980-10-months-nigerian-govts-launch-ogoni-clean-not-drop-oil-cleaned-group.html (last accessed 1 October 2018); Yakubu (2017).

  19. 19.

    Vidal J, Niger delta oil spill clean-up launched – but could take a quarter of a century. The Guardian, 2 June 2016, https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2016/jun/02/niger-delta-oil-spill-clean-up-launched-ogoniland-communities-1bn (last accessed 1 October 2018).

  20. 20.

    Shell Sustainability Report 2016, Environmental Data, http://reports.shell.com/sustainability-report/2016/data-and-reporting/environmental-data.html (last accessed 1 October 2018).

  21. 21.

    Shell Sustainability Report 2016, Spill prevention and response, http://reports.shell.com/sustainability-report/2016/managing-operations/our-activities-in-nigeria/spill-prevention-and-response.html (last accessed 1 October 2018).

  22. 22.

    Ekhator (2016); Emeseh (2011), pp. 63–66.

  23. 23.

    Emeseh (2011), pp. 64–66; Amnesty International, Nigeria: petroleum, pollution and poverty in the Niger Delta. Amnesty International Publications 2009, https://www.amnestyusa.org/reports/nigeria-petroleum-pollution-and-poverty-in-the-niger-delta-report/ (last accessed 1 October 2018), pp. 70–78.

  24. 24.

    Bernaz (2017); Enneking (2012a), pp. 9–44; McBarnet et al. (2007).

  25. 25.

    UN Human Rights Council, Report of the Special Representative of the Secretary General on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises, John Ruggie, Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights: Implementing the United Nations “Protect, Respect and Remedy” Framework, UN Doc. A/HRC/17/31, 21 March 2011. The United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, which were endorsed by the UN Human Rights Council in June 2011, UN Doc. A/HRC/RES/17/4, 16 June 2011, provide an operationalization of the 2008 “Protect, Respect and Remedy” UN policy framework for Business and Human Rights, UN Doc. A/HRC/8/5, 7 April 2008.

  26. 26.

    Bernaz (2017) and Černič and Van Ho (2015).

  27. 27.

    See in more detail: Enneking (2017b), pp. 989–990; Enneking (2017a), pp. 39–43; Enneking (2012a, 2014a).

  28. 28.

    28 United States Code, Paragraph 1350.

  29. 29.

    Christensen and Hausman (2016); Young (2015); Enneking (2012a), pp. 77–85.

  30. 30.

    See for estimates: Christensen and Hausman (2016), pp. 796–797; Drimmer and Lamoree (2011), p. 465.

  31. 31.

    Enneking (2017a), pp. 40–43; Enneking (2014a); Enneking (2012a), pp. 87–91.

  32. 32.

    Enneking et al. (2016), pp. 643–648, as reproduced (in English) in Enneking (2017a), p. 42.

  33. 33.

    Of the around 150 lawsuits that are featured on the website of the Business & Human Rights Resource Centre, more than one-third are aimed against companies in the oil, gas & coal industry (24) and in the mining industry (28), https://business-humanrights.org/en/corporate-legal-accountability/case-profiles/industry/natural-resources (last accessed 1 October 2018).

  34. 34.

    See, in more detail: The United Nations Interagency Framework Team for Preventive Action, Toolkit and guidance for preventing land and natural resources conflict – Extractive industries and conflict. 2012, http://www.un.org/en/land-natural-resources-conflict/pdfs/GN_Extractive.pdf (last accessed 1 October 2018).

  35. 35.

    Simons (2014), pp. 16–17.

  36. 36.

    Natural Resource Governance Institute, State participation and state-owned enterprises – Roles, benefits and challenges. NRGI Reader March 2015, https://resourcegovernance.org/sites/default/files/nrgi_State-Participation-and-SOEs.pdf (last accessed 1 October 2018). Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative, Role of state-owned enterprises, https://eiti.org/role-of-stateowned-enterprises (last accessed 1 October 2018).

  37. 37.

    See, for an overview of cases: Business & Human Rights Resource Centre, https://business-humanrights.org/en/corporate-legal-accountability/case-profiles/industry/natural-resources (last accessed 1 October 2018). See also, for example: Simons and Macklin (2014).

  38. 38.

    Business & Human Rights Resource Centre, https://business-humanrights.org/en/corporate-legal-accountability/case-profiles/company/s (last accessed 1 October 2018).

  39. 39.

    See for the full timeline: Center for constitutional rights, Wiwa et al. v. Royal Dutch Petroleum et al., https://ccrjustice.org/home/what-we-do/our-cases/wiwa-et-al-v-royal-dutch-petroleum-et-al (last accessed 1 October 2018).

  40. 40.

    Center for constitutional rights, Wiwa et al. Royal Dutch Petroleum et al., https://ccrjustice.org/home/what-we-do/our-cases/wiwa-et-al-v-royal-dutch-petroleum-et-al (last accessed 1 October 2018).

