Alien Tort Statute Case Study

There is long history of the Alien Tort Statute pitot to the kiobel’s case. Alien Tort Statute (ATS) is approved by Congress in 1789 to provide the federal courts jurisdiction over tort statement. U.S. made a commitment about human rights and international law. However, George Washington was against the cruel treatment of British soldiers. History describes that during foreign plaintiffs seldom appeal the ATS in the past. However, the precedent prove that in 1980. Around two centuries after the ATS turn into law, Filartiga v. Pefia-Irala which influential decision of Second Circuit revived the statue. Afterwards, in the Doe I v. Unocal Corp case, Ninth Circuit held that foreign plaintiffs could took claims of enforced rape, labor, and

The Restatement (Third) of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States identifies five: territoriality, nationality, objective territoriality, passive personality, and universal jurisdiction. However, Kobel case called for narrower limits on the prescriptive reach of law-of-nations torts than international jurisdictional law allows. Furthermore, when the ATS was passed, three principals against the law of nations had been recognized. This included infringement of the rights of ambassador’s privacy, rights of ambassadors’ infringement, and piracy. Although the court considered the high seas and foreign soil similarly under the belief against extraterritorial application, the Kiobel case considers the conduct happening on the high seas was different matter from conduct happening on foreign soil. Historically, since pirates did not work under a certain jurisdiction, pirates were tried in a court of nation that discovered the piracy. Thus, the court ruled pirates can be an exception to the belief of action in opposition to extraterritoriality. These are reasons why the court decided cause of conduct against pirates is distinctive and does not justify letting other cause of action reach conduct happening outside of the United States under the

The only ambiguity arises where the sole direct connection to the United States is a U.S. plaintiff. Yet it seems very likely that if an American is harmed by a violation of the law of nations abroad (tortured, for example) and has not been able to obtain recourse in the country where the abuse took place, the case brought by that American in U.S. courts would meet Breyer’s third test for U.S. jurisdiction. Therefore, minority opinion left open the opportunity for companies and individuals so that both side can be liable for human light abuses in the event with a stronger connection to the