Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

tortplaintiffdefendantjurisdictioncorporationinternational lawtreatysustainable development
tortplaintiffdefendantjurisdictioncorporationinternational lawtreatysustainable development

Related Cases

Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Haeger
View Case »
Gebresadik v. Gonzales
View Case »
Hazama v. Tillerson
View Case »
Diaz Ortiz v. Garland
View Case »
Batalla Vidal v. Wolf
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Flores v. South Peru Copper Corp.

Facts

Plaintiffs in this case are residents of Ilo, Peru, and the representatives of deceased Ilo residents. Defendant, SPCC, is a United States corporation headquartered in Arizona with its principal place of operations in Peru. It is majority-owned by Asarco Incorporated, a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Peru. SPCC has operated copper mining, refining, and smelting operations in and around Ilo since 1960. Plaintiffs claim that these emissions have caused their respiratory illnesses and that this 'egregious and deadly' local pollution constitutes a customary international law offense because it violates the 'right to life,' 'right to health,' and right to 'sustainable development.'

Plaintiffs in this case are residents of Ilo, Peru, and the representatives of deceased Ilo residents. Defendant, SPCC, is a United States corporation headquartered in Arizona with its principal place of operations in Peru. It is majority-owned by Asarco Incorporated, a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Peru. SPCC has operated copper mining, refining, and smelting operations in and around Ilo since 1960. Plaintiffs claim that these emissions have caused their respiratory illnesses and that this 'egregious and deadly' local pollution constitutes a customary international law offense because it violates the 'right to life,' 'right to health,' and right to 'sustainable development.'

Issue

The question presented is whether plaintiffs' claims are actionable under the Alien Tort Claims Act ('ATCA'), 28 U.S.C. 1350.

The question presented is whether plaintiffs' claims are actionable under the Alien Tort Claims Act ('ATCA'), 28 U.S.C. 1350.

Rule

The ATCA states that 'the district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action by an alien for a tort only, committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States.' To allege a violation of customary international law, a plaintiff must demonstrate that a defendant's alleged conduct violated 'well-established, universally recognized norms of international law.'

The ATCA states that 'the district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action by an alien for a tort only, committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States.'

Analysis

The court applied the rule by examining whether the plaintiffs had alleged a violation of customary international law. It noted that the plaintiffs did not claim any violation of a United States treaty and failed to demonstrate that high levels of environmental pollution within a nation's borders, causing harm to human life, health, and development, violated well-established, universally recognized norms of international law. The court also rejected the plaintiffs' suggestion that courts should make a factual inquiry into whether the allegations rose to the level of egregiousness and intentionality required to state a claim under international law.

The court applied the rule by examining whether the plaintiffs had alleged a violation of customary international law. It noted that the plaintiffs did not claim any violation of a United States treaty and failed to demonstrate that high levels of environmental pollution within a nation's borders, causing harm to human life, health, and development, violated well-established, universally recognized norms of international law.

Conclusion

The district court's judgment was affirmed, concluding that plaintiffs had failed to establish subject matter jurisdiction or to state a claim under the ATCA.

The district court's judgment was affirmed, concluding that plaintiffs had failed to establish subject matter jurisdiction or to state a claim under the ATCA.

Who won?

Southern Peru Copper Corporation prevailed in the case because the court found that the plaintiffs did not establish a violation of customary international law and thus lacked subject matter jurisdiction.

Southern Peru Copper Corporation prevailed in the case because the court found that the plaintiffs did not establish a violation of customary international law and thus lacked subject matter jurisdiction.

You must be