skip navigation

Search results

Search terms: haagse stadspartij 'the hague city party' netherlands

> Refine results with advanced case search

716 results (ordered by relevance)

<< first < prev   page 90 of 144   next > last >>

Sarei v. Rio Tinto: Alexis Holyweek Sarei et al. v. Rio Tinto PLC and Rio Tinto Limited

Order Granting Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, 9 Jul 2002, United States District Court Central District of California, United States

After the civil war in Papua New Guinea, which led to Bougainville obtaining a more autonomous position, several inhabitants of that island sued the mining company Rio Tinto, basically for its role in the war and the process leading up to it. The plaintiffs claimed that Rio Tinto’s mining activities had harmed their health and the environment, and that they had helped the Papua New Guinea government in, among other things, setting up a blockade with disastrous results for the population. They relied on the Alien Tort Claims Act, a US Act which permits aliens to present a claim in a US court when, allegedly, the law of nations has been breached.

The Court stated that it had jurisdiction to hear the majority of the claims. However, it dismissed the claim in entirety, based on the political question doctrine. If the judiciary would rule on the merits of the case, the Court stated, it would judge the policy of Papua New Guinea during the civil war and thereby tread on the exclusive domain of the executive branch of the government, which has the prerogative to decide on foreign policy. 


Gusmao: The Public Prosecutor v. Joanico Gusmao

Judgement, 14 Apr 2004, Special Panels for Serious Crimes (District Court of Dili), East Timor

Indonesia had illegally occupied East Timor since 1975 despite the will of the Timorese to gain independence. The Indonesian Armed Forces, together with a number of militia groups, carried out a nationwide campaign intended to terrorise and punish independence supporters.

The Accused was a member of the Laksaur militia group who had perpetrated widespread and systematic attacks against the Timorese people. The Accused was charged with the murder of a known independence supporter, whom he murdered by stabbing in the back with his sword during an attack on the village in which the victim lived. The Accused plead guilty and was sentenced to 7 years’ imprisonment by the Court for the offense of murder as a crime against humanity. 


John Doe v. Exxon Mobil: John Doe et al. v. Exxon Mobil Corporation et al.

Memorandum, 2 Mar 2006, United States District Court for the District of Columbia, United States

Several villagers from Aceh, Indonesia, filed a civil suit against oil and gas company Exxon Mobil. They argued that the company carried responsibility for human rights violations committed by Indonesian security forces by hiring these forces and because Exxon Mobil knew or should have known that human rights violations were being committed.

After the District Court allowed the case to proceed in part, the plaintiffs presented an amended complaint, which was assessed again by the District Court. It allowed most of these claims, which were based on the laws of the District of Columbia, to proceed. US law should be applied, the Court reasoned, because Exxon Mobil was based in the United States. 


El-Shifa v. USA: El-Shifa Pharmaceutical Industries Company et al. v. United States of America

Memorandum Order, 28 Mar 2007, United States District Court for the District of Columbia, United States

In August 1998, the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by terrorists loyal to Osama bin Laden. In retaliation, President Clinton ordered a missile strike on the El-Shifa pharmaceutical plant in Khartoum, Sudan, arguing that it was a base for terrorism. Later, it was proven that the plant had no ties to terrorists. Therefore, El-Shifa Pharmaceutical Industries brought complaints against the United States in the US Court of Federal Claims.

In November 2005, the District Court found that El-Shifa Pharmaceutical Industries failed to show that the US waived its sovereign immunity regarding the asserted claims. This meant that the District Court did not have jurisdiction to hear the plaintiff’s claims. Accordingly, the District Court dismissed the complaint.

In March 2007, the District Court denied the plaintiff’s motion to alter judgment, in which it sought to the reinstate their defamation and law of nations claims. The District Court based its decision on the fact that the plaintiffs did not adduce any new evidence or arguments to support that an error of law was made during the earlier decision of November 2005.


Jurišić: Office of the War Crimes Prosecutor v. Ilija Jurišić

Indictment, 9 Nov 2007, District Court in Belgrade, War Crimes Chamber, Serbia-Montenegro

Ilija Jurišić was a member of the Bosnia and Herzegovina police reserve forces as well as a high-ranking commander in the Tuzla-based State Security Operational Centre. Later, Jurišić exercised control over all armed troops deployed over the territory of Tuzla. In the latter function, Jurišić allegedly ordered his subordinates to attack a column of soldiers of the Yugoslav Peoples' Army (JNA) on 5 May 1992, while this convoy had just started to withdraw from Tuzla. As a result of this attack, at least 92 JNA soldiers were killed and more than 30 others were injured.


<< first < prev   page 90 of 144   next > last >>