No Immunity for Multinationals Implicated in Apartheid’s Crimes
Several international corporations such as General Motors, Ford Motor Company, and IBM, have been accused of aiding the apartheid regime in South Africa. The Khulumani Support Group is filing a lawsuit in an attempt to attain justice for apartheid survivors. The case is “grounded on the US Alien Tort Claims Act, which allows foreigners to sue US-based entities for violations of international law,” Legalbrief Today writes. The international law violation the corporations are accused of is complicity with apartheid, since “apartheid is considered a crime against humanity.” As Times Live states, “lawyers for those participating in the class action claim that . . . [these corporations] co-operated in human rights abuses committed by the apartheid regime.” Michael Osborne notes in the Cape Times, “plaintiffs say the multinational corporations provided military hardware and computer technology, and that they collaborated with security forces to put down anti-apartheid and labour protests.” The main question in this case, according to Legalbrief Today, is “whether major multinational giants can be held responsible for the atrocities committed under apartheid.”
- What arguments can be made for treating companies like individuals in court? What arguments can be made for treating companies differently than individuals? Are companies as accountable for their actions as individuals? Should they be held more accountable than individuals?
- To what extent can American companies be held accountable for their actions in other countries?
- According to Professor Kader Asmal, who wrote an article for the Cape Times titled “Why I Oppose the Lawsuits Against the Multinationals,” “because during the 1970’s, 80’s and early 90’s, the law did not treat corporations as liable under international law; it would be unfair to punish them now for aiding and abetting apartheid.” Osborne’s response is that “international law is not averse to retrospective application of emergent norms, in the cases involving the most serious abuses. . . the Nuremberg Principles forbade ‘aiding and abetting of crimes against humanity, war crimes and crimes against peace.’ ” What do you think of Osborne’s comparison between the Nuremberg trials and the suit against corporations for their actions during apartheid in South Africa?
- Business Day argues that “sometimes an action can be so morally reprehensible that it is unlawful without the law stating that it is. Legal validity does not in and of itself make an action right.” Look at both statements separately. Do you agree with these statements? Why or why not?
- Michael Osborne writes in the Cape Times that “one of the issues argued before the appellate court last week was whether corporations may in principle be liable for crimes committed against international law.” How can we balance the need for national sovereignty and global justice?
- Dr. Marjorie Jobson, National director of the Khulumani Support Group that is filing the lawsuit, said on Democracy Now! that “in this case we’re against the impunity of corporations.” What is impunity? Why is it dangerous?
- Why is accountability important? One of the plaintiff’s attorneys, Michael Hausfeld, stated on Democracy Now! that, “What’s ignored is the responsibility of companies who can affect individual lives as much and as deeply as any government. You have an issue as to who is a corporation and what are its responsibilities, not just to shareholders, but to the community which it serves and in which it does business. If companies can affect lives in ways that make those lives worse, so that people are suppressed or terrorized, as we contend the apartheid regime was towards its black South Africans, then anyone who provided the tools to enforce that suppression and terrorism should be responsible.” What responsibility do you think companies have to the community in which they do business? Do you agree with Hausfeld’s conclusion? What might the companies argue in their defense?
- According to Osborne, “the statute invoked by the apartheid plaintiffs has already inspired multinationals to add human rights audits to their due diligence checklist. No matter how the appellate court rules, multinational corporations, stripped of their immunity from global justice, will in [the] future be more hesitant to collaborate with regimes that ride roughshod over the most fundamental human rights.” Do you agree with Osborne? Why is this important?