  41. 41.

    Earthrights international, Wiwa v. Royal Dutch Shell, https://earthrights.org/wp-content/uploads/legal/Wiwa-Original-Complaint_0.pdf (last accessed 1 October 2018).

  42. 42.

    United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, 25 Sept 1998, Wiwa et al. v. Royal Dutch Petroleum and Shell Transport and Trading Company, 96 Civ. 8386.

  43. 43.

    United States Court of Appeals for the second circuit, Docket Nos. 99-7223[L], 99-7245[XAP], Wiwa et al. v. Royal Dutch Petroleum and Shell Transport and Trading Company (hereinafter: Wiwa v. Shell), CA 2nd Cir. 14 September 2000, 226 F.3d 88.

  44. 44.

    United States Court of Appeals for the second circuit, Docket Nos. 99-7223[L], 99-7245[XAP], Wiwa et al. v. Royal Dutch Petroleum and Shell Transport and Trading Company (hereinafter: Wiwa v. Shell), CA 2nd Cir. 14 September 2000, 226 F.3d 88, paras. 56–66, where the court explains that in passing the Torture Victim Prevention Act (28 U.S.C. § 1350) in 1991, which resembles the 1789 Alien Tort Statute but has both a narrower focus (torture under colour of law of a foreign nation) and a broader legal scope, the US Congress expressed a policy of U.S. law favouring the adjudication in U.S. courts of suits related to torture in violation of international law.

  45. 45.

    Earthrights international, United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3293, Wiwa et al. v. Royal Dutch Petroleum and Shell Transport and Trading Company, Wiwa et al. v Brian Anderson, 22 February 2002, https://earthrights.org/wp-content/uploads/legal/Wiwa-district-court-opinion-Feb-2002.pdf (last accessed 1 October 2018).

  46. 46.

    United States Supreme Court, No. 03–339, Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 U.S. 692 (2004).

  47. 47.

    United States District Court Southern District of New York, Case 1:04-cv-02665-KMW-HBP, Document 31, Wiwa et al. v. Royal Dutch Petroleum and Shell Transport and Trading Company, Wiwa et al. v Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria, 4 March 2008, https://ccrjustice.org/sites/default/files/assets/3.4.08%20Order%20and%20Opinion%20%2331.pdf (last accessed 1 October 2018).

  48. 48.

    United States Court of Appeals for the second circuit, Case 1:01-cv-01909-KMW-HBP, Document 112, Wiwa et al. v. Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria, CA 2nd Cir. 29 June 2009, 08-1803 Cv.

  49. 49.

    United States District Court Southern District of New York, Wiwa et al. v. Royal Dutch Petroleum, Wiwa et al. v Brian Anderson, 23 April 2009, https://ccrjustice.org/sites/default/files/assets/04.23.09%20Judge%20Wood%20Order%20regarding%20SMJ.pdf (last accessed 1 October 2018).

  50. 50.

    United States District Court Southern District of New York, Wiwa et al. v. Royal Dutch Petroleum, Wiwa et al. v Brian Anderson, Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release, https://ccrjustice.org/sites/default/files/assets/Wiwa_v_Shell_SETTLEMENT_AGREEMENT.Signed-1.pdf (last accessed 1 October 2018).

  51. 51.

    This section is partly based on Enneking (2012b).

  52. 52.

    See for the full timeline: Center for constitutional rights, Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co. (Amicus), https://ccrjustice.org/home/what-we-do/our-cases/kiobel-v-royal-dutch-petroleum-co-amicus (last accessed 1 October 2018).

  53. 53.

    United States District Court Southern District of New York, 02 Civ. 7618, Kiobel et al. v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Company and Shell Transport and Trading Company, 29 September 2006, https://ccrjustice.org/sites/default/files/assets/2006.09.29_Order_re_interloctory_appeal.pdf (last accessed 1 October 2018).

  54. 54.

    United States Supreme Court, No. 03–339, Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 U.S. 692 (2004).

  55. 55.

    See the information in the timeline at Center for constitutional rights, Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co. (Amicus), https://ccrjustice.org/home/what-we-do/our-cases/kiobel-v-royal-dutch-petroleum-co-amicus (last accessed 1 October 2018).

  56. 56.

    United States Court of Appeals for the second circuit, 621 F3d 111, Kiobel et al. v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Company and Shell Transport and Trading Company, 17 September 2010.

  57. 57.

    United States Court of Appeals for the second circuit, 621 F3d 111, Kiobel et al. v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Company and Shell Transport and Trading Company, 17 September 2010, pp. 148–149.

  58. 58.

    United States Court of Appeals for the second circuit, 621 F3d 111, Kiobel et al. v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Company and Shell Transport and Trading Company, 17 September 2010, pp. 149–188.

  59. 59.

    Enneking (2012a), p. 124.

  60. 60.

    Keitner CI, Keitner on Kiobel and the future of the Alien Tort Statute. Conflict of Laws weblog 21 September 2010, http://conflictoflaws.net/2010/keitner-on-kiobel-and-the-future-of-the-alien-tort-statute (last accessed 1 October 2018); Childress T, Is it the end of the Alien Tort Statute?. Conflict of Laws weblog 17 September 2010, http://conflictoflaws.net/2010/is-it-the-end-of-the-alien-tort-statute (last accessed 1 October 2018).

  61. 61.

    United States Supreme Court, No. 10–1491, Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum, 133 S.Ct. 1659 (2013).

  62. 62.

    United States Supreme Court, No. 10–1491, Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum, 133 S.Ct. 1659 (2013), p. 1668.

  63. 63.

    United States Supreme Court, No. 10–1491, Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum, 133 S.Ct. 1659 (2013), p. 1669.

  64. 64.

    United States Supreme Court, No. 16–499, Joseph Jesner et al. v. Arab Bank, PLC, 548 U.S. (2018).

  65. 65.

    Statement of claim, on file with the author, pp. 43–46, 113–115.

  66. 66.

    In repetition by Esther Kiobel […], United States District Court Southern District of New York, No. 1:2016cv07992, Document 21, Kiobel v. Cravath, Swaine & Moore, LLP, 24 January 2017, http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1:2016cv07992/463897/21/ (last accessed 1 October 2018).

  67. 67.

    See Sect. 4.1 for a more detailed discussion of this case.

  68. 68.

    See, with further references, Enneking (2012b), p. 399.

  69. 69.

    In repetition by Esther Kiobel […], United States District Court Southern District of New York, No. 1:2016cv07992, Document 21, Kiobel v. Cravath, Swaine & Moore, LLP, 24 January 2017, http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1:2016cv07992/463897/21/ (last accessed 1 October 2018).

  70. 70.

    In repetition by Esther Kiobel […], United States District Court Southern District of New York, Case 1:16-cv-07992-AKH, Document 29, Kiobel v. Cravath, Swaine & Moore, LLP, 2 March 2017, http://royaldutchshellplc.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Kiobeldoc29.pdf (last accessed 1 October 2018).

  71. 71.

    United States Court of Appeals for the Second circuit, No. 17-424-cv, Esther Kiobel v. Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP, 10 July 2018, https://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca2/17-424/17-424-2018-07-10.pdf (last accessed 1 October 2018).

  72. 72.

    United States Court of Appeals for the Second circuit, No. 17-424-cv, Esther Kiobel v. Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP, 10 July 2018, https://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca2/17-424/17-424-2018-07-10.pdf (last accessed 1 October 2018).

  73. 73.

    This section is partly based on Enneking (2014a).

  74. 74.

    See the court documents at Milieudefensie, Shell courtcase: Motion to produce documents Goi, https://milieudefensie.nl/actueel/defense-in-843a-motion-oruma.pdf (last accessed 1 October 2018).

  75. 75.

    Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, OJ 2001 L 12/1 (16 January 2001) (hereinafter: Brussels I Regulation), which has been replaced for proceedings instituted on or after 10 January 2015 by the Regulation (EU) No. 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (recast), OJ 2012 L 351/1 (hereinafter: Brussels I Regulation (recast)).

  76. 76.

    Articles 2 and 60 Brussels I Regulation (now Articles 4 and 63 Brussels I Regulation (recast)).

  77. 77.

    Article 7(1) Dutch Code of Civil Procedure.

  78. 78.

    The Hague District Court, 24 February 2010, Akpan et al. v Royal Dutch Shell and Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria, ECLI:NL:RBSGR:2010:BM1469, paras. 3.1–3.8.

  79. 79.

    The Hague District Court, 24 February 2010, Akpan et al. v. Royal Dutch Shell and Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria, ECLI:NL:RBSGR:2010:BM1469.

  80. 80.

    The Hague District Court, 30 January 2013, Dooh et al. v Royal Dutch Shell and Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria, ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2013:BY9845, paras. 4.43–4.58; The Hague District Court, 30 January 2013, Oguru et al. v Royal Dutch Shell and Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria, ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2013:BY9850, paras. 4.45–4.60.

  81. 81.

    The Hague District Court, 30 January 2013, Akpan et al. v. Royal Dutch Shell and Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria, ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2013:BY9854, paras. 4.26–4.34.

  82. 82.

    The Hague District Court, 30 January 2013, Akpan et al. v. Royal Dutch Shell and Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria, ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2013:BY9854, paras. 4.38–4.46.

  83. 83.

    The Hague Court of Appeal, 18 December 2015, Akpan et al. v. Royal Dutch Shell and Shell Petroleum and Development Company of Nigeria, ECLI:NL:GHDHA:22015:3587.

  84. 84.

    See, for a translation of relevant quotes: Enneking (2017b).

  85. 85.

