Court Reinstates Some Apartheid Claims

[Judi Lynn]

Source: N.Y. Times

Court Reinstates Some Apartheid Claims


By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: October 12, 2007
Filed at 1:37 p.m. ET

NEW YORK (AP) -- An appeals court Friday reinstated some of the class-action claims of millions of people who say they suffered under apartheid while living in South Africa because of the actions of American, Canadian and European companies.

The U.S. government has said the litigation would interfere with South Africa's reconciliation and redress efforts and would cause ''significant tension between the United States and South Africa.''

A lower court had tossed out the case, in part because of the vigorous objections by the U.S. and its allies.
(snip)

In tossing out the case in 2004, U.S. District Court Judge John E. Sprizzo noted that Congress had supported and encouraged business investment in South Africa as a way to achieve greater respect for human rights and a reduction in poverty.


Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Apartheid.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

---

Judge Sprizzo's big decision:

Judge Dismisses Big Rights Suit on Apartheid
By JULIA PRESTON

Published: November 30, 2004

~snip~
The ruling, by Judge John E. Sprizzo of Federal District Court in Manhattan, came in response to suits originally brought in 2002 by three separate groups of plaintiffs in eight different federal courts across the country. They argued that the corporations, most of which are American, violated international law by actively helping to support the apartheid system.

They tried to sue the corporations - Citigroup, General Electric, E.I. DuPont de Nemours, I.B.M., General Motors, Shell Oil and ExxonMobil, among others - under the Alien Tort Claims Act, which was passed in 1789 to protect American ships from pirates and American diplomats from attack when they were overseas.

During the past two decades, some federal courts in the United States have agreed that they have jurisdiction in human rights suits under the act when the allegations involved egregious violations of international law like torture or genocide by foreign governments or their leaders.

But Judge Sprizzo found that his court did not have jurisdiction under the act.

"In a world where many countries may fall considerably short of ideal economic, political and social conditions, this court must be extremely cautious in permitting suits here based upon a corporation's doing business in countries with less than stellar human rights records," Judge Sprizzo wrote, warning that such suits could have "significant, if not disastrous, effects on international commerce."

More:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/30/international/africa/30apartheid.html?n=Top%2fNews%2fBusiness%2fCompanies%2fGeneral%20Motors%20Corporation

[fasttense]

1. Holding corporations accountable a concept we don't have in the US.

"The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said Sprizzo made a mistake in finding that his court did not have jurisdiction to hear some of the claims. It upheld the dismissal of other claims, although it said the plaintiffs can bring a rewritten lawsuit they wish."

Sounds to me like the appeals court threw the door wide open.

Perhaps some real justice will come of this.

The list of corporations involved sounds like a who's who of greedy US firms: Citigroup, General Electric, E.I. DuPont de Nemours, I.B.M., General Motors, Shell Oil and ExxonMobil, among others.