ExxonMobil
Case Name: JOHN DOE vs. EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION, EXXON MOBIL OIL INDONESIA INC., MOBIL CORPORATION, MOBIL OIL CORPORATION, and PT ARUN LNG CO.
Plaintiff: Residents of Aceh Province, Indonesia, seeking relief for injuries done to them and their spouses by Indonesian military hired to protect ExxonMobil interests in the area
Summary:In the past decade alone, ExxonMobil has extracted some $40 billion from its operations in Aceh, Indonesia, leaving in its wake a legacy of death, destruction and environmental damage.
There have been credible reports dating back several years that Exxon Mobil Corporation, along with its predecessor companies, Mobil Oil Corporation and Mobil Oil Indonesia (collectively "Exxon Mobil"), hired military units of the Indonesian national army to provide "security" for their gas extraction and liquification project in Aceh, Indonesia. Members of these military units regularly have perpetrated ongoing and severe human rights abuses against local villagers, including murder, rape, torture, destruction of property and other acts of terror. ExxonMobil apparently has taken no action to stop this violence, and instead, reportedly has continued to finance the military and to provide company
equipment and facilities that have been used by the Indonesian military to perpetrate and literally cover up (in the form of mass graves) these criminal acts.
On June 20, 2001, IRAdvocate filed an ATCA claim in the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia, No. 01-1357 CIV, on behalf of 11 villagers from Aceh who were victims of human rights abuses by Exxon Mobil's security forces. The general theory of the case is that Exxon Mobil knowingly employed brutal military troops to protect its operations, and the company aided and abetted the human rights violations through financial and other material support to the security forces. In addition, the case alleges that the security forces are either employees or agents of Exxon Mobil, and thus Exxon Mobil is liable for their actions. Exxon Mobil filed a routine motion to dismiss IRAdvocate's claim, and IRAdvocate filed a response against this motion on December 14, 2001. The court heard arguments in the case on April 9, 2002, and a decision was expected within 60 days. Instead, the court has not yet ruled on the motion to dismiss, leaving the Acehnese victims of abuse in a state of legal limbo. Earlier in 2004, the presiding judge in the case asked for additional briefing on the impact on IRAdvocate's case against ExxonMobil of the Supreme Court's decision in Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, in which the Supreme Court upheld the use of the Alien Tort Claims Act in cases like IRAdvocate's ExxonMobil suit. IRAdvocate filed its brief in the case in August 2004. The parties continue to await the court's decision on the motion to dismiss. Like Unocal, Exxon Mobil's primary defense appears to be that the human rights violations may very well be occurring, but the company did not specifically intend this result, and therefore cannot be held liable.
Status:
Plaintiffs' Response in Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is filed
Court denies Exxon’s plea to dismiss IRAdvocates lawsuit: January 18, 2007, Financial Times: US court orders Exxon to answer Aceh suit
Legal Case Update Mar 2006: Judge Oberdorfer ruled that plaintiffs may proceed with their claims of abuses, including wrongful death, battery, assault, and arbitrary arrest against Exxon Mobil under state law. Following this order, we are looking forward to entering into the "discovery" phase (obtaining evidence) of the case and then finally allowing plaintiffs to have their day in court.
Jan 2006 Amended Complaint (PDF)
Aug 2004 Brief filed in ExxonMobil case
Jul 2003 Amicus Brief Submitted by the US State Department (PDF)
Dec 21, 2002 Download Opposition to Dismiss (PDF)
Jul 29, 2002 State Department Opinion Regarding ExxonMobil Litigation (PDF)
Jun 11, 2001 Complaint (PDF)
Cooperating Attorneys:
Michael Hausfeld, Agnieszka M. Fryszman
Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld, Toll
— Chris Saeger, "Strengthening Rule of Law Through Aid for Human Rights Litigation in National Courts: A Case Study of Oil Multinational Corporations Complicit in Human Rights Violations in Sudan and Nigeria (December 2007)
— Terry Collingsworth, "Using the Alien Tort Claims Act to Introduce the Rule of Law to the Global Economy (2005)
International Rights Advocates is a nonprofit dedicated to holding corporations accountable for human rights violations in countries around the world. IRAdvocates already has 14 pending cases but without your support, IRAdvocates will not be able to continue its litigation.