    The Hague Court of Appeal, 18 December 2015, Akpan et al. v. Royal Dutch Shell and Shell Petroleum and Development Company of Nigeria, ECLI:NL:GHDHA:22015:3587, para. 2.2. See, in more detail: Enneking (2017b).

  86. 86.

    See milieudefensie, Shell in Nigeria, Tijdlijn: verloop van de rechtszaak tegen Shell, https://milieudefensie.nl/shell-in-nigeria/tijdlijn-rechtszaak-shell (last accessed 1 October 2018), where it is mentioned that the experts have been appointed only in March 2018.

  87. 87.

    See, in more detail and with further references: Business & Human Rights Resource Centre, Shell, http://business-humanrights.org/en/shell-lawsuit-oil-spills-bodo-community-in-nigeria (last accessed 1 October 2018).

  88. 88.

    Compare: The United Kingdom High Court of Justice, 2017 EWHC 89 (TCC), His Royal Highness Emere Godwin Bebe Okpabi and Others v. Royal Dutch Shell Plc and Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria Ltd, paras. 40–43.

  89. 89.

    Leigh Day, History of the Bodo litigation, https://www.leighday.co.uk/International/Further-insights/Detailed-case-studies/The-Bodo-claim/History-of-the-Bodo-litigation (last accessed 1 October 2018).

  90. 90.

    The United Kingdom High Court of Justice, [2014] EWHC 1973 (TCC), The Bodo Community and others v The Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria Ltd.

  91. 91.

    The United Kingdom High Court of Justice, [2014] EWHC 1973 (TCC), The Bodo Community and others v The Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria Ltd, para. 9.

  92. 92.

    The United Kingdom High Court of Justice, [2014] EWHC 1973 (TCC), The Bodo Community and others v The Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria Ltd, paras. 21–69.

  93. 93.

    The United Kingdom High Court of Justice, [2014] EWHC 1973 (TCC), The Bodo Community and others v The Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria Ltd, paras. 70–93.

  94. 94.

    LeighDay, Shell agrees £55m compensation deal for Niger Delta community, https://www.leighday.co.uk/News/2015/January-2015/Shell-agrees-55m-compensation-deal-for-Nigeria-Del (last accessed 1 October 2018).

  95. 95.

    The United Kingdom High Court of Justice, 2017 EWHC 89 (TCC), His Royal Highness Emere Godwin Bebe Okpabi and Others v. Royal Dutch Shell Plc and Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria Ltd.

  96. 96.

    The United Kingdom High Court of Justice, 2017 EWHC 89 (TCC), His Royal Highness Emere Godwin Bebe Okpabi and Others v. Royal Dutch Shell Plc and Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria Ltd, compare para. 3.1(3) of Practice Direction 6B – Service out of the Jurisdiction.

  97. 97.

    The United Kingdom High Court of Justice, 2017 EWHC 89 (TCC), His Royal Highness Emere Godwin Bebe Okpabi and Others v. Royal Dutch Shell Plc and Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria Ltd, paras. 62, 69.

  98. 98.

    The United Kingdom High Court of Justice, 2017 EWHC 89 (TCC), His Royal Highness Emere Godwin Bebe Okpabi and Others v. Royal Dutch Shell Plc and Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria Ltd, paras. 50–61.

  99. 99.

    The United Kingdom Court of Appeal, [2012] EWCA Civ 525, Chandler v. Cape Plc and The United Kingdom Court of Appeal, [2014] EWCA Civ 635, Thompson v. The Renwick Group Plc.

  100. 100.

    The United Kingdom House of Lords, [1990] 2 AC 605, Caparo Industries plc v. Dickman.

  101. 101.

    The United Kingdom High Court of Justice, 2017 EWHC 89 (TCC), His Royal Highness Emere Godwin Bebe Okpabi and Others v. Royal Dutch Shell Plc and Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria Ltd, paras. 107–117.

  102. 102.

    The United Kingdom High Court of Justice, 2017 EWHC 89 (TCC), His Royal Highness Emere Godwin Bebe Okpabi and Others v. Royal Dutch Shell Plc and Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria Ltd, paras. 11–21, 118–119. See also Articles 4 and 63 Brussels I Regulation (recast).

  103. 103.

    The United Kingdom High Court of Justice, 2017 EWHC 89 (TCC), His Royal Highness Emere Godwin Bebe Okpabi and Others v. Royal Dutch Shell Plc and Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria Ltd, paras. 118–122.

  104. 104.

    The United Kingdom Court of Appeal, [2018] EWCA Civ 191, His Royal Highness Emere Godwin Bebe Okpabi and Others v. Royal Dutch Shell Plc and Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria Ltd, paras. 1–133 (opinion by Lord Justice Simon) and paras. 174–209 (opinion by Lord Chancellor Vos).

  105. 105.

