Source: https://b-ok.org/book/849442/c87cd0
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 12:45:07+00:00

Document:
Main Corporate Responsibility under the Alien Tort Statute : Enforcement of International Law through US..
Mahesh S. Raisinghani, Bruce Adams.
degree of doctorate in law.
through US torts law / by Michael Koebele.
liability of corporations. I. Title.
to its current form for publication.
of Armin and Margot Koebele.
Menschenrechte (2007). The ATS is sometimes also referred to as “Alien Tort Claims Act”.
See infra Chapter One: Actionability Standards.
and Transnational Human Rights Litigation 53–54 (2004).
one is typically fulfilled if the third – a breach of international law – is present.
significant difficulties in the practical concrete application of ATS.
Circuit concluded that ATS provided jurisdiction for the Filártigas’ claims.
See infra Chapter Three: Civil and Political Rights.
See infra Chapter Five: Environmental Destruction.
630 F.2d 876 (2d Cir. 1980). See infra Chapter Three: Civil and Political Rights.
A Westlaw case search in March 2006 produced almost 300 references to Filártiga v. PeñaIrala or ATS.
Tort Statute”, 47 Ariz. L. Rev. 805, 815–18 (2005).
the Filártiga decision and the case law based on it. It highlights the role of U.S.
torture and summary execution is not one that adheres to the rule of law. . . .
(2001); Beth Stephens, “Taking Pride in International Human Rights Litigation”, 2 Chi.
Ferdinand E. Marcos Human Rights Litigation), 978 F.2d. 493 (9th Cir. 1992).
et al., supra note 9, at 75–88.
H.R. Rep. No. 102–367, at 3 (1992).
of ATS to lower courts.
Approximately half of the post-Sosa ATS cases involve TNC defendants.
124 S. Ct. 2739 (2004).
70 F.3d 232, 239 (2d Cir. 1995), cert. den., 116 U.S. 2524 (1996).
Petrolea”, 19 Tul. Envtl. L.J. 151 (2006).
Chapter Five: Environmental Destruction; Chapter Six: Application to TNCs.
See Federal Rules of Procedure § 12(6)(b).
Tinto, 487 F.3d 1193 (9th Cir. 2007).
in Myanmar pursued under a joint venture by Unocal with the military government of Myanmar, litigation resulted in a partial success for plaintiffs.
a regulatory framework for such business activities.
.org/intljustice/atca/2005/0322unocalsettle.htm (accessed 11 September 2006).
See infra Chapter Six: Application to TNCs.
AboutTheGC/TheTenPrinciples/index.html (accessed 17 July 2006).
.pdf (accessed 17 July 2006).
respective laws to the subsidiaries incorporated in their respective jurisdictions.
hard law enforcement mechanism though.
and Harmonization”, 42 Colum. J. Transnat’l L. 5 (2003).
and Subsidiary Corporation Liabilities”, 28 Conn. L. Rev. 295, 295–96 (1996).
Canada could be subject to American antitrust law if it had “effects” on U.S.
mistreatment of people within the sphere of influence of such TNCs, in particular, but by no means limited to, indigenous peoples in other countries.
US International Taxation”, 15 Va. Tax Rev. 89 (1995).
15 U.S.C. § 78dd-1, 2 (1977).
302 U.S. 230 (1937). For more recent cases, cf. Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. California, 509 U.S.
764 (1993); Timberlane Lumber Co. v. Bank of America, N.T., 549 F.2d 597 (9th Cir. 1976).
Trading Interests Act 1980 and Exchange of Diplomatic Notes concerning the Act, 21 I.L.M.
E.C.R. II-753. See generally Alison Jones & Brenda Sufrin, EC Competition Law (2004).
overseas in support of the French revolutionary cause).
TNCs, it has come under severe criticism from the business community.
direct investment will decrease as a result of TNC accountability under ATS.
countries to further improve the treatment of their own citizens.
in favor of the collective.
extent it is relevant for the interpretation of ATS.
litigation, and the research undertaken in this work.
are actionable and how they can be determined.
of international law can be implemented through ATS have been advanced.
also offered some guidance in this respect.
most prominent of these cases.
are able to externalize costs on local populations.
of international law suffices to incur corporate liability.
be held responsible under ATS which explicitly refers to international law.
acknowledges that international law still largely applies exclusively to States.
dealt with this issue under the heading of “required state action”.
on the issue, a methodology to develop such rules must also be developed.
possible defenses and limitations available to TNCs in ATS litigation.
where the infringements of international law typically occurred.
to establish personal jurisdiction over a foreign subsidiary or a foreign parent company.
may be available to TNCs in ATS cases.
(2004) involving the International Chamber of Commerce and the U.S. Council for International Business; Marjorie Cohn, “Human Rights: Casualty of the War on Terror”, 25 T.
Nat’l Foreign Trade Council et al. as Amici Curiae Supporting Petitioner, Sosa v. AlvarezMachain, 542 U.S. 692, 124 S. Ct. 2739 (2004) (No. 03–339).
On 18 October 2005, Senator Diane Feinstein introduced the Alien Statute Reform Act.
