Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/16-499_1a7d.pdf
Page Number: 69

12 

JESNER v. ARAB BANK, PLC 

SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting 

ards of conduct and leaves it to individual states to deter­
mine how best to enforce those standards. 

Finally,  a  number  of  states,  acting  individually,  have 
imposed  criminal  and  civil  liability  on  corporations  for 
law-of-nations  violations  through  their  domestic  legal 
systems.  See,  e.g.,  New  TV S. A. L.,  Case  No.  STL–14– 
05/PT/AP/AR126.1,  ¶¶52–55  (listing  more  than  40  coun­
tries  that  provide  for  corporate  criminal  liability);  A.  Ra­
masastry & R. Thompson, Commerce, Crime and Conflict:
Legal  Remedies  for  Private  Sector  Liability  for  Grave 
Breaches  of  International  Law  22–24  (2006),  available  at
https://www.biicl.org/files/4364_536.pdf  (noting  that  15  of 
16 countries surveyed permit civil claims against corpora­
tions  for  human  rights  violations);  Brief  for  Comparative
Law  Scholars  and  Practitioners  as  Amici  Curiae  15–19 
(detailing  provisions  creating  corporate  civil  liability  for 
international-law violations in England, France, the Neth­
erlands, and Canada). 

C 
Instead  of  asking  whether  there  exists  a  specific,  uni­
versal,  and  obligatory  norm  of  corporate  liability  under 
international  law,  the  relevant  inquiry  in  response  to  the 
question  presented  here  is  whether  there  is  any  reason—
under  either  international  law  or  our  domestic  law—to 
distinguish  between  a  corporation  and  a  natural  person
who  is  alleged  to  have  violated  the  law  of  nations  under 
the  ATS.  As  explained  above,  international  law  provides
no  such  reason.  See  Kiobel,  621  F. 3d,  at  175  (Leval,  J.,
concurring  in  judgment)  (“[T]he  answer  international  law 
furnishes  is  that  it  takes  no  position  on  the  question”).
Nor does domestic law.  The text, history, and purpose of
the  ATS  plainly  support  the  conclusion  that  corporations
may be held liable.

Beginning  “with  the  language  of  the  statute  itself,” 
United States v. Ron Pair Enterprises, Inc., 489 U. S. 235,