Background of the Case
Forced to work on a pipeline project, a group of Burmese laborers filed a suit. The suit was against Unocal and Total, two co-venturers in the project. They said that the two transnational corporations knew about the violent situation in Myanmar and profited from it. The military of Myanmar used violence and intimidation to build the pipeline. It relocated villages, enslaved farmers, committed rape and other torture, stole land and forced people to work on the pipeline. With the help of lawyers from organizations such as Earthrights International, the Center for Constitutional Rights and the International Labor Rights Fund, as well as several private law firms, the case moved through federal and state courts. This was the first human rights case against a company adjudicated in the United States. Since 1996, the case has set several important precedents for human rights cases.
Legal Grounds and the ATCA
In September and October of 1996, Burmese refugees filed two cases against Unocal. These cases were on grounds of the Alien Tort Claims Act (ATCA). The ATCA is a federal statute that allows foreign nationals to bring civil actions against U.S. citizens for violations of international law and California State law. The ATCA is important because many people do not have the option to file a case in their own country. Like in Myanmar, where it’s against the law to give details about the government to foreigners. If the Burmese refugees had complained in Myanmar, they would have faced imprisonment, torture, or death. The US judge held that the cases could go forward based on the ATCA statute. The judge said that transnational corporations and their executives are responsible for breaking international human rights laws in other countries.
Past Court Rulings
In August 2000, the two cases against Unocal were combined in a California Federal District Court. The court ruled that Unocal “knew or should have known” about the human rights abuses by the Burmese military. But, Unocal could not be held liable because it did not control the military’s actions.
In the same month, the plaintiffs filed a case in California State court. They received help from several NGOs. These included EarthRights International, the Center for Constitutional Rights, and the International Labor Rights Fund.
Appealing the Case
On March 5, 2001, a Federal District Judge ruled in favor of the Plaintiffs and agreed that their claims should be heard in a California State court. So, while some claims were on appeal in the Ninth Circuit, the California State court would be able to adjudicate claims based on California’s constitution and unfair business practice law. On September 18, 2002, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rendered a landmark decision against Unocal. They reversed in part the decision of the California District Court that Unocal was not responsible for claims of rape and murder. The court found that Unocal knowingly assisted the Myanmar military in the perpetration of human rights abuses. Additionally, they stated that forced labor is the “modern equivalent of slavery.”
Settlement and Conclusion
On 13 April 2005 Unocal agreed to a confidential out-of-court settlement. The company agreed to compensate the plaintiffs. They also provided funds for programs in Myanmar. These programs work to improve living conditions and protect the rights of people from the pipeline region. This case is important because it holds a transnational corporation accountable. Unocal was found responsible for human rights abuses from which it has profited. It sends a message to other transnational corporations that they will be responsible for human rights violations connected to their business ventures in countries with repressive governments.
