Conflicting narratives in court – the Lundin case on corporate complicity in war crimes in Sudan

The criminal trial of two former directors of Lundin Oil (later Lundin Petroleum, Lundin Energy, and now Orrön Energy) concerning their alleged complicity in war crimes committed in Sudan between 1999 and 2003 reflects a growing global trend of seeking accountability for corporate involvement in atrocities and human rights abuses. This article reconstructs the conflicting narratives presented by the prosecution and defense during the ‘statement of facts’ phase of the Lundin trial and situates them within broader legal struggles concerning corporate complicity in atrocity crimes. Drawing on courtroom ethnography and a Bourdieusian understanding of the juridical field, we analyse how legal actors construct competing narratives regarding causation, responsibility, intent, and corporate liability. We argue that these narratives should not be understood merely as courtroom strategies but as interventions in broader struggles over the legal boundaries of corporate criminal responsibility. The analysis shows that many of the narrative conflicts in the Lundin trial mirror recurring debates in corporate complicity cases concerning actus reus, mens rea, causation, and the corporate veil. At the same time, the trial introduces a distinctive form of contestation. Rather than focusing solely on the company’s alleged complicity, the defense challenges the existence and characterization of the principal crime itself. We argue that the competing narratives observed in the Lundin trial are localized manifestations of ongoing struggles within a transnational juridical field and contribute to shaping future understandings of corporate accountability for atrocities.