    The United Kingdom Court of Appeal, [2018] EWCA Civ 191, His Royal Highness Emere Godwin Bebe Okpabi and Others v. Royal Dutch Shell Plc and Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria Ltd, paras. 118–127. See also, with a slightly different approach, Lord Chancellor Vos at The United Kingdom Court of Appeal, [2018] EWCA Civ 191, His Royal Highness Emere Godwin Bebe Okpabi and Others v. Royal Dutch Shell Plc and Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria Ltd, paras. 191–206.

  106. 106.

    The United Kingdom Court of Appeal, [2018] EWCA Civ 191, His Royal Highness Emere Godwin Bebe Okpabi and Others v. Royal Dutch Shell Plc and Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria Ltd, paras. 134–173 (opinion by Lord Justice Sales).

  107. 107.

    Owen C and Bristow A, Okpabi v. Shell appeal highlights important points regarding parent company liability. Simmons & Simmons elexica, 26 February 2018, http://www.elexica.com/en/legal-topics/dispute-resolution-commercial/260218-okpabi-v-shell (last accessed 1 October 2018); Roorda L, Okpabi v. Shell on appeal: foreign direct liability in troubled waters. Rights as Usual, 23 February 2018, http://www.rightsasusual.com/?p=1194 (last accessed 1 October 2018).

  108. 108.

    Enneking (2012a), pp. 129–203. See also, more specifically on the applicable law factor and the procedural rules and practices factor: Enneking (2017a).

  109. 109.

    Supreme Court of the United States, No. 10-1491, Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co. et al., para. 5.3 with respect to the recent decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, No. 16-499, Jesner v. Arab Bank.

  110. 110.

    For claims relating to civil and commercial matters filed before EU Member State courts on or after 10 January 2015, the relevant instrument is the Brussels I Regulation recast (Regulation (EU) No. 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (recast), OJ 2012 L351/1 (20 December 2012)). Its predecessor, the Brussels I Regulation (Council Regulation (EC) No. 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, OJ 2001 L12/1 (16 January 2001)), applied to claims filed between 1 March 2002 and 9 January 2015. For claims filed before 1 March 2002, the relevant instrument was the Brussels Convention (Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, OJ 1998 C 27/1 (26 January 1998)).

  111. 111.

    Art. 4(1) jo. 63(1) Brussels I Regulation (recast).

  112. 112.

    Augenstein and Jägers (2017); Enneking et al. (2016), pp. 142–151; Enneking (2012a), pp. 205–214.

  113. 113.

    Augenstein and Jägers (2017), pp. 27–34; Enneking et al. (2016), pp. 142–151, 274–277, 319–322, 376–381, 435–440, 489–492.

  114. 114.

    Practice Direction 6B – Service out of the jurisdiction, para. 3.1 (3)(a), https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part06/pd_part06b#3.1 (last accessed 1 October 2018).

  115. 115.

    See also, on the relevant standard, The United Kingdom Court of Appeal, [2018] EWCA Civ 191, His Royal Highness Emere Godwin Bebe Okpabi and Others v. Royal Dutch Shell Plc and Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria Ltd, paras. 27–33.

  116. 116.

    Art. 7(1) Dutch Code of Civil Procedure. See, in more detail: Enneking et al. (2016), pp. 142–151.

  117. 117.

    The Hague Court of Appeal, 18 December 2015, Dooh et al. v. Royal Dutch Shell and Shell Petroleum and Development Company of Nigeria, ECLI:NL:GHDHA:2015:3586, para. 3.2.

  118. 118.

    The United Kingdom High Court of Justice, 2017 EWHC 89 (TCC), His Royal Highness Emere Godwin Bebe Okpabi and Others v. Royal Dutch Shell Plc and Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria Ltd, paras. 120–121.

  119. 119.

    The United Kingdom High Court of Justice, 2017 EWHC 89 (TCC), His Royal Highness Emere Godwin Bebe Okpabi and Others v. Royal Dutch Shell Plc and Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria Ltd, paras. 120–121.

  120. 120.

    Cour d’Appel de Paris, Nos. S 11/05955 and S11/05959 (on file with the author), 10 September 2015, p. 14.

  121. 121.

    See, for a general comparison between the European and US approaches to jurisdiction: O’Brian (2003), pp. 493–498. See also Enneking (2012a), pp. 140–152.

  122. 122.

    Bonacorsi (2014); O’Brian (2003), pp. 495–496, 499. See also for example: s. 1139(2) of the UK Companies Act 2006, which in combination with Civil Procedure Rules part 6.9 does permit a form of ‘doing business’ jurisdiction before English courts, Bonacorsi (2014), p. 1841.

  123. 123.

    Although a further discussion of this issue would go outside the scope of this article, it is questionable whether a decision by an US court that would have sustained the claims and granted compensation to the Wiwa-plaintiffs would have been enforceable in the Netherlands, due to the fact that the legal basis on which personal jurisdiction was assumed in that case by the US courts would probably have been considered ‘exorbitant’ (here in the sense of ‘not internationally accepted’) by a Dutch court. See also Enneking (2014b), p. 57.

