¶ … 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.
BACKGROUND
The case against Shell Oil had many facets but the core issue was the admission that it funded the import of firearms and vehicles, which were later used in the commission of human rights violations. Shell Oil was accused of providing arms to the military for the purpose of subduing local protests to the company's expansion...
Many local villages were destroyed and the allegation was that the funded weapons by Shell were used in those acts of violence.
Shell was officially charged with human rights abuses. The company denied all allegations except the accusation that it funded arms in the country. Shell admits it funded arms to be imported to the area and to be distributed to the local military forces and the police. Shell however, denies any and all allegations that it did so for the purpose of committing any human rights violations (Shell to Stand Trial for 1990s Human Rights Abuses in Nigeria. William Bauer (http://www.socialfunds.com/news/article.cgi/article795.html).
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…
