Global interconnectivity began when Columbus landed in the

Americas, leading to the spread of colonization and imperialism.

Global interconnectivity or globalization transcends local and

national boundaries and brings about both positive and negative

outcomes. Globalization is presented, almost, as a modern day

utopia, but, evidences suggest the contradictory. One of the main

downbeats of globalization is the investment of multinational

corporations in the developing countries. The interconnectivity

and interdependency of corporations and governments has been a

lethal combination which produces human rights infringement.

Throughout history, people’s human rights have been violated, and

little efforts have been made to address the violations and

protect their rights.

Human rights were created and established following World

War II, in order to prevent inhumane events from occurring in the

future (Waitzer & Jaswal, 2009). Unfortunately, abuses of human

rights have continued even in the post World War II era. An

excellent example is the Niger Delta Region, where human rights

violation is been witnessed on a continuous basis. A major source

of conflict in this region is caused by the investment of

1 | P a g e

multinational corporations, for the oil and gas reserves in the

region. Among all, Shell Oil Company is the major extractor of

oil in the region.

This essay will explore whether the Shell Oil Company

investment within the Niger Delta Region has lead to human rights

violations. In order to answer this questions this essay will

begin by providing a brief overview of the Niger Delta Region;

subsequently proceeding to explore different human rights

charters and covenants in Nigeria. The essay would also examine

whether the Shell Oil Company has really violated the terms

established within these charters and covenants. Afterwards this

essay will address the effects the Shell Oil Company has had on

the Niger Delta region and the people, by exploring how the

political, social, and economical stability of the region has

been compromised. Finally, this essay will look at whether the

Nigerian government is responsible for the human rights violation

due to their lack of law enforcement and oversight over the Shell

Oil Company; or is it the negligence of the oil company in

incorporating corporate social responsibility in its oil

exploration projects.

2 | P a g e

THE NIGER DELTA REGION

The Niger Delta region is in south Nigeria, Africa (“EIA

Country Analysis Brief: Nigeria,” 2007). The source adds that the

region is divided into 370 different ethnic groups, “the Ijaw,

Ogoni, Ogba, Ikwerre, Itsekiri, Urohobo, Ibibio, Efik, Ndokwa,

etc. But the Ijaw is the largest group in the Niger Delta belt.”

The region is known for its extraordinarily diverse ecosystems

and “is the world’s third largest wetland” (“EIA Country Analysis

Brief: Nigeria,” 2007). Furthermore, this region is highly

abundant with renewable and non-renewable natural resources. It

alone contains 3 trillion cubic meters of gas reserves, along

with 20 billion barrels of oil reserves; while the whole

continent of Africa produces 66 billion barrels of oil (Ibe,

1988, 42). The country of Nigeria relies heavily on these

resources, 85% of the nation’s gross domestic product (GDP), more

than 80% of the country’s wealth, along with over 95% of the

national budget is attained from oil and gas found in the Niger

Delta region (“EIA Country Analysis Brief: Nigeria,” 2007).

Contrarily to regional resources, the Niger Delta Region

3 | P a g e

continues to be an extremely improvised area. The exploitation of

both oil and gas resources, by multinational corporations, has

contributed to increased poverty of the region. Two main factors

that have led to poverty in the area are: first, an improper

division of wealth. The indigenous people have received almost

nothing from the oil exploration and have been deprived from

their share of wealth from the natural resources. Second, the

drilling and spillage of massive amounts of oil has lead to the

devastation of the ecosystem, thus, making it extremely difficult

for the population heavily dependent on agriculture, to have an

adequate living.

Many different multinational oil corporations have been

investing in the Niger Delta region. The Shell Oil Company is the

foremost extractor of petroleum in the region. This Anglo Dutch

Shell Petroleum Development Company produces 42.2% of the

country’s daily petroleum output, followed by “Mobil (US) 21.2%,

Agip (Italy) 7.5%, Elf 6.1%, Texaco Overseas Petroleum (US) 2.6%

and others accounting for 1.7%” (Shinsato, 2005, 199). Since,

Shell is the largest corporation in the region, thus has the

greatest contact with the indigenous communities and their

4 | P a g e

environment. For that reason, this essay will only be exploring

Shell Oil Company within the Niger Delta.

ECOLOGICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL DEGRADATION:

There are serious threats to the livelihood of the coaster

communities, by the operations of the Shell Oil Company in the

Niger Delta region of Nigeria. The Niger Delta ecosystem was

destroyed by acid rain due to gas flaring, oil spills and

hydrocarbon, and poor waste disposal by the Shell Oil Company

(Manby, 1999). The oil pollution had an extensive effect on the

lives of the inhabitants living in that region, leading to the

destruction of habitats, loss of biodiversity and water

pollution.

Acid Rain:Gas flaring constitutes one of the monstrous human rights

abuses in relation to human and environmental abuse. In an

interview conducted by a U.S. Non-Governmental Delegation to

Nigeria, Grace Ekanem reported, “acid rain not only deprives

people drinkable rain water and stuns crop growth (as we found in

5 | P a g e

Eket and other communities of Akwa Ibom State), it is also

affecting people’s homes” (“The Case against Shell,” 2007). The

source also claims that, research has shown that people who live

near flares are exposed to toxins which threaten their health and

livelihood. It has been reported that Niger Delta residents

suffer respiratory problems which are linked to environmental

pollution. Such problems include coughing blood, skin rashes,

tumors, gastrointestinal problems, different forms of cancer, and

malnourishment.

Oil Spills:

Oil spill is one of the major environmental hazards in the

Niger Delta. This particular cause of environmental hazard

contaminates water, destroy plants and animals. The causes of

oil spill have been attributed to poorly maintained pipelines and

oil well. Some pipes are rusty and needs major repairs. The

Niger Delta is extensively affected by water pollution caused by

oil exploration. The oil occasionally spills directly into the

sea or water sources. A report mentioned that villages in many

areas claimed that when pipelines corrode and leak, Shell Oil

Company workers inspected but did not repair the leak, instead

6 | P a g e

the oil company often claim sabotage (“The Case against Shell,”

2007).

The oil in water prevents natural aeration, thus, killing

fish and other aquatic animals. The resulting impact on the

residents is enormous. The mangrove forests of the Niger Delta

are important ecological resource as they provide essential

ecosystem including soil stability, medicines, healthy fisheries,

wood for fuel and shelter, tannins and dyes, and critical

wildlife habitats (Knox, 2000). Oil spills contributed to

degradation and destruction of this mangrove forests. Endangered

species were increasingly threatened by the activities of the oil

companies. The resulting ecological devastation as a result of

these spills could not be measured easily. In an interview with

Chief Anthony Aniatia, it was reported that the once healthy and

productive mangrove of Iko that was a source of farming and

fishing, gathering of wood for building and fuel is no longer a

source of livelihood for many, as a result of oil exploration

(Ibe, 1988). The source also reported that “repeated oil leaks

have coated the breathing roots of the mangroves, killing off

parts of the forest and the animal and marine life that depend on

7 | P a g e

it.” The Shell Oil Company’s operation in Eket, Akwa Ibom state

has led to loss of fish populations along the coast.

HUMAN RIGHTS AND SHELL OIL COMPANY

This section of the essay will explore whether the Shell Oil

Company has violated the rights of the indigenous communities

within the Niger Delta regions. The actions of the Shell Oil

Company will be reviewed and evaluated according to the United

Nations International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural

Rights, along with The African Carter of Human and Peoples’

Rights.

The environmental damage caused by Shell has made it

difficult for the indigenous populace to formulate an adequate

living. The United Nations International covenant on Economic,

Social and Cultural Rights states in Article 11:

“The States Parties to present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to an adequate

standard of living for himself and his family, including adequate food, clothing and

housing, and to the continuous improvement of living conditions. The States Parties will

take appropriate steps to ensure the international co-operation based on free consent.

The States Parties to present Covenant, recognizing the fundamental right of everyone

to be free from hunger, shall take, individually and through international co-operation,

8 | P a g e

the measures, including specific programmes, which are needed: To improve methods

of production, conservation and distribution of food by making full use of technical and

scientific knowledge, by disseminating knowledge of the principles of nutrition and by

developing or reforming agrarian systems in such a way as to achieve the most efficient

development and utilization of natural resources” (“African Charter on Human

and Peoples’ Rights….,” 2009).

It can be assessed, from the above charter, that the Shell Oil

Company has infringed the rights of the indigenous population of

the Niger Delta Region. The right to ‘adequate standard of

living’ and ‘continuous improvement of living conditions’ has

been violated through the destruction of environment. The

environmental harm can be seen as an atrocity that cannot be

fully repaired or would take thousands of years to heal.

Shell destroyed indigenous communities, specifically the

Ogoni, opportunity to better standards of living, through the

deprivation of access to adequate food. Shell intentionally

destroyed agrarian systems, which violates Article 11. During its

oil exploration in the Niger Delta Region, Shell hired a pipeline

contractor. The contractor, under Shell’s orders began bulldozing

crops on Ogoni farmland, “under the protection of Nigerian

9 | P a g e

soldiers, in order to prepare for the construction of the

pipeline” (Ruggie, 2007, 13). Additionally, insufficient access

to adequate water impedes on article 11 of the United Nations

covenant. This drastically undermines the quality of life of the

residents of the Niger Delta region. Residences are forced to

consume water polluted with oil, along with cook and bath in

these unhygienic waters. After the oil spill, caused by

“equipment failure”, the Shell Petroleum Development Company

distributed liters of clean water to the affected communities

(“The Case against Shell,” 2007). The source adds that,

nevertheless, “local NGOs that visited the site confirmed that

the community did not have enough water for drinking, cooking and

washing” (Amnesty International, 2009, 23). So, not only was the

water supply contaminated by Shell, there was also an inadequate

distribution of water. Once the water supply is contaminated, it

produces a domino effect; i.e. lack of clean water, which leads

to the soil becoming infertile, subsequently the plant and

wildlife in the region die. As a consequence, whole communities

have lost the ability to provide an adequate living condition for

themselves and their families.

10 | P a g e

Shell has also violated the right to adequate housing as

stated in article 11. The oil spills created fires, which burned

homes along with crops. Naimo Bassey, Nigerian head of Friends of

the Earth International stated that “all the houses close to the

river were burnt, it was like a place that had been set on fire

in a situation of battle, of war” (Rugie, 2007, 22). Thus it is

apparent that the Shell Petroleum Development Company has led to

the destruction of the indigenous communities homes, which is a

clear violation of human rights.

The oil spills polluted the air of the Niger Delta Region.

The oil spills caused the air to be redolent of oil, gas and

other toxins. The air was consequently transformed into poisonous

fumes, with obvious health implications. Furthermore, additional

smoke and deadly fumes were released into the air after the spilt

oil was set ablaze. Many residence “complain of breathing

problems…but their concern are not taken seriously” (Shinsato,

2005, 203).

The Shell Oil Company violated the Niger Delta communities’

right to adequate standards of living, along with depriving them

the most basic human necessities; air, food, water and shelter.

11 | P a g e

“The contamination of water, soil and air has had serious short

and long-term health impacts, including skin infections,

gastrointestinal and respiratory ailments, and increased risk of

cancers, and neurological and reproductive problems” (Shinsato,

2005, 203). Furthermore, the Shell Oil Company has failed in

‘providing continuous improvement of living conditions’, as

mentioned under Article 11. Infact, the Shell Company has

worsened the living condition of the Niger Delta communities.

Despite the fact that the oil brought development and profits to

the country, the indigenous people, like the Ogoni, declare their

living conditions have not improved. The Ogoni people have

received nearly nothing from all the oil exported from their

land. They have been deprived from their share of the wealth,

from the natural resources. The Niger Delta citizens, saw

impoverishment, unemployment and economic hardships while

generating oil wealth for the state and foreign corporations.

Shell destroyed whole communities’ abilities to adequate

standards of living. The communities did not have access to

proper food or housing, nor continuous improvement of living

conditions. There were no steps taken to ensure improved methods

12 | P a g e

of production, conservation and distribution of food, which was

been destroyed by Shell oil spills. There was no distribution of

knowledge regarding the health and safety measure; in fact the

health problems caused by the Shell oil spills were ignored.

Shell did not develop or reform the agrarian systems which it had

destroyed. Thus it is apparent Shell has violated Article 11 of

the UN Covenant.

Additionally the Shell Oil Company has violated Article 20

of the African Charter of Human and Peoples’ Rights. Article 20

states:

“All peoples shall have the right to existence. They shall have the unquestionable and

inalienable right to self- determination. They shall freely determine their political status

and shall pursue their economic and social development according to the policy they

have freely chosen. Colonized or oppressed peoples shall have the right to free

themselves from the bonds of domination by resorting to any means recognized by the

international community. All peoples shall have the right to the assistance of the States

parties to the present, Charter in their liberation struggle against foreign domination,

be it political, economic or cultural”

(“African (Banjul) Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights,” 2002-

2010)

13 | P a g e

The Nigerian military and the Shell Company have established an

interconnectivity which ensures mutual benefit, at the expense of

the Niger Delta citizens. This mutually ensured beneficial

relationship has led to Shell violating the Ogoni communities

‘right to existence’, ‘self-determination’, the right to ‘freely

determine their political status’, the right to ‘pursue their

economic and social development’, ‘the right to free themselves

from the bonds of domination’ and, the right to ‘liberate

themselves against foreign economical domination’. The Shell

Company had continuously violated the above rights mentioned in

the charter.

Shell estimates that “[f]rom the start of production until

1993 when the company suspended operations in Ogoni land a total

of 634 million barrels of oil, valued at US $5.2 billion, were

produced from the area... the oil communities saw their allocated

and their actual share of the oil revenue decrease gradually

while...the federal government and the oil companies – grew

wealthier” (Shinsato, 2005, 188). The Niger Delta citizens had

received little, or no economic compensation from the oil found

on their land. Which lead Ken Saro-Wiwa, a native Ogoni, to form

14 | P a g e

MOSOP (Movement for Survival of Ogoni People) (Knox, 2000). The

MOSOP vociferously spoke out against the economic and political

oppression instilled by the Shell Oil Company and the Nigerian

government. In retrospect, SPDC (Shell Petroleum Development

Company) eastern division manager sent a letter to the police

explicitly requesting the MPF’s (Mobile Police Force) protection

(Knox, 2000). The source also claims that, MPF attacked peaceful

protestors with tear gas and gunfire and some 80 people were

killed and 495 homes were destroyed. The Ogoni made many peaceful

demonstrations against Shell’s operations, unfortunately the

special police consistently gunned down the peaceful protesters.

Many Ogoni were killed and injured by hired military guns during

MOSOP’s peaceful demonstrations against Shell’s oil plants.

“Shell’s reliance on military protection in Ogoniland continues

Shell cannot absolve itself of responsibility for the acts of the

military” (Knox, 2000). The source adds that Shell also purchased

of more than half a million dollars worth of “Beretta semi-

automatic rifles and pump-action shot guns,” for the MPF. Shell

many not have candidly requested MPF to kill the activists, but

15 | P a g e

Shell’s officials purchased weapons and forced the MPF into

action.

It is apparent that Shell hired the MPF to murder the Ogoni

people, thus violating their ‘right to existence’ along with

their right to ‘free themselves from the bonds of domination’

and, the right to ‘liberate themselves against foreign economical

domination’. Furthermore, Shell violently disrupted the peaceful

protests, which impedes the Ogoni people’s right to ‘self-

determination’ and the right of the Ogoni peoples to ‘freely

determine their political status’.

Additionally, Shell was earning capital through the

exploitation of oil and gas from the Niger Delta Region, while

repeatedly brutalizing the citizens of that very region. This

hinders the citizen’s right to ‘pursue their economic and social

development’. Thus it is clear that the Shell Oil Company has

violated Article 20 of the African Charter of Human and Peoples’

Rights.

VIOLATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS: governmental concern

16 | P a g e

It very clear from the above discussions that oil

exploration, by Shell Oil Company, exposed the people of Niger

Delta Region to various hazards which threatened their health,

livelihood and stability. There is culmination of both

psychological and physical effects as well as environmental

damage suffered by the people of Niger Delta. There is a lack of

awareness among the people of the Delta region as to what is

happening to their environment and their livelihood due to oil

exploration. These matters constitute violations of human rights

which need to be addressed.

Under the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic

of Nigeria, Article 20 provides that:

“The State shall protect and improve the environment and safeguard the water, air and

land, forest and wild life of Nigeria…It also guarantees the fundamental rights to life…

and dignity”

(“Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999,” 2009).

Based on the above covenant, it can be explicitly said that the

Niger Delta people are being denied from their rights entrenched

in the constitutions. Although the application and enforcement of

regulations by the Nigeria government has been in the best

17 | P a g e

interest of the citizens, especially those of the oil producing

communities, it is not always practicable. These regulations and

policies are rarely been enforced, in most cases, they are

blatantly ignored due to fears that tough regulations to curb the

activities of the oil companies would cause reduction in oil

companies’ profit and they may flee away from Nigeria. This

approach can be regarded as the State taking a presumed approach

at the expense of its citizenry.

Furthermore, Nigeria has incorporated into its law the

African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights which provides, for

example:

Article 16: “Every individual shall have the right to enjoy the best attainable state

of physical and mental health…States Parties to the present Charter shall take the

necessary measures to protect the health of their people and to ensure that they receive

medical attention when they are sick” (“African Charter on Human and

Peoples’ Rights...,” 2009).

Article 24: “All peoples shall have the right to a general satisfactory environment

favorable to their development” (“African Charter on Human and Peoples’

Rights...,” 2009).

18 | P a g e

Article 25: “States Parties to the present Charter shall have the duty to ensure

through teaching, education and publication, the respect of the rights and freedom

contained in the present Charter and to see to it that these freedom and rights as well

as corresponding obligations and duties are understood” (“African Charter on

Human and Peoples’ Rights...,” 2009).

The above articles expressly state the provisions that guarantee

fundamental human rights to the people of the Niger Delta in

relation to the activities of the Shell Oil Company and the

impact on the environment.

It can be said that the Nigerian government had been found to

have breached the above rights. This also brings to focus the

obligations of the Nigerian government to prevent human rights

violations exercised by the Shell Oil Company. Even though there

are various laws inhibited towards human rights violation, the

right to a general satisfactory environment mentioned under

Article 24 of the African Charter had been an illusion. The

provisions impose clear obligations upon the Nigerian government

to take responsibility for the human rights violation and have a

strict supervision over the projects carried out by the Shell Oil

Company.

19 | P a g e

The Nigerian government is also a party to the

International Convention on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights

(ICESCR), Article 12 of this instrument requires government to

take necessary steps for the improvement of all environmental and

industrial hygiene and to enjoy the best attainable state of

physical and mental health (“African (Banjul) Charter on Human

and Peoples’ Rights,” 2002-2010).

Some of these structures are well vested in the

Nigerian system but are not well developed to meet with these

challenges. The magic word is community involvement through

organized interest groups and Non-governmental Organization (NGO)

and healthy youth activism. The local and state government must

establish information centers through which people could liaise

with the Shell Oil Company on regular basis.

IS IT SHELL OIL COMPANY’S RESPONSIBILITY?

The prevailing view, in the United States and other parts of

the world, today is that the obligation of the directors of a

corporation is to advance the interests of their shareholders,

20 | P a g e

i.e. known as the shareholder primacy model (Ireland, 2005).

Since Shell Oil Company is a United Sates based multinational

corporation, it is more likely that it would abide by the

shareholder primacy model. This model would be very helpful in

determining whether Shell Oil Company should be held liable for

the environmental destruction and the other associated human

rights abuses.

According to this model, corporation exists only to make

money for its shareholders. This is not to say that corporate

directors, of Shell Oil Company, must or should ignore the

welfare of the inhabitants of the Niger Delta region, while

pursing oil exploration; but rather, protection of social welfare

should be the responsibility of the Nigerian government, not

corporate directors (Mallin, 2004). This is also not to say that

Shell should disregard any social consequence of its oil

exploration; but, corporate social responsibility can strike an

imbalance between profits and the human rights (in the Shell Oil

Company case). So how can this balance best be created? The

ultimate solution is government regulation. Nigerian government

should enforce regulation associated with human rights violation.

21 | P a g e

Governments are a far more effective protector of the public good

than any campaign for corporate social responsibility (Hall &

Soskice, 2001).

In their argument, Waitzer and Jaswal (2009, sets out

sweeping human rights duties for government that would apply

directly to the Shell oil company and the Nigerian government.

The authors argues that governments are directly responsible for

ensuring human rights are not been violated by corporations. In

their conclusion, Waitzer and Jaswal (2009) stated that “direct

enforcement by governments” is the most effective method of

promoting compliance with human rights norms. In the view of

some prominent scholars, the managers and directors have a duty

to comply with the law “only insofar as a breach of the law would

adversely affect the corporation” (Hall & Soskice, 2001, 22) The

article argues that “managers not only may but also should

violate the rules when it is profitable to do so” (24).

WHICH WAY FORWARD

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights provides that

the responsibility to prevent human right violation is that of

22 | P a g e

the nation states. However, a state can be held accountable for

human rights violations committed by private actors if it fails

in its duty to properly investigate or bring them to justice. The

Nigerian government should properly monitor the activities of the

Shell Oil Company. The Nigerian government should protect their

civil rights, guarantee the right to health, and an adequate

standard of living. There is an overriding responsibility of the

Nigerian government to the citizens of the Delta Region. The

Citizens of Nigeria must be seen as true citizens and not as

subjects. The Nigeria’s social contract must be redefined.

Each Local government area in the oil producing

community should have a separate department which deals with

citizenship rights with reference to the impact of oil

exploration in that community. The government should make it

easy for Shell Oil Company to establish an engagement process

with the communities they operate. The community should be

consulted on new projects held by the Shell Oil Company. By so

doing, violation associated with oil exploration can be reduced

to barest minimum. The people must be well informed of their

23 | P a g e

rights and expectations. The activities of non-governmental

organizations must be encouraged and respected in the region.

The Nigerian government in collaboration with the

Shell Oil Companies should hold annual lectures in order to

discuss all relevant issues in the petroleum industry as its

affects on the lives of the people and their environment. This

would provide a forum for the government, Shell Oil Company, and

the community to engage in meaningful dialogue regarding

promises, risk assessments and their relationship. The Shell Oil

Company must be forced to publish their plans and projects to the

community in which they wish to operate; and also provide avenues

for public comments, on their operations. The use of force by the

security officials against the people must be addressed. The

Nigerian police forced re-orientate their approach to the civil

society, both in terms of breaking up conflict or dealing with

protest.

CONCLUSION:

There is no doubt that the Niger Delta Region of is the

largest contributor of the Nigerian Economy. The direct impact of

24 | P a g e

oil exploration, by the Shell Oil Company, in the region has been

felt by everyone living in the area. Some of these issues

include ecological degradation, environmental pollution,

associated human rights abuses, and loss of livelihood.

It can be argued that these issues constitute human

rights issues as entrenched in the Universal Declaration of the

Human Rights (UDHR), the International Convention on Civil and

Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Convention on

Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) and the African

Charter on Human and peoples’ Rights (“African (Banjul) Charter

on Human and Peoples’ Rights,” 2002-2010).

The proposal for community engagement with the government

and Shell Oil Company would bring about effective monitoring of

the activities done by the company and create good relationship.

Provision of information, to the public, in regards to the oil

exploration would not only give the people awareness of what is

happening to their environment but also to help them make

informed choices.

REFERENCES

25 | P a g e

African (Banjul) Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (2002-2010). African Union: A united

and strong Africa. Retrieved from http://www.africaunion.org/official_documents/treaties_%20conventions_%20protocols/banjul%20charter.pdf>

African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act: Laws of the

Federation of Nigeria 1990. (2009). ICNFL: International centre for Nigerian Law. Retrieved from http://www.nigerialaw.org/African%20Charter%20on%20Human%20and%20Peoples'%20Rights.htm

Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999. (2009). ICNFL: International centre for

Nigerian Law. Retrieved from http://www.nigerialaw.org/ConstitutionOfTheFederalRepublicOfNigeria.htm>

EIA country Analysis Brief: Nigeria. (2007). Nigeria Country Analysis Brief. Retrieved from

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/nigeria.html

Hall, P. A. & Soskice, D. (2001). Introduction of Varieties of Capitalism. Varieties of

Capitalism: The Institutional Foundations of Comparative Advantage. New York: Oxford University Press.

Higgins, H. H. (2004). Corporate governance in Japan: Role of banks, keiretsus and Japanese

traditions. The governance of East Asia Corporations: Post Asian Financial Crisis. Palgave Macmillan.

26 | P a g e

Ibe, C. A. Coastline Erosion in Nigeria. Ibadan, Nigeria: Ibadan University Press.

 Ireland, P. Shareholder Primacy and the distribution of wealth. The Modern Law Review, 68(1), 49-81.

Joo, T.W. (2004). The Role of the Corporation. Corporate Governance: law, theory, and policy. Carolina Academic Press.

Knox, J. H. (2000). Shell Oil Companies’ responses to local communities’ protest. The

Guardian. Retrieved from http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2000/may/05/shell-oil-spill-niger-delta

Loewenstein, M. J. (2001-2002). Stakeholder Protection in Germanyand Japan. Tulane Law Review, 76, 1673-1690.

Mallin, C. A. (2004). Theories Aspects of Corporate Governance. Corporate Governance. Oxford University Press.

Manby, B. (1999). The Price of Oil: Corporate Responsibility and Human Rights Violations in Nigeria's Oil Producing Communities. Human Rights Watch.

Ruggie, J. G. (2007). Is Oil Worth More Than Blood in Nigeria? American Society of

27 | P a g e

International Law, 101(4).

Shell’s environmental devastation in Nigeria. (2007). Center for Constitutional Rights. Retrieved from http://ccrjustice.org/learn-more/faqs/shell%2526%2523039%3Bsenvironmental- devastation-nigeria

Shinsato, A. (2005). Increasing accountability of Trans-nationalCorporations for Economic Harm: the petroleum industry in Nigeria. Northwestern Journal of International Human Rights, 4 (1), 186-209.

The Case against Shell. (2007). Center for Constitutional Rights. Retrieved from http://ccrjustice.org/learn-more/faqs/shell%2526%2523039%3Bs-case-against-shell

Waitzer, E. J. & Jaswal, J. (2009). Peoples, BCE, and the Good Corporate Citizen. Osgood Hall Law Journal, 47.

28 | P a g e