Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-5wvtr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-20T02:34:16.875Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Doe v. Unocal

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2017

William J. Aceves
William J. Aceves*
Affiliation:
California Western School of Law
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
International Decisions
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 92 , Issue 2 , April 1998 , pp. 309 - 314
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1998

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 A related action was also filed by the National Coalition Government of the Union of Burma, the Federation of Trade Unions of Burma and four Burmese refugees. National Coalition Government of the Union of Burma v. Unocal, No. 96–6112 RAP (CD. Cal. Sept. 3, 1996). On November 5, 1997, the district court issued a ruling granting in part and dismissing in part Unocal’s motion to dismiss. National Coalition Government of the Union of Burma v. Unocal, Inc., No. CV 96–6112 (CD. Cal. Nov. 5, 1997). The court’s ruling parallels its analysis and holding in Doe v. Unocal.

2 Following the elections, representatives of the National League for Democracy formed a government-in-exile, the National Coalition Government of the Union of Burma.

3 Doe v. Unocal, No. 96–6959 LGB, at 8–9 (CD. Cal. Oct. 3, 1996). The lawsuit was filed by several human rights attorneys and groups, including the Center for Constitutional Rights and Earthrights International.

4 Jurisdiction was based on several statutes, including 28 U.S.C. §1330, 28 U.S.C. §1331, 28 U.S.C. §1350, 28 U.S.C. §1605, 28 U.S.C. §1367, and 18 U.S.C. §1964(c).

5 No. 96–6959 LGB, supra note 3, at 52–53.

6 In addition to the issues discussed in this report, the court also addressed whether SLORC and MOGE were indispensable parties, jurisdictional questions regarding the Torture Victim Protection Act and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, whether the plaintiffs had failed to state a claim pursuant to Fédéral Civil Procedure Rule 12(b)(6), whether the statute of limitations applied, and a claim under California Business and Professions Code §17200.

7 28 U.S.C. §1605(a)(2) (1994).

8 963 F.Supp. 880, 888. See Saudi Arabia v. Nelson, 507 U.S. 349 (1993); Republic of Argentina v. Weltover, Inc., 504 U.S. 607 (1992).

9 28 U.S.C. §1350 (1994) (“The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action by an alien for a tort only, committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States.”)

10 963 F.Supp. at 891.

11 Id at 892.

12 Id. at 893.

13 Id.

14 Id. at 894.

15 Id. at 898, 899.

16 Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Sabbatino, 376 U.S. 398, 423 (1964).

17 Letter from Judge Richard Paez, to Michael Matheson, Acting Legal Adviser, Department of State (Apr. 24, 1997).

18 Letter from Michael Matheson, Acting Legal Adviser, Department of State, to Frank Hunger, Assistant Attorney General, Department of Justice, at 2 (July 8, 1997).

19 Id.

20 Filartiga v. Pena-Irala, 630 F.2d 876 (2d Cir. 1980); Kadic v. Karadzic, 70 F.3d 232 (2d Cir. 1995).

21 Liu v. Republic of China, 892 F.2d 1419, 1432–33 (9th Cir. 1989).

22 Citing the Supreme Court’s ruling in W.S. Kirkpatrick & Co. v. Environmental Tectonics Corp. International, 493 U.S. 400, 409 (1990), the court indicated that the act of state doctrine would not apply “even to claims that a foreign government’s actions are or were invalid.” 963 F.Supp. at 894.

23 376 U.S. 398, 429 (1964).

24 See Iran and Libya Sanctions Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104–172,110 Stat. 1541; Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity (LIBERTAD) Act, Pub. L. No. 104–114, 110 Stat. 785 (1996); Foreign Assets Control Regulations, 31 C.F.R. pt. 500 (1995); Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act, Pub. L. No. 99–440, 100 Stat. 1086 (1986).

25 Development and International Fxonomic Co-operation: Transnational Corporations, UN Doc. E/1990/94.