Free Burma: Transnational Legal Action and Corporate Accountability

Select Bibliography of Key Legal Documents

251 These are the most relevant legal sources and concepts that shaped the three transnational legal campaigns discussed in this book. Briefs Appellants’ Opening Brief, Doe v. Unocal, No. 00–56603 in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, February 26, 2001. Brief of Amici Curiae in Support of Plaintiffs-Appellants Urging Reversal, Doe v. Unocal, No. 00–56603, and Roe v. Unocal, No. 00–56628 in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (submitted by Center for International Environmental Law, Global Exchange, Rainforest Action Network, Sierra Club), 2001. Defendants/Appellees’ Consolidated Answering Brief, Doe v. Unocal, No. 0056603 , and Roe v. Unocal, No. 00–56628 in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, May 7, 2001. “Defendants’ Memorandum in Support of Their Motion for Summary Judgment ,” IV, D, at § 3. Presented to the U.S. District Court of Massachusetts, July 27, 1998, by attorneys Scott Harshbarger and Thomas Barnico for their defendants Charles D. Baker, Secretary of Administration and Finance of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and Philmore Anderson III, State Purchasing Agent for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Select Bibliography of Key Legal Documents 252 Select Bibliography “Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction or, Alternatively, for Consolidation and Expedited Consideration of the Merits,” § 3 (May 14, 2001). “Summary of the NFTC Lawsuit,” § 2 (March 3, 2000). Government Documents The Crackdown in Burma: Suppression of the Democracy Movement and Violations of Human Rights. Hearing and Markup before the Subcommittees on Human Rights and International Organizations and on the Asian and Pacific Affairs of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, House of Representatives, One Hundred First Congress, First Session on H. Con. Res. 185, September 13, 1989. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1990. Forced Labor in Myanmar (Burma). Report of the Commission of Inquiry appointed under article 26 of the Constitution of the International Labor Organization to examine the observance by Myanmar of the Forced Labor Convention , 1930 (No. 29). Geneva, 1998. See http://www.ilo.org/public/english/ bureau/inf/pr/. Memorandum of the Government of Myanmar on the Report of the DirectorGeneral to the Members of the Governing Body, May 1999. See http://www .ilo.org/public/english/standards/relm/gb/docs/gb276/gb-6-a2.htm. Reports 142 Cong. Rec. § 8755 (daily ed. July 25, 1996). H.R. Report No. 102–367, pt. 1 (1991). Human Rights Documentation Unit (National Coalition Government of the Union of Burma) (1997), Human Rights Yearbook: 1996 Burma. Nonthaburi, Thailand. Treaties Agreement on Government Procurement, Apr. 15, 1994. See http://www.wto.org/ english/tratop_e/gproc_e/agrmnt_e.htm, “Text of the Agreement on Government Procurement” (Aug. 17, 2001). Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, May 23, 1969, 1155 U.N.T.S. 331, 344, art. 53; and 347, art. 64. U.S. Cases Abdul-Rahman Omar Adra v. Clift, 195 F. Supp. 857 (D.Md. 1961). Bolchos v. Darrel, 3 F. Cas. 810 (DSC 1795). Bowoto v. Chevron Texaco Corp., 312 F. Supp. 2d 1229 (N.D. Cal. 2004). Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. ___ (2010). No. 08-205. Select Bibliography 253 Crosby, Secretary of Administration and Finance of Massachusetts, et al. v. National Foreign Trade Council, 530 U.S. 363, 387 to 388 (2000). Doe v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 393 F. Supp. 2d 20 (D.D.C. 2005). Doe v. Unocal Corp., 963 F. Supp. 880 (C.D. Cal. 1997). Doe v. Unocal Corp., 27 F. Supp. 2d 1174 (C.D. Cal. 1998). Doe v. Unocal Corp., 67 F. Supp. 2d 1140 (C.D. Cal. 1999). Doe v. Unocal Corp., 110 F. Supp. 2d 1294 (C.D. Cal. 2000). Doe v. Unocal Corp., F.3d 915 (9th Cir. 2001). Doe v. Unocal Corp., 395 F.3d 932 (9th Cir. 2002). Doe v. Unocal Corp., 395 F.3d 978 (9th Cir. 2003). Doe v. Unocal Corp., 403 F.3d 708 (9th Cir. 2005). Filartiga v. Pena-Irala, 630 F. 2d 876 (2d Cir. 1980). In re Estate of Ferdinand E. Marcos Human Rights Litig., 25 F. 3rd 1467, 1475 (9th Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1126 (1995). International Longshoremen’s Association, AFL-CIO v. Allied International, Inc., 456 U.S. 212, 214–215 (1982). Kardic v. Karadzic, 70 F 3d 232 (2d Cir. 1995). Nat’l Coalition Gov’t of the Union of Burma v. Unocal...