  124. 124.

    See inter alia: Supreme Court of the United States, No. 10-76, Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S. A., et al. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915; Supreme Court of the United States, No. 11-965, Daimler AG v. Bauman, 134 S. Ct. 746.

  125. 125.

    Supreme Court of the United States, No. 16-499, Jesner et al. v. Arab Bank PLC, 548 U.S. (2018), https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-499_1a7d.pdf (last accessed 1 October 2018).

  126. 126.

    Anderson SR, Cutting federal common law off at the stem in Jesner v. Arab Bank. American Constitution Society, weblog, 2 May 2018, https://www.acslaw.org/acsblog/cutting-federal-common-law-off-at-the-stem-in-jesner-v-arab-bank (last accessed 1 October 2018); Dodge WS, Jesner v. Arab Bank: The Supreme Court preserves the possibility of human rights suits against U.S. corporations. Just Security, weblog, 26 April 2018, https://www.justsecurity.org/55404/jesner-v-arab-bank-supreme-court-preserves-possibility-human-rights-suits-u-s-corporations/ (last accessed 1 October 2018); Howe A, Opinion analysis: Court bars lawsuits against foreign corporations under Alien Tort Statute. Howe on the Court, weblog, 24 April 2018, http://amylhowe.com/2018/04/24/court-bars-lawsuits-foreign-corporations-alien-tort-statute/ (last accessed 1 October 2018).

  127. 127.

    Enneking (2017a), pp. 43–49.

  128. 128.

    See, in more detail on the use of strategic litigation (also sometimes referred to as public interest litigation or impact litigation) in the business and human rights context, for instance: Terwindt C and Schliemann C, Transnational strategic litigation: an emerging part of civil society’s repertoire for corporate accountability. State of civil society report 2017 – Guest essays civil society and the private sector, 2017, https://www.civicus.org/documents/reports-and-publications/SOCS/2017/essays/transnational-strategic-litigation-an-emerging-part-of-civil-society’s-repertoire-for-corporate-accountability.pdf (last accessed 1 October 2018); Enneking (2017a), pp. 61–64; Backer LC et al., Democratizing the global business and human rights project by catalyzing strategic litigation from the bottom up. Working Papers Coalition for Peace and Ethics No. 12/1, 2014, https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2325994 (last accessed 1 October 2018); Enneking (2012a).

  129. 129.

    This is also different in the foreign direct liability cases that have been brought before United State courts on the basis of the tort of negligence, but a further discussion of the different conflict-of-laws provisions that would apply to these cases depending on the state in which they are brought, would go beyond the scope of this article.

  130. 130.

    Compare Article 4(1) Regulation (EC) No. 864/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (Rome II).

  131. 131.

    Enneking (2017a), pp. 52–57.

  132. 132.

    Explanatory Memorandum Regulation (EC) No. 864/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (Rome II), COM(2003) 427, p. 19.

  133. 133.

    The United Kingdom High Court of Justice, 2017 EWHC 89 (TCC), His Royal Highness Emere Godwin Bebe Okpabi and Others v. Royal Dutch Shell Plc and Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria Ltd, para. 55.

  134. 134.

    Enneking (2017a), pp. 65, 75–76.

  135. 135.

    Christensen and Hausman (2016), pp. 796–797.

  136. 136.

    Simpson S, Alien Tort Statute cases resulting in plaintiff victories. The view from LL2 weblog, 11 November 2009, https://viewfromll2.com/2009/11/11/alien-tort-statute-cases-resulting-in-plaintiff-victories/ (last accessed 1 October 2018).

  137. 137.

    Childress (2012).

  138. 138.

    Supreme Court of the United States, No. 16-499, Jesner et al. v. Arab Bank PLC, 548 U.S. (2018), https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-499_1a7d.pdf (last accessed 1 October 2018).

  139. 139.

    Anderson SR, Cutting federal common law off at the stem in Jesner v. Arab Bank. American Constitution Society, weblog, 2 May 2018, https://www.acslaw.org/acsblog/cutting-federal-common-law-off-at-the-stem-in-jesner-v-arab-bank (last accessed 1 October 2018).

  140. 140.

    Davis and Whytock (2017).

  141. 141.

    Enneking et al. (2016).

  142. 142.

    Nigerian Human Rights Enforcement Rules, 2009, http://www.refworld.org/pdfid/54f97e064.pdf (last accessed 1 October 2018). See in more detail the statement of claim, on file with the author.

  143. 143.

    Statement of claim, on file with the author, paras. 148–154.

  144. 144.

    See in detail with respect to the South African context: Verdonck L, The international legal framework on business and human rights and its domestic operationalisation – Strategic litigation on mining and a healthy environment in South Africa. Dissertation, Ghent University 2017 (on file with the author).

  145. 145.

