Flores v. S. Peru Copper Corp. - 414 F.3d 233 (2d Cir. 2003)

Rule:

In order to state a claim under the Alien Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C.S. § 1350, a plaintiff must allege either a violation of a United States treaty or of a rule of customary international law, as derived from those universally adopted customs and practices that states consider to be legally obligatory and of mutual concern.

Facts:

Plaintiff residents of Ilo, Peru and the representatives of the deceased Ilo residents brought personal injury claims under the Alien Tort Claims Act ("ATCA"), 28 U.S.C. § 1350, against Southern Peru Copper Corporation ("SPCC"), a United States company. Plaintiffs alleged that pollution from SPCC's copper mining, refining, and smelting operations in and around Ilo caused plaintiffs' or their decedents' severe lung disease. Plaintiffs claimed that defendant’s conduct violated the “law of nations” --- commonly referred to as “international law” or, when limited to non-treaty law, as “customary international law.” In particular, they asserted that defendant infringed upon their customary international law "right to life," "right to health," and right to "sustainable development." The district court held that plaintiffs had failed to establish subject matter jurisdiction or to state a claim under the ATCA because they had not alleged a violation of customary international law -- i.e., that they had not "demonstrated that high levels of environmental pollution within a nation's borders, causing harm to human life, health, and development, violate well-established, universally recognized norms of international law." The court further held that even if plaintiffs had alleged a violation of customary international law, the case would have to be dismissed on forum non conveniens grounds because Peru provided an adequate alternative forum for plaintiffs' claims and because the relevant public and private interest factors weigh heavily in favor of the Peruvian forum. Accordingly, the district court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs appealed. 

Issue:

Were the plaintiffs able to establish a violation of customary international law?

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

The court affirmed the decision of the district court, holding that the "right to life" and "right to health" were insufficiently definite to constitute rules of customary international law. The court further rejected the argument 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 also held that evidence such as treaties and non-binding declarations of the United Nations General Assembly were not adequate evidence of customary international law.