| answer text |
<p>The UK intervened in both these cases (Kiobel vs Royal Dutch Shell Petroleum and
Rio Tinto v Sarei) to clarify our position on the proper limits of the extraterritorial
application of US law. The amicus brief submitted by the UK was confined to our views
on this point of international law, and did not take a position on the allegations
made against the defendants in this case. The views expressed were consistent with
long-standing UK policy.</p><p>The UK strongly supports the promotion of business
and human rights and was the first country to produce a National Action Plan to implement
the UN Guiding Principles. We have consistently made clear that we expect British
companies to act in accordance with human rights wherever they operate, and that companies
should not be able to act with impunity. States should enact domestic law to regulate
the activity of businesses to ensure that they do not have a negative impact on human
rights. We believe it appropriate and desirable for a State to provide remedies for
human rights victims where human rights abuses are committed by their nationals (including
corporate nationals) overseas.</p><p>Rio Tinto wrote to the British Government in
November 2011 requesting that the Government intervene in their case in view of our
stance on extraterritoriality. After considering the points of law that the case raised,
we considered that submitting a brief would be appropriate. The Shell case was brought
to our attention by a third party and again we objected because there was little,
or no, connection between the corporate defendant and the US. Officials discussed
the case with the company after we had made the decision to intervene. The Government
initially submitted a brief in support of Shell in the Kiobel vs Royal Dutch Shell
Petroleum case because we were not advised that a neutral brief was a possibility.
As soon as we became aware, we replaced our original brief with a neutral brief, as
the best way of representing our wider legal concerns without taking a position on
the specific allegations in this case.</p>
|
|
