Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co. has generated concerns that a governance gap will emerge for corporations that propagate human rights violations abroad. In Kiobel, the U.S. Supreme Court barred most “case[s] seeking relief for violations of the law of nations occurring outside the United States.” The U.S. had previously offered victims straightforward access to justice in its courts. As American courts grow less open to extraterritorial claims, recognition of the global context gains importance. The current climate presents opportunities for other judicial systems to step forward. Specifically, Kiobel has provided the European Court of Human Rights with the occasion to interpret the European Convention on Human Rights  to require the right to an extraterritorial forum and counterbalance the shift in the U.S. that Kiobel represents.
 Kiobel v Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 133 S. Ct. 1659, 1669 (2013).
 See 28 U.S.C. § 1350 (amended 2012) and its interpretation in, for example, Abdullahi v. Pfizer, Inc., 562 F.3d 163, 172–74 (2d Cir. 2009); Bodner v. Banque Paribas, 114 F. Supp. 2d 117, 128 (E.D.N.Y. 2000).
 European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Nov. 4, 1950, 213 U.N.T.S. 221, [hereinafter ECHR] (entered into force Sept. 3, 1953) (as amended by Protocols Nos. 11 and 14, which entered into force on Nov. 1, 1998 and June 1, 2010, respectively).
Latest posts by hlsjrnldev (see all)
- The Justice Conundrum: Africa’s Turbulent Relationship with the ICC - February 18, 2019
- ECtHR Orders Permanent Ban: Can international courts impose disciplinary measures on legal representatives? - February 13, 2019
- Measuring Transformation: At the 50th anniversary of the American Convention on Human Rights, a move to maximize its structural impact - February 6, 2019