Alien Tort Claims Act

Alien Tort Claims Act
U.S. Government · Public domain · source
Name	Alien Tort Claims Act
Short title	Alien Tort Statute
Enacted by	United States Congress
Effective date	1789
Citations	28 U.S.C. § 1350
Introduced in	1st United States Congress
Signed by	George Washington

Alien Tort Claims Act

The Alien Tort Claims Act is a United States statute enacted in 1789 granting district courts jurisdiction over civil actions by noncitizens for torts committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States. It has been invoked in litigation touching on Nuremberg Trials, Geneva Conventions, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, and other international instruments. The statute has produced significant litigation involving actors such as Shell Oil Company, Enron, Unocal Corporation, Chiquita Brands International, and Siemens AG, and has drawn attention from jurists including John Marshall, Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia, Stephen Breyer, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Background and Text of the Act

The Act appears in the Judiciary Act of 1789 enacted by the 1st United States Congress during the presidency of George Washington and is codified at 28 U.S.C. § 1350. The statute uses language referencing "torts" by "aliens" in violation of the "law of nations," a phrase contemporaneous with writings by John Marshall, decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States, and treatises such as those by Emer de Vattel and Heinrich von Treitschke. Early Federalist-era debates in the United States Congress and correspondence involving figures like Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson provide context for the statute's wording and purpose. The terse text has been interpreted against frameworks developed in international instruments like the Treaty of Paris (1783), the Hague Conventions, and post‑World War II treaties.

Historical Application and Early Jurisprudence

For much of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries the statute lay dormant or was applied narrowly in cases litigated in federal district courts and circuit courts, including disputes involving Samuel Gompers, William H. Seward, and maritime matters touching Piracy prosecuted alongside the Barbary Wars. Lower courts treated the law of nations as including norms against piracy, offenses against ambassadors, and violations recognized in decisions by judges such as Joseph Story and Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.. During the mid-twentieth century, attention renewed after the Nuremberg Trials and human rights movements involving actors like Eleanor Roosevelt, Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch, prompting civil suits invoking norms against genocide, torture, and crimes against humanity.

Key Supreme Court Decisions

A series of Supreme Court opinions reshaped the statute's scope, involving justices such as William J. Brennan Jr. and Antonin Scalia. In landmark decisions, the Court addressed extraterritoriality, corporate liability, and the definition of actionable norms. Notable cases include the Court's rulings on subject‑matter limits and forum non conveniens doctrine shaped by precedents like Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain and later opinions that considered jurisdictional principles articulated in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co. and decisions referencing international adjudication at venues like the International Criminal Court and the International Court of Justice. Opinions cited international instruments including the Geneva Conventions and jurisprudence from tribunals such as the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia.

Elements of a Claim and Legal Standards

Courts evaluate whether a plaintiff asserts a violation of the "law of nations" as defined by customary international law norms recognized by authorities such as the International Court of Justice, writings of scholars like Hersch Lauterpacht and Yves Beigbeder, and treaties like the Convention Against Torture. Key elements considered by courts include whether the alleged conduct constitutes an internationally recognized norm (e.g., genocide, torture, slavery), whether the norm is specific and universal enough to constitute a private right of action, and whether corporate or individual defendants such as ExxonMobil, Bayer, or military contractors like Blackwater Worldwide can be held liable. Decisions have invoked standards articulated by jurists including Samuel P. Huntington and doctrinal tests developed in opinions authored by justices such as John Paul Stevens and Clarence Thomas.

International Law and Human Rights Nexus

Litigation under the statute sits at the intersection of U.S. adjudication and international law sources such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Geneva Conventions, the Genocide Convention, and instruments negotiated under the auspices of the United Nations General Assembly. NGOs like Human Rights Watch and International Federation for Human Rights have filed amicus briefs alongside states including United Kingdom, Canada, and France in cases implicating obligations erga omnes and peremptory norms (jus cogens). Scholars cite comparative jurisprudence from the European Court of Human Rights, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, and domestic courts in countries like South Africa and Argentina to interpret norm content and remedies.

Procedural and Jurisdictional Issues

Procedural questions include personal jurisdiction over foreign corporations such as Royal Dutch Shell, service of process under rules promulgated by the United States Judicial Conference, the impact of statutes like the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, and doctrines of forum non conveniens and comity invoked by judges in circuits including the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. Allegations against state actors have raised issues under the Sovereign Immunities Act and the reach of extraterritorial application addressed by precedent from the Supreme Court of the United States and agencies like the Department of Justice.

Impact, Criticism, and Reform Proposals

The statute has generated debate among policymakers including members of the United States Congress, scholars at institutions such as Harvard Law School, Yale Law School, and University of Chicago Law School, and advocacy groups like American Civil Liberties Union. Critics argue litigation may interfere with foreign relations overseen by the Department of State and burden multinational enterprises including BP and Rio Tinto Group; proponents highlight accountability for violations documented by bodies like the United Nations Human Rights Council and tribunals such as the Special Court for Sierra Leone. Reform proposals have ranged from congressional amendments to clearer statutory limits, endorsements of restorative mechanisms like truth commissions seen in South Africa and Chile, and calls for coordination with international criminal processes exemplified by the Rome Statute.

Category:United States federal legislation Category:Human rights law