SERAP v. Nigeria, Ruling, Suit No: ECW/CCJ/APP/08/09 and RUL. No: ECW/CCJ/APP/07/10 (ECOWAS, Dec. 10, 2010) 1/25/21, 1:48 PM corporations, for violation or complicity in violation of Human Rights especially in developing countries. In fact, one of the paradoxes that characterize International Law presently is the fact that States and individuals can be held accountable internationally, while companies cannot. 66. This anomaly has been the reason for growing concern from Academia and institutions committed the promotion and protection of Human Rights around the world. In the article entitled "Separating Myth from Reality about Corporate Responsibility Litigation" published in the Journal of Economic Law (2004) 263, 265, Harold Hongju Koh makes the following observations with respect to the issue under discussion: "If states and individuals can be held liable under international law, then so too should be corporations for the simple reason that both states and individuals act through corporations. Given that reality, what legal sense would it make to let states and individuals immunize themselves from liability for gross violations of Human Rights through the mere artifice of corporate formation?." 67. The same concern is shared by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights in its Report on Corporate Responsibility and by the Committee on Legal Affairs of the European Parliamentary Assembly in its Report on Human Rights and Business presented in September this year 2010. 68. This need to make corporations internationally answerable has led to some initiatives, namely the nomination of Special Representative of the Secretary General of the United Nations whose Report titled " Protect, Respect and Remedy: A framework for Business and Human Rights" (The Ruggie Report) is one of the greatest reference on the accountability of multinationals for Human Rights violation in the world. 69. Despite the campaigned launched advocacy organizations towards new developments, the bare truth, however, is that the process of codification of international Law has not yet arrived at a point that allows the claim against corporations to be brought before International Courts. Any attempts to do so have been dismissed on the basis that the Companies are not parties to the treaties that the international courts are empowered to enforce. This understanding is widely shared among regional courts with jurisdiction over Human Rights. 70. That being the current situation at the international level, the only available alternative left to those seeking for justice against corporations has been domestic jurisdictions, as in the case of the United States where under the Alien Tort Claims Act (1789), it has been possible to make the American companies operating abroad responsible for human rights abuses in developing countries in violation of the law of nations (International Law). Two leading examples of the disputes dealt with by American jurisdiction in this field of corporate liability are Wiwa vs Shell, 2009 U.S. 2 d Cir, June 3, 2009, for facts that occurred exactly in the region of Niger Delta and Doe vs Unocal Corporation 248 F. 3d 915, 9th Cir. 2001, for facts that occurred in Burma. But it is worthy to leave clear that even in the United States, notwithstanding a few decisions supporting corporate liability, a recent ruling from 2nd Circuit In Kiobel V. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co. 2010 US App LEXIS 19382 (2d Cir. 2010) held that Alien Tor Act does not authorize jurisdiction to hear claims against corporations. 71. In the context and legal framework of ECOWAS, the court stands by its current understanding that only Member States and Community Institutions. Can be sued before it for alleged violation of http://www.worldcourts.com/ecowasccj/eng/decisions/2010.12.10_SERAP_v_Nigeria.htm Page 11 of 13