Earlier tonight, I was reading an article from the Huffington Post.  It talked about a ruling from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals saying that corporations should be held to account for human rights violations overseas.

Specifically, the residents of the island of Bougainville in the Phillipines is looking to sue the Rio Tinto for the deaths of thousands during a civil war that started in the late eighties.  The people revolted against their treatment at the hands of this multinational mining conglomerate and it’s government stooges.

While this ruling favors accountability, there are several levels of court involved in the U.S. and just as many different views.  As a result, it’s going to the Supreme Court for a final decision.  What the hell do they have to decide?

A corporation abuses people on a tiny, resource rich island on the other side of the world.  The people revolt.  The corporation pays the government to involve it’s military.  A ten year civil war ensues and thousands die.  How is the corporation not responsible?  Why do the courts even need to debate it?  Especially in a country that invades others just because they feel like it?

So why shouldn’t a massive corporation be held to account in the courts?  How about because they are a massive corporation with enough capital to buy immunity.  In much the same way that the U.S. declared a few years ago that they wouldn’t be bound by international criminal proceedings regarding their involvement in various foreign wars.

Of course that’s one of the problems.  It’s a U.S. corporation, being ruled on in U.S. courts.  Who would’ve thought they might not rule in favor of the victims?  There’s no track record of that sort of favoirtism in their courts, is there?

Cheers, Winston