Liberation Through Litigation

For a law that’s seen so much action before the Supreme Court recently, the isn’t a very long read:

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.

I consider myself a capitalist, which means I believe in free markets, including free labor markets where people can quit, form unions, strike, and demand better pay and working conditions. I’m always surprised at corporations that scream “socialism” at overzealous unions will turn around and do business in places like China and North Korea for a fast buck. This is where I briefly add my voice to those who hyperventilate against evil “capitalist” corporations.

Take the case of UNOCAL’s pipeline in Burma. UNOCAL partnered up with French oil concern Total and the Burmese Army to build a pipeline to an oil field in Southern Burma. The Burmese Army needed some extra help, so they rounded up a few hundred local villagers for “voluntary labor.” Guess what happened to the ones who didn’t volunteer. Read it here. You won’t be proud. There was ample evidence that UNOCAL and Total knew that the Burmese Army was using forced labor to help build their pipelines, roads, and helipads, including their own admissions in internal documents. Since the U.S. Court of Appeals (Ninth Circuit, I know, I know . . . ) recently held against UNOCAL and upheld the victims’ right to sue under the Alien Tort Claims Act after years of litigation, my guess is that it’s cost UNOCAL and Total a few mil on legal fees alone. I certainly hope that other corporations take note of this added cost of doing business with thugs like the government of Burma.

Incidentally, those Burmese laborers gave anonymous depositions for their cases from Thai refugee camps. So here’s my question for all you lawyers out there: why can’t North Korean refugees in China give depositions and sue, say, Hyundai, Samsung, or if this story is true, JC Penney (to be fair, JC Penney says it isn’t true)? You need to prove that (1) the law of nations was violated (2) by someone the corporation aided or abetted (3) with the corporation’s knowedge that abuses were occurring. Provided the evidence is there to prove those facts, I read this case as a potentially strong precedent for lawsuits over North Korean slave labor,too.

This, in turn, would force corporations to make a big decision–do business in North Korea or maintain assets in the United States, but not both. Guess which choice most of the best-capitalized corporations would make? That would certainly crimp the flow of South Korean cash into Kim Jong-Il’s pocket. Which leaves dope and missiles.