    The Hague Court of Appeal, 18 December 2015, Dooh et al. v. Royal Dutch Shell and Shell Petroleum and Development Company of Nigeria, ECLI:NL:GHDHA:2015:3586, para. 3.2.

  146. 146.

    The Hague District Court, 30 January 2013, Akpan et al. v. Royal Dutch Shell and Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria, ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2013:BY9854, para. 4.33. English translation available at http://www.elaw.org/system/files/final-judgment-shell-oil-spill-ikot-ada-udo.pdf.

  147. 147.

    The United Kingdom Court of Appeal, [2018] EWCA Civ 191, His Royal Highness Emere Godwin Bebe Okpabi and Others v. Royal Dutch Shell Plc and Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria Ltd, paras. 118–127 (opinion by Lord Justice Simon). See for a more detailed analysis of this judgment: Owen C and Bristow A, Okpabi v. Shell appeal highlights important points regarding parent company liability. Simmons & Simmons Elexica, weblog, 26 February 2018, http://www.elexica.com/en/legal-topics/dispute-resolution-commercial/260218-okpabi-v-shell (last accessed 1 October 2018).

  148. 148.

    The United Kingdom Court of Appeal, [2018] EWCA Civ 191, His Royal Highness Emere Godwin Bebe Okpabi and Others v. Royal Dutch Shell Plc and Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria Ltd, para. 89.

  149. 149.

    The United Kingdom Court of Appeal, [2018] EWCA Civ 191, His Royal Highness Emere Godwin Bebe Okpabi and Others v. Royal Dutch Shell Plc and Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria Ltd, para. 125.

  150. 150.

    The United Kingdom Court of Appeal, [2018] EWCA Civ 191, His Royal Highness Emere Godwin Bebe Okpabi and Others v. Royal Dutch Shell Plc and Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria Ltd, paras. 141, 172.

  151. 151.

    Magnus (2010), pp. 109–118.

  152. 152.

    Enneking et al. (2016), Enneking (2012a), pp. 187–202.

  153. 153.

    Compare Enneking et al. (2016), pp. 196–217, 455–459, 643–648.

  154. 154.

    Enneking et al. (2016), pp. 455–459; Meeran (2013); Hodges (2008).

  155. 155.

    Enneking et al. (2016), chapter 3.

  156. 156.

    Enneking et al. (2016), pp. 214–217; Enneking (2013).

  157. 157.

    Compare United States Court of Appeals for the Second circuit, No. 17-424-cv, Esther Kiobel v. Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP, 10 July 2018, https://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca2/17-424/17-424-2018-07-10.pdf (last accessed 1 October 2018) and Verkerk (2013).

  158. 158.

    Principle 26 UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs).

  159. 159.

    Commentary to Principle 26 UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs).

  160. 160.

    Commentary to Principle 26 UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs).

  161. 161.

    The United Kingdom High Court of Justice, 2017 EWHC 89 (TCC), His Royal Highness Emere Godwin Bebe Okpabi and Others v. Royal Dutch Shell Plc and Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria Ltd, paras. 118–122.

  162. 162.

    The United Kingdom High Court of Justice, 2017 EWHC 89 (TCC), His Royal Highness Emere Godwin Bebe Okpabi and Others v. Royal Dutch Shell Plc and Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria Ltd, para. 120.

References

  • Augenstein D, Jägers N (2017) Judicial remedies – the issue of jurisdiction. In: Álvarez-Rubio JJ, Yiannibas K (eds) Human rights in business – removal of barriers to access to justice in the European Union. Routledge, London, pp 7–37

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernaz N (2017) Business and human rights: history, law and policy – bridging the accountability gap. Routledge, Abingdon

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonacorsi K (2014) Not at home with “at-home” jurisdiction. Fordham Int Law J 37(6):1821–1858

    Google Scholar 

  • Černič JL, Van Ho TL (2015) Human rights and business: direct corporate accountability for human rights. Wolf Legal Publishers, Oisterwijk

    Google Scholar 

  • Childress DE III (2012) The Alien Tort statute, federalism and the next wave of international law litigation. Georgetown Law J 100(3):709–757

    Google Scholar 

  • Christensen D, Hausman DK (2016) Measuring the economic effect of Alien Tort Statute liability. J Law Econ Organ 32(4):794–815

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis S, Whytock CA (2017) State remedies for human rights. Boston Univ Law Rev 98:397–484

    Google Scholar 

  • Drimmer JC, Lamoree SR (2011) Think globally, sue locally: trends and out-of-court tactics in transitional tort actions. Berkeley J Int Law 29(2):456–527

    Google Scholar 

  • Ekhator EO (2016) Public regulation of the oil and gas industry in Nigeria: an evaluation. Annu Surv Int Comp Law 21(1):43. Article 6

    Google Scholar 

  • Emeseh E (2011) The Niger Delta crisis and the question of access to justice. In: Obi C, Rustad SA (eds) Oil and insurgency in the Niger Delta – managing the complex politics of petro-violence. Zed Books, London, pp 55–70