On the advantages of the U.S. legal forum, see Chapter Eleven: Forum Non Conveniens.
On new possible strategies for the human rights movement, see Joseph, supra note 8, 151–52.
Conflict Prevention: The Impact of Norms on Private Actors 19–29 (2004).
litigation against TNCs emerged and spread.
(1986). The current version of ATS emerged when the clause was integrated in 28 U.S.C.
California-based Unocal Corporation, the company’s lawyers argued that ATS applies exclusively to jus cogens. See Doe v. Unocal, 110 F. Supp. 2d 1294, 1304 (C.D. Cal. 2000) and II.C.
et al., International Human Rights Litigation in US Courts 48–54 (2008).
630 F.2d 876, 887 (2d Cir. 1980).
discussion under II. Until the Supreme Court’s decision in Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 124 S.
for the determination of which wrongs are open to litigation under ATS flourished.
519 F.2d 1001, 1015 (2d Cir. 1975).
See Casto, supra note 1, at 467–68.
72 F.3d. 844, 847 (11th Cir. 1996).
886 F. Supp. 162, 180 (D. Mass. 1995).
this stance may be promising at first sight, a second look gives rise to doubts.
to this question shows that a literal reading of the wording of ATS runs afoul.
statements) is not necessary; opinio juris may be inferred from acts or omissions.” Id.
refuses to discuss the possible jus cogens status of forced labor under international law.
“exacerbate tensions” and should not be heard.
Journal, Jeffrey M. Blum and Ralph G. Steinhardt reviewed the Filártiga v.
630 F.2d 876, 888 (2d Cir. 1980).
Rights Claims: The Alien Tort Claims Act after Filartiga v. Pena-Irala”, 22 Harv. Int’l L.J.
to restrict the application of ATS was born.
subject matter jurisdiction and for being barred by the statute of limitations. Id. at 550–51.
based on ATS was brought by two Argentinean citizens residing in the United States alleging torture, murder, and arbitrary detention.
See In re Estate of Ferdinand Marcos, Human Rights Litigation, 25 F.3d 1467, 1475 (9th Cir.
that the difference between the two standards is one of degree rather than of exclusivity.
that only jus cogens norms are actionable.
already willing to require jus cogens as a standard to determine torts under ATS.
1258, 1277 (N.D. Cal. 2004); Doe v. Rafael Saravia, 348 F. Supp. 2d 1112, 1144–45 (E.D.
of Cuba, 996 F. Supp. 1239, 1251 (S.D. Fla. 1997).
See Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, id.
Siderman de Blake v. Republic of Argentina, 965 F.2d. 699 (9th Cir. 1992).
of a waiver of Argentina’s immunity.
Trajano v. Marcos (In re Estate of Ferdinand E. Marcos Human Rights Litigation), 978 F.2d.
493, 503 (9th Cir. 1992).
statute not providing a cause of action, not even for jus cogens violations.
Government of the Union of Burma v. Unocal, Inc., 176 F.R.D. 329, 345 (C.D. Cal. 1997).
at an earlier stage of his academic career.
Sweeney, supra note 35, passim.
of Public International Law 409 (Rudolf Bernhardt ed., 2000).
Sweeney, supra note 35, at 447.
(Allan Westcott ed., 1947) cited in Sweeney, supra note 35, at 451.
Sweeney, supra note 35, at 482.
the remaining wording of ATS.
3 September 1783, 8 Stat. 80, T.S. No. 104.
Casto, supra note 1, at 507–08.
Id.; Dodge, supra note 4, at 254–55.
in Casto, supra note 1, at 505 n. 210.
discussion) and other legal history researches undertaken in respect of ATS. See 542 U.S.
interpretation is the practical nullity of ATS from the moment it was enacted.
cause of action, ATS solely incorporated the law of nations as it stood in 1789.
such by the municipal laws of England . . . 1. [v]iolations of safe-conduct; 2.
See Judge Bork’s Concurring Opinion in Tel-Oren, 726 F.2d at 808–11.
a Victim’s Private Right of Action? Lessons after 1945”, 20 Berkeley J. Int’l L. 296 (2002).
See generally Martin Seegers, Das Recht auf Wiedergutmachung (2005).
excludes the possibility of ATS being a human rights enforcement mechanism.
political question. Id. at 823–27.
Casto, supra note 1, at 480.
writing, the questions posed defy easy answers.
Finally, on 29 June 2004, just a day less of 24 years after Filártiga v. PeñaIrala, the United States Supreme Court handed down its judgment in Sosa v.
cert. denied, 116 U.S. 2524 (1996); Abebe-Jira v. Negowo, cert. denied, 519 U.S. 830 (1996).
U.S. 398, 427 n. 25 (1964).
488 U.S. 428, 434–35 (1989).
Statute and Federal Common Law in Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain”, 2004 Cato Sup. Ct. Rev.
S. Afr. Y.B. Int’l L. 221 (2005).
124 S. Ct. at 2746.
Cf. 504 U.S. at 670. The decision received a tremendous and predominantly critical review.

References: v. 
 § 12
 § 78
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v.