Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/16-499_1a7d.pdf
Page Number: 66.0

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

9 

SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting 

tices as to whether and how to impose criminal liability on 
corporations.  See Frulli, Jurisdiction Ratione Personae, in 
1  Rome  Statute  of  the  International  Criminal  Court  527, 
532–533  (A.  Cassese  et al.  eds.  2002);  Brief  for  Ambassa­
dor David J. Scheffer as Amicus Curiae 8–10. 

Taken to its natural conclusion, the plurality’s focus on
the  practice  of  international  criminal  tribunals  would
prove too much.  No international tribunal has been created 
and endowed with the jurisdiction to hold natural persons
civilly  (as  opposed  to  criminally)  liable,  yet  the  majority
and  respondent  accept  that  natural  persons  can  be  held 
liable under the ATS.  See ante, at 26; Tr. of Oral Arg. 62.
It cannot be persuasive evidence for purposes of ascertain­
ing  the  availability  of  corporate  civil  liability  under  the 
ATS, then, that the jurisdiction of the handful of interna­
tional  criminal  tribunals  that  states  have  seen  fit  to 
create  in  the  last  75  years  has  not  extended  to  corporate 
defendants. 

Ultimately,  the  evidence  on  which  the  plurality  relies
does  not  prove  that  international  law  distinguishes  be­
tween  corporations  and  natural  persons  as  a  categorical 
matter.  To the contrary, it proves only that states’ collec­
tive  efforts  to  enforce  various  international-law  norms 
have, to date, often focused on natural rather than corpo­
rate defendants. 

In fact, careful review of states’ collective and individual 
enforcement  efforts  makes  clear  that  corporations  are
subject to certain obligations under international law.  For 
instance,  the  United  States  Military  Tribunal  that  prose­
cuted  several  corporate  executives  of  IG  Farben  declared
that  corporations  could  violate  international  law.    See  8 
Trials  of  War  Criminals  Before  the  Nuernberg  Military 
Tribunals  Under  Council  Control  Law  No.  10,  p.  1132
(1952)  (“Where  private  individuals,  including  juristic 
persons,  proceed  to  exploit  the  military  occupancy  by
acquiring private property against the will and consent of