Shell's responsibility for human rights violations in Nigeria

¶ … against Shell in Nigeria regarding human rights. The writer explores the issue and the details why Shell should not be held responsible for the human right violations in that situation. There were three sources used to complete this paper.

SHELL HAD A RIGHT TO PROTECT ITS INVESTMENT AND EMPLOYEES

It is generally believed that large corporations have a duty to use their power and abilities to promote human rights and not be a part of violating them. In a case that shocked the world last decade, Shell Oil in Nigeria faced a lawsuit alleging that the arms it funded into that country caused the abuse and execution of many innocent victims. It also alleged that the consequential trial and execution of eight human rights activists was caused by the actions of Shell Oil. While Shell admits to funding and importing arms, it maintains it had nothing to do with the human rights violations that occurred through the use of those arms. Shell was only trying to protect its employees who worked in a volatile environment.

DEFENSE

Shell was conducting business in an area filled with volatile issues and violent tendencies. All around it there were uprisings, protests and other acts against the current state of affairs. Shell had and still has a duty and obligation to ensure the safety of its employees and their families.

The local atmosphere was a hot bed of violence and angered reactions to perceived human rights violations on all sides of the issue. Shell employees worked in the area, as well as had family members who lived and played in the area. Shell is the largest oil company in the country (Lawerence, 1997). This made it a natural target for anger by grass roots organizations that felt their way of life was being destroyed in the name of progress. The military had its own orders when it came to stopping the grass roots protests and at any given time Shell employees or family members could find themselves in the crossfire. Without advocating any mistreatment of people Shell imported arms for the sole purpose of protecting its land, its buildings, and most importantly those who had to come and go through the gates to work each day knowing that they represented the progress at the center of the violence.

CONCLUSION

Shell did pay to bring firearms into the area. In addition it paid for many of the vehicles that the military used to patrol the area and surrounding areas. Shell never engaged in or promoted the use of the vehicles, funds, or arms for the purpose of violence against innocent civilians or human rights activists. The company needed to be able to protect its investments, employees, and families. Because Shell is such a large corporation, it is a natural target for militant groups from all sides of the human rights issue. Much in the same way taking down the WTC on 9-11 got the world's attention for Alqeda, it would not be hard to imagine a planned attack on Shell for the purpose of getting the area's attention. Shell was at risk from many militant and human rights activist groups by its sheer worth and impact on the area. The funding of arms was for the purpose of protecting itself, and not for the purpose of any human right violations. There have been many trials in which the gun manufacturers have been tried for the murder of a person using one of their weapons. The manufacturers have successfully argued that their weapon did not commit the crimes, those who held them did. Shell has the same legal defense in its corner. Shell had an obligation to protect those it employed as well as the right to protect its investment and company grounds. The funding of weapons for that purpose cannot be construed as a support for illegal activities that were carried out with some of the weapons and vehicles.