SAREI V.RIO TINTO, PLC
487 F. 3d 1193 (2007)
United States Court of Appeals (9th Cir.)

Facts: This case took place in Bougainville, Papua New Guinea, which is a country close to Australia, between 1972 and 1989. Rio Tinto is an international mining group with headquarter in London, Europe. Plaintiffs are former and current residents of Bougainville that alleged damages as a result of mine’s operations. They claim that after mine started operating, they started getting sick because of the mine’s pollution. Rio Tinto operations affected Bougainville resident’s health, causing physical and mental illnesses, particularly children to suffer respiratory disease. Another point is that they claim that this corporation treated them as a slave practicing a racially discriminatory wages. In 1998, residents sabotaged the mine, forcing it to close. Rio Tinto got assistance of the national army to quell the uprising, and many civilians were killed. This incident caused a huge revolution, and a civil war took place for ten years. They claim also that during the war many war crimes and human abuses were committed by the army, of the behest of Rio Tinto. Residents of Bougainville sued Rio Tinto for its racial discrimination, war crimes and human abuses, under Alien Tort Statute (ATS).

Issue: This case can be tried by a United States Court, are the US courts the appropriate forum for resolving this claim?

Decision: The Ninth Circuit found that it had subject matter jurisdiction, so the plaintiffs could bring claims against the U.S. defendant for violation of international law norms.

Opinion: Many facts such us, “a nonfrivolous claim by an alien for tort in violation of international law”, war crimes and human abuses, and also relying upon the Sosa, the court found it had proper subject matter jurisdiction for resolving this claim. Bougainville residents alleged violation of “specific, universal and obligatory norm(s) of international law”, so the Ninth Circuit had jurisdiction to judge this case under ATS.