---

Human Rights: Shell and Rio Tinto

Answer

The UK intervened in both these cases (Kiobel v Royal Dutch Shell Petroleum and Rio Tinto v Sarei) to clarify our position on the proper limits of the extraterritorial application of US law. The amicus brief submitted by the UK was confined to our views on this point of international law, and did not take a position on the allegations made against the defendants in this case. The views expressed were consistent with long-standing UK policy.

The UK strongly supports the promotion of business and human rights and was the first country to produce a National Action Plan to implement the UN Guiding Principles. We have consistently made clear that we expect British companies to act in accordance with human rights wherever they operate, and that companies should not be able to act with impunity. States should enact domestic law to regulate the activity of businesses to ensure that they do not have a negative impact on human rights. We believe it appropriate and desirable for a State to provide remedies for human rights victims where human rights abuses are committed by their nationals (including corporate nationals) overseas.

Rio Tinto wrote to the British Government in November 2011 requesting that the Government intervene in their case in view of our stance on extraterritoriality. After considering the points of law that the case raised, we considered that submitting a brief would be appropriate. The Shell case was brought to our attention by a third party and again we objected because there was little, or no, connection between the corporate defendant and the US. Officials discussed the case with the company after we had made the decision to intervene. The Government initially submitted a brief in support of Shell in the Kiobel vs Royal Dutch Shell Petroleum case because we were not advised that a neutral brief was a possibility. As soon as we became

aware, we replaced our original brief with a neutral brief, as the best way of representing our wider legal concerns without taking a position on the specific allegations in this case.

Secondary information

Type

Written question

Reference

HL6632; 753 cc392-3WA

Session

2013-14

Subjects

Business Civil proceedings Human rights USA Shell Nigeria Rio Tinto Group Papua New Guinea

Link

View this Written question on www.publications.parliament.uk