On 10 June 2024, the groundbreaking US federal trial, Chiquita Brands International, Inc., Alien Tort Statute and Shareholders Derivative Litigation, found the banana corporation guilty of the deaths of eight men through its 1997-2004 funding of the Autodefensas Unidas de Colombia (AUC), a paramilitary group known for large-scale civilian massacres, torture, public rape, and dismemberment. During this period, Chiquita made over 100 payments totalling $1.7 million to the AUC. The Court ordered Chiquita to award $38.3 million to the victims’ families. The case marks the first time an American jury held a major US corporation liable for human rights abuse abroad.
The case was primarily tried under the 1789 Alien Tort Statute (ATS), which allows non-US citizens to bring civil actions in US federal courts for violations of international law, including those that occur abroad. Historically, ATS verdicts have largely narrowed the scope of corporate liability for international human rights abuses. For instance, in Kiobel v Royal Dutch Petroleum Co. (2013), the Supreme Court found that the ATS does not apply extraterritorially and, in Nestlé USA, Inc. v Doe (2021), that domestic decision-making cannot be tried under the ATS. Likewise, international human rights litigation within the US is rare, largely because American law makes it highly difficult. The Chiquita verdict is thus being heralded as groundbreaking for international human rights.
The case was the first in a series of bellwether trials, that is, test cases selected from a larger pool to assess the viability of the broader litigation. This initial trial involved only nine out of approximately 4,500 plaintiffs. The second trial, initially set to occur on 15 July 2024, has been postponed pending Chiquita’s appeal of its guilty verdict.
The Limits of the Duress Defence in International Law
The plaintiffs contended that Chiquita’s financial assistance to paramilitary groups contributed to ‘consistent patterns of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights.’ For example, they argued that Chiquita contravened the right to life, enshrined in Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and in Article 6(1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Furthermore, they argued breaches of the right to security, protected by Article 3 of the UDHR and Article 9 of the ICCPR.
Notably, Chiquita defended its actions claiming that the payments had been made under duress from the AUC’s violent threats. However, the federal jury in Florida dismissed this argument and concluded that Chiquita nonetheless ‘knowingly provided substantial assistance to the AUC,’ therefore creating foreseeable risks of harm to others and failing to act as a reasonable business entity would under similar circumstances.
The Path Forward
This ruling is consistent with how the duress defence has been historically unsuccessful in international law. Emphasising this restricted understanding of the defence, present in prominent cases, could strengthen subsequent plaintiffs’ arguments. For example, in Prosecutor v Tadić (1999), the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) rejected the defendant’s duress argument, as it found that he had opportunities to avoid the crimes without facing immediate harm. Likewise, in the case of Loizidou v Turkey (1996), the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) rejected Turkey’s claims that certain crimes had been committed under duress from de facto authorities, asserting its effective control over the area and thus rejecting the defence of duress. Similarly, in K.A. v Belgium (2009), the ECtHR rejected Belgium’s duress claim based on treaty obligations with the US, finding that such mandates did not absolve Belgium from its duty to protect individuals from grave human rights violations.
The historical ambiguity surrounding the domestic liability of US multinationals for human rights abuses committed outside of US jurisdiction has been highlighted in notable cases involving major companies, such as Coca-Cola and Chevron, which often ruled in favour of the corporations. However, Chiquita was the first bellwether case which set precedent for potentially increased liability for US multinationals in areas with high risk of human rights infringements. Future trials could further examine the extent of Chiquita’s complicity in human rights abuses and strengthen corporate accountability under international law.
A Spanish translated version of this blog can be found here.
Read more:
0 Comments