Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/16-499_1a7d.pdf
Page Number: 23

Cite as:  584 U. S. ____ (2018) 

17 

Opinion of the Court 
Opinion of KENNEDY, J. 

mankind.”  Sosa,  542  U. S.,  at  732  (internal  quotation 
marks omitted).  In the American legal system, of course,
corporations are often subject to liability for the conduct of 
their human employees, and so it may seem necessary and 
natural  that  corporate  entities  are  liable  for  violations  of 
international law under the ATS.  It is true, furthermore, 
that  the  enormity  of  the  offenses  that  can  be  committed 
against persons in violation of international human-rights 
protections  can  be  cited  to  show  that  corporations  should 
be subject to liability for the crimes of their human agents. 
But  the  international  community  has  not  yet  taken  that 
step,  at  least  in  the  specific,  universal,  and  obligatory 
manner  required  by  Sosa.  Indeed,  there  is  precedent  to 
the  contrary  in  the  statement  during  the  Nuremberg
proceedings  that  “[c]rimes  against  international  law  are
committed  by  men,  not  by  abstract  entities,  and  only  by
punishing  individuals  who  commit  such  crimes  can  the
provisions  of  international  law  be  enforced.”  The  Nurn-
berg Trial, 6 F. R. D. 69, 110 (1946). 

Petitioners  also  contend  that  international  law  leaves 
questions  of  remedies  open  for  determination  under  do-
mestic law.  As they see it, corporate liability is a remedial 
consideration,  not  a  substantive  principle  that  must  be
supported by a universal and obligatory norm if it is to be
implemented  under  the  ATS.  According  to  petitioners, 
footnote  20  in  Sosa  does  no  more  than  recognize  the  dis-
tinction  in  international  law  between  state  and  private 
actors.  But,  as  just  explained,  there  is  a  similar  distinc-
tion  in  international  law  between  corporations  and  natu-
ral  persons.  And  it  is  far  from  obvious  why  the  question
whether  corporations  may  be  held  liable  for  the  interna-
tional  crimes  of  their  employees  is  a  mere  question  of 
remedy.

In  any  event,  the  Court  need  not  resolve  the  questions
whether  corporate  liability  is  a  question  that  is  governed 
by  international  law,  or,  if  so,  whether  international  law