Ken Dalecki – If your company does business overseas, keep an eye on several lawsuits against US corporations alleging that they are "vicariously liable" for human rights abuses committed by others in countries where they do business.

So far, US firms haven't lost a case. But some fearful businesses may settle to avoid bad publicity and lose sales abroad. And a win by plaintiffs would bring more such lawsuits. Currently, 18 cases are pending in US courts against some of the biggest names in US business, according to Dan O'Flaherty, who monitors such lawsuits for the National Foreign Trade Council, a business trade organization.

Companies being sued include Citigroup, Ford, GM, Coca-Cola, ExxonMobil, ChevronTexaco, Nike, Freeport-McMoRan, Unocal, IBM and Honeywell. Countries in which these companies are operating and are being accused of human rights violations include South Africa, Sudan, Nigeria, Peru, Myanmar, Indonesia, India, Colombia, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Equador and Guatemala.

Human rights advocates view the lawsuits as a way to force reforms and provide compensation for abuses, but most corporations see them as little more than self-enrichment schemes advanced by trial lawyers trying to make a fortune in contingency fees.

The US State Department has taken the side of US firms in several cases, telling judges who have asked for input that it is not in the national interest to pursue the complaints. Companies fighting suits may ask a presiding judge to seek an opinion from the State Department, but judges are not required to do so and are free to ignore any opinion the government may issue.

Perhaps the highest-profile case is a suit against US and European firms that did business in South Africa before apartheid ended. Edward Fagan, a US attorney who won a $1.25-billion settlement for Holocaust victims against Swiss banks in 1998, has brought a multi-billion dollar suit in US District Court in Manhattan against a host of companies under the long-dormant Alien Tort Claims Act. The act is being used to bring cases on behalf of non-US citizens who contend Americans or American corporations violated their human rights.

In the apartheid case, US firms could be found liable even if their only connection with the government was paying taxes and operating under the same rules as other businesses a "vicarious liability" for doing business under a regime whose policies violated human rights. The State Department has not weighed in on the case, which is expected to begin oral arguments early next year.

Another big suit involves ExxonMobil and its operations in the oil-rich province of Aceh, Indonesia. Villagers are suing the company, alleging that their human rights were violated by Indonesian security forces acting to protect ExxonMobil interests in the province.

Rebels in Aceh have been trying to gain greater autonomy from the central government, and the US has conceded that the Indonesian military has violated human rights in trying to defeat the insurrection. The case is pending in US District Court for the District of Columbia. Although the State Department has been critical of Indonesia's human rights record, it is nevertheless urging the judge to dismiss the case because pursuing it would "risk a potentially serious adverse impact on significant interests of the United States." Such interests include getting Indonesia's cooperation in the war on terrorism.

But Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch, sees the case in a different light, noting that "if the Bush administration is serious about promoting ethical business practices, it shouldn't be trying to stop this court case from going forward."

A case pending in a California Superior Court after having been dismissed in federal court is also being closely watched. It involves Unocal, a California-based energy company with part interest in a gas pipeline in Myanmar, formerly known as Burma. The suit says the firm is liable for alleged human rights abuses by the military during construction of the pipeline. Although the judge has cleared Unocal of any direct involvement in human rights abuses, the case is being continued to determine whether Unocal has "vicarious liability."

A statement issued in June by the business says it is "absolutely convinced that the presence of Unocal and other companies who follow high ethical standards and modern business practices can have a positive impact on the economic and political lives of the people of Myanmar."

According to one business source following human rights lawsuits, "the big enchilada in all this is China. My guess is this is all a warm-up to go after firms doing business there." China, which this year gained entry into the World Trade Organization, is seen as the new frontier for many US companies looking to break into a market of 1.3 billion people. It also provides a relatively cheap but skilled labor force for US manufacturers and is drawing significant investment capital from the US and other advanced economies.