Talk:Alien Tort Statute

message: I didn't quite understand whether the Alien Tort Statute refers to aliens on american soil or american on foreign soil. Can anyone clear that out? Thanks.
:The ATCA grants standing only to 'aliens,' hence the name of the law.  American citizens can never sue under it, regardless of their physical locations.  Foreign nationals can sue in U.S. court irrespective of their physical location.
::So that means aliens can sue aliens in US courts, even though the "tort" did not occur on American soil? Thanks again.
:::Yes, aliens can sue aliens in US court, as happened in Hilao v. Marcos, 94 F.3d 539 (9th Cir. 1996), in which a Philippine national sued the former Pres. of the Philippines for human rights violations that occurred in the Philippines. Tayl1257 (talk) 16:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Topics

message: One of the external links in this article, which isn't actually linked to anything, refers to an article called "Ashcroft Goes After 200-Year-Old Human Rights Law", supposedly from the Asheville Global Report. Searching for the article title on Google turns up a bunch of hits that refer to OneWorld.net and the Asheville Global Report. Neither of these sites have the article in question. What's going on here? (I've linked the reference in the article to the Project Censored version. Come to think of it, maybe that answers my question.... ;) - dcljr (talk) 18:18, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Asheville Global Report non-link

message: The article fails to address the POV that plaintiffs' lawyers are misusing the ATS, or that the ATS impermissibly involves the judicial branch in executive-branch foreign policy issues.  See, for example, this analysis, this analysis, or this one. -- THF 11:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Recent New York Times article highlighting criticism. -- THF 21:15, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps the best way to handle that would be to start a section entitled Controversies and describe those controversies from both POVs. rewinn 04:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV

message: I deleted the project China template because ATS is neither more nor less related to China than to any other nation other than the United States. No doubt Wang Xiaoning versus Yahoo! is an important case but as such it would deserve its own page (which may well be Project China) with a short paragraph in this article. rewinn 04:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: ?Project China?

message: I am substantially rewriting this article in a user subpage. If anyone else plans to substantially rewrite, perhaps we can collaborate. Tayl1257 (talk) 04:56, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Substantial rewrite

message: I don't believe the edit to the History section regarding a debate over the ATS in 2009 is appropriate.  The Wikipedia policy on original research reads:  "Do not put together information from multiple sources to reach a conclusion that is not stated explicitly by any of the sources.  Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to reach conclusion C."  
This statement is not sourced:  "The statute has been the subject of a vigorous debate in 2009 in legal, business, and human rights arenas arising out of cases in Nigeria and South Africa."  It is a conclusion the editor drew from the sources cited in his next sentence, neither of which actually state the proposition contained in that sentence, either.  The articles cited do not state that "[s]ome have called for the US Congress to eliminate the statute" or that "others have argued for a multilateral solution through the OECD or UN."  Rather, they are editorial articles calling for the elimination or multilateral treatment of the statute; the authors themselves are the "some" and "others" alluded to.  At the most, the article could say, "Curtis Bradley and Jack Goldsmith stated in an editorial . . . ."  However, even that is really original research.
Can anyone find a source noting explicitly that the ATS has been subject to debate and describing the contours of the debate?  Tayl1257 (talk) 20:49, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent changes regarding "vigorous debate" about ATS in 2009

message: There should be elaboration concerning the lack of remedy to François Barbé-Marbois, because des Longchamp was hauled into court on both the verbal attack and the battery. It's unclear what came of the battery, but he definitely appears to have lost on the assault, Pennsylvania recognizing the law of nations as incorporated under common law. See Respublica_v._De_Longchamps as well as http://books.google.com/books?id=Mr-G4BGqACIC&pg=PA97. It sounds like the lack of remedy rationalization may be made-up storytelling, or at least misleading.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.228.63.253 (talk) 05:11, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Elaboration of No Remedy Available

message: *John Farmer Jr., dean of Rutgers Law School, whose  Constitutional Litigation Clinic filed a brief in Kiobel, warned that if the court concludes that corporations "are not persons for purposes of the Alien Tort Claims act" but are persons for purposes of influencing elections, "the combined effect will be that corporations can advocate with impunity at home, and act with immunity abroad. The court should be careful that in defining a person, it does not create a monster." (Did ExxonMobil Pay Torturers?)
--Pawyilee (talk) 08:45, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that Kiobel has been decided, can someone add it to the list of notable cases interpreting the ATS, please? See, e.g.: http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/04/commentary-whats-left-of-the-alien-tort-statute/ Papillonderecherche (talk) 14:28, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum''