Alien Tort Statute

Alien Tort Statute
source
Shorttitle	Alien Tort Statute
Othershorttitles	Alien Tort Claims Act
Colloquialacronym	ATS
Enacted by	1st United States Congress
Effective	September 24, 1789
Cite statutes at large	1, 73
Introducedin	House
Passedbody1	House
Passedbody2	Senate
Signedpresident	George Washington
Signeddate	September 24, 1789
Scotus cases	Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 U.S. 692 (2004), Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 569 U.S. 108 (2013), Jesner v. Arab Bank, PLC, 584 U.S. ___ (2018), Nestlé USA, Inc. v. Doe, 593 U.S. ___ (2021)

Alien Tort Statute. Enacted as part of the Judiciary Act of 1789, this law grants United States federal courts jurisdiction over lawsuits filed by non-citizens for torts committed in violation of international law. For nearly two centuries, it remained largely dormant until a landmark decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Filártiga v. Peña-Irala revived it as a tool for human rights litigation. Its modern application has sparked significant debate within the Supreme Court of the United States and the international legal community.

Background and enactment

The statute was crafted by the First Congress of the United States and signed into law by President George Washington. Its origins are linked to early diplomatic concerns, including offenses against ambassadors like the Marbois-Longchamps affair, and violations of safe conducts. Legal scholars, including William Blackstone, influenced the framers' understanding of common law torts. The law was embedded in the broader Judiciary Act of 1789, which established the foundational structure of the United States federal judiciary.

Key provisions and legal text

The statutory text is concise, stating that district courts "shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action by an alien for a tort only, committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States." This language directly ties federal jurisdiction to violations of the law of nations, a historical term for what is now called customary international law. The provision does not itself create a cause of action but opens the doors of the United States district court for such claims.

Major cases and judicial interpretation

The modern era began with the Second Circuit's 1980 ruling in Filártiga v. Peña-Irala, which held that torture by a Paraguayan official violated international law. The Supreme Court first substantively addressed it in Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, allowing claims under a narrow set of norms with definite content accepted by the civilized world. Subsequent rulings like Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co. imposed a presumption against extraterritorial application, requiring claims to "touch and concern" the United States with sufficient force. Later cases, including Jesner v. Arab Bank, PLC and Nestlé USA, Inc. v. Doe, further restricted its use against foreign corporations.

Scope and applicability

Jurisdiction is limited to claims by aliens, not United States citizens, for torts violating specific, universal, and obligatory norms of international law. Post-Kiobel, courts must engage in a fact-specific analysis to determine if the conduct relevant to the statute's focus occurred within the United States. Acceptable claims have historically included piracy, violations of safe conducts, assaults on ambassadors, and later, egregious human rights violations like genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. The statute does not typically cover ordinary torts or corporate negligence.

Criticisms and controversies

Critics, including some members of the Supreme Court like Justice Antonin Scalia, argue it improperly turns U.S. courts into international tribunals, risking friction with foreign nations like the Netherlands or the United Kingdom. Business groups, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, contend it exposes multinational corporations like Royal Dutch Shell or Nestlé to frivolous litigation. Proponents, including human rights organizations like the Center for Constitutional Rights, argue it provides a crucial forum for victims when courts in nations such as Myanmar or Nigeria are ineffective or complicit.

Impact and legacy

It transformed the landscape of transnational litigation, inspiring similar laws like the Torture Victim Protection Act. It empowered human rights advocates to seek accountability for atrocities in conflicts from Bosnia and Herzegovina to Sri Lanka. While its scope has been curtailed by the Roberts Court, it established the principle that U.S. courts can play a role in enforcing international human rights norms. Its legacy persists in ongoing legal debates about corporate accountability and universal jurisdiction in an interconnected world. Category:United States federal judiciary legislation Category:1789 in law Category:Human rights in the United States