Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-pwrkn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-10-05T08:48:18.169Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

In RE Union Carbide Corp. Gas Plant Disaster at Bhopal, India in December 1984

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2017

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
Judicial Decisions
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 80 , Issue 4 , October 1986 , pp. 964 - 967
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1986

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

1 601 F.Supp. 1035 (J.P.M.D.L. 1985).

2 The Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster (Processing of Claims) Act, Indian Parliament Act No. 21 of 1985, entered into force Feb. 20, 1985, Gazette of India (Extraordinary), pt. 2, sec. 2, Mar. 29, 1985 [hereinafter the Bhopal Act], granted the Indian Government the exclusive right to represent the victims of the Bhopal accident within and outside India. With regard to litigation in courts outside India pending at the time of the Act’s entry into force, §3(3) of the Bhopal Act provides that the Indian Government “shall represent, and act in place of, or along with,” any Indian plaintiff if the foreign courts so permit. The Bhopal Act also required the Indian Government to establish a scheme for the registration and processing of claims arising out of the accident as well as the disbursement and apportionment of amounts received in satisfaction of the claims. Id. §9. Reportedly, over 487,000 claims have been filed in India pursuant to this scheme.

3 634 F.Supp. 842, 866.

4 Id. at 867.

5 Id.

6 330 U.S. 501 (1947).

7 454 U.S. 235 (1981).

8 634 F.Supp. at 845 (paraphrasing Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. at 507).

9 634 F.Supp. at 848.

10 454 U.S. at 257 n.25.

11 634 F.Supp. at 865.

12 Id.

13 Id. at 867.

14 See Fitzpatrick, , “Reyno”: Its Progeny and Its Effects on Aviation Litigation, 48 J. Air L. & Com. 539, 542 (1983)Google Scholar.

15 Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. at 504.

Plaintiffs appealed the order in its entirety (No. 86–318 (2d Cir. 1986)). Union Carbide appealed the condition requiring only Union Carbide to abide by U.S. discovery rules but not the Indian Government. The Indian Government cross-appealed.