International Rights Advocates

UNOCAL

September 2004 Decision and News Article

Since September 1996, IRAdvocates has served as lead counsel in a lawsuit charging the Unocal Corporation and Union Oil Company of California (collectively "Unocal") with knowingly using forced labor to construct a natural gas pipeline across the Tenasserin region of Burma. One of the biggest challenges in bringing the Unocal case was developing evidence of conditions inside Burma, since that country's military regime has made it a criminal offense for anyone to provide evidence critical of the regime to "foreigners." The initial plaintiffs of this case were the National Coalition Government for the Union of Burma (NCGUB), the Federation of Trade Unions of Burma (FTUB), and four refugees from Burma who were among the thousands of villagers who had been forced at gunpoint to work on Unocal's pipeline. A second case on behalf of a second group of villagers was filed shortly thereafter. Both cases survived Unocal's motions to dismiss.

In 2003, Unocal moved for summary judgment, or a dismissal of the case on the basis that evidence presented provided insufficient grounds to bring the case to trial. In considering Unocal's motion for summary judgment, the federal district court found that Unocal was in fact aware of the forced labor, and also benefited from its practice. To this, Unocal argued that any forced labor or other human rights violations that may have occurred were perpetrated by soldiers of the Burmese military, not employees of Unocal, and therefore Unocal should not bear any financial responsibility for the violations. However, there is no question that Unocal was a willing participant in a joint venture that included the notorious military regime in Burma, and delegated pipeline security to the military government. Thus, IRAdvocates argued that Unocal was jointly and severally liable for the acts of the military regime as the military security forces were acting as an agent for Unocal.

District Judge Ronald Lew ultimately granted Unocal's summary judgment motion and held that the ATCA requires direct participation by Unocal in the wrongful acts and control over the military regime. IRAdvicates and its co-counsels appealed the ruling to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, arguing that there was sufficient evidence of Unocal's participation with and control over the military security forces. Using the Nuremberg line of cases, in which Nazi leaders were convicted of war crimes, ILRF argued that Unocal's conduct was more than sufficient to create liability based on acts to aid and abet the actual perpetrators of the human rights abuses.

The court of appeals argument was held on December 3, 2001, and a decision should be issued within the next several months. Meanwhile, attorneys re-filed on behalf of plaintiffs' state law claims in the California Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles. In a ruling dated August 20, 2001, Judge Victoria Chaney ruled in response to Unocal's motion to dismiss that collateral estoppel (which prevents cases lost in one court to be brought again on the same basis in another court) and federal preemption (which prevents the establishment of state laws that conflict with federal laws) did not act to bar the claims, which are based on California state law with very different legal elements on issues of liability and causation.

NPR radio report, 12/16/04