    Google Scholar 

  • Enneking LFH (2012a) Foreign direct liability and beyond? – Exploring the role of tort law in promoting international corporate social responsibility. Eleven International Publishing, The Hague

    Google Scholar 

  • Enneking LFH (2012b) Multinational corporations, human rights violations and a 1789 US statute: a brief exploration of the case of Kiobel v. Shell. Nederlands Internationaal Privaatrecht 30(3):396–400

    Google Scholar 

  • Enneking LFH (2013) Multinationals and transparency in foreign direct liability cases. Dovenschmidt Q 1(3):134–147

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Enneking LFH (2014a) The future of foreign direct liability? Utrecht Law Rev 10(1):44–54

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Enneking LFH (2014b) Civiele aansprakelijkheid voor (dreigende) milieuschade in een internationale context. In: Teesing N (ed) Duurzame handel in juridisch perspectief. Boom Juridische Uitgevers, The Hague, pp 33–65

    Google Scholar 

  • Enneking LFH (2017a) Judicial remedies: the issue of applicable law. In: Álvarez-Rubio JJ, Yiannibas K (eds) Human rights in business – removal of barriers to access to justice in the European Union. Routledge, London, pp 38–77

    Google Scholar 

  • Enneking LFH (2017b) Paying the price for socially irresponsible business practices? – Corporate liability for violations of human rights and the environment abroad. Aktuelle Juristische Praxis 26(8):988–997

    Google Scholar 

  • Enneking L, Kristen F, Pijl K, Waterbolk T, Emaus J, Hiel M, Schaap A, Giesen I (2016) Zorgplichten van Nederlandse ondernemingen inzake internationaal maatschappelijk verantwoord ondernemen. Boomjuridisch, Den Haag

    Google Scholar 

  • Frynas JG (1999) Legal change in Africa: evidence from oil-related litigation in Nigeria. J Afr Law 43:121–150

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frynas JG (2004) Social and environmental litigation against transnational firms in Africa. J Mod Afr Stud 42(3):363–388

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hodges CJS (2008) The reform of class and representative actions in European legal systems: a new framework for collective redress in Europe. Hart, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Ite A, Ufot U, Ite M, Isaac I, Ibok U (2016) Petroleum industry in Nigeria: environmental issues, National environmental legislation and implementation of international environmental law. Am J Environ Prot 4(1):21–37

    Google Scholar 

  • Magnus U (2010) Why is US tort law so different? J Eur Tort Law 1(1):102–124

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McBarnet D, Voiculescu A, Campbell T (2007) The new corporate accountability – corporate social responsibility and the law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Meeran R (2013) Access to remedy: the United Kingdom experience of MNC tort litigation for human rights violations. In: Deva S, Bilchitz D (eds) Human rights obligations of business – beyond the corporate responsibility to respect? Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 378–402

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • O’Brian WE Jr (2003) The Hague Convention on jurisdiction and judgments: the way forward. Modern Law Rev 66(4):491–509

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schrempf-Stirling J, Wettstein F (2017) Beyond guilty verdicts: human rights litigation and its impact on corporations’ human rights policies. J Bus Ethics 145(3):545–562

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simons P (2014) Introduction. In: Simons P, Macklin A (eds) The governance gap – extractive industries, human rights, and the home state advantage. Routledge, London, pp 1–21

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Simons P, Macklin A (2014) The governance gap – extractive industries, human rights, and the home state advantage. Routledge, London

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Verkerk RR (2013) Multinational corporations and human rights – civil procedure as a means of obtaining transparency. Dovenschmidt Q 1(3):148–151

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yakubu OH (2017) Addressing environmental health problems in Ogoniland through implementation of United Nations Environment Program recommendations: environmental management strategies. Environments 4(2):28. Article No. 18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Young EA (2015) Universal jurisdiction, the Alien Tort Statute, and transnational public law-litigation after Kiobel. Duke Law J 64(6):1023–1128

    Google Scholar 

  • Zerk JA (2006) Multinationals and corporate social responsibility – limitations and opportunities in international law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Erasmus School of Law, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

    Liesbeth F. H. Enneking

Authors
  1. Liesbeth F. H. Enneking
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Liesbeth F. H. Enneking .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. School of Law, University of Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany

    Isabel Feichtner

  2. Faculty of Law, University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Erlangen, Germany

    Markus Krajewski

  3. School of Law, University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Erlangen, Germany

    Ricarda Roesch

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Enneking, L.F.H. (2019). Transnational Human Rights and Environmental Litigation: A Study of Case Law Relating to Shell in Nigeria. In: Feichtner, I., Krajewski, M., Roesch, R. (eds) Human Rights in the Extractive Industries. Interdisciplinary Studies in Human Rights, vol 3. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-11382-7_17

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-11382-7_17

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-11381-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-11382-7

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation