A federal appeals court based in California is poised to rule on a case that could have broad implications for human rights worldwide. A group of villagers from Myanmar, formerly Burma, charge that when a gas pipeline was built in their region, they were subjected to forced labor — and that the American corporation Unocal played a role in their mistreatment (an accusation that Unocal denies). A three-judge panel has already ruled that the suit can go forward. But the Bush administration has asked an 11-judge panel of the same court to block it, arguing that it interferes unduly with foreign policy.

International human rights issues of this kind are showing up with greater frequency in American courts, and they raise an array of legal questions, some of which could indeed affect America's relations with other nations. But that is not true in this and similar cases. It is important that the California appeals court, and other courts, stand by the basic principle that these suits can go forward.

The three-judge panel of the court, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, ruled last year that the Myanmar villagers could sue Unocal under the Alien Tort Claims Act, a two-centuries-old law that allows noncitizens to file civil lawsuits under limited circumstances. The case must allege a violation of "specific, universal and obligatory" international norms: egregious acts, like the forced labor the Myanmar villagers say Unocal aided and abetted. And the defendant must be present in the United States — physically, for human defendants, or by virtue of where they do business, in the case of corporations.

The Bush administration argues that permitting the Myanmar villagers to sue will interfere with American foreign policy, including the war on terrorism. But this is false. The United States has no interest in protecting companies that engage in forced labor or other such abuses. The appeals court should adhere to decades of legal precedents and reject the Bush administration's argument.

As international human rights suits become more common in American courts, there will inevitably be tougher calls. If a court determined that foreign policy concerns were real in some future case, it would have at its disposal a variety of legal doctrines allowing it to avoid deciding the case. But in the suit before it, where such extraordinary circumstances are not present, the Ninth Circuit should make clear that the Myanmar villagers have a right to be heard.