Alien Tort Statute: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 18:33, 30 October 2011

The Alien Tort Statute (28 U.S.C. § 1350; ATS, also called the Alien Tort Claims Act (ATCA)) is a section of the United States Code that reads: "The 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 statute is notable for allowing United States courts to hear human rights cases brought by foreign citizens for conduct committed outside the United States.

History

The ATS was part of the Judiciary Act of 1789.^[1] There is little surviving legislative history regarding the Act, and its original meaning and purpose are uncertain.^[2]^[3] However, scholars have surmised that the Act was intended to assure foreign governments that the United States would act to prevent and provide remedies for breaches of customary international law, especially breaches concerning diplomats and merchants.^[4]

The ATS may have been enacted in response to a number of international incidents caused by the non-availability of remedies for foreign citizens in the United States.^[5] For example, the peace treaty ending the American Revolution provided for the satisfaction of debts to British creditors. The refusal of some states to enforce the payment of such debts prompted Great Britain to threaten to retaliate. In 1784, French diplomat François Barbé-Marbois was assaulted, but no remedy was available to him. The incident was notorious internationally and prompted Congress to draft a resolution asking the states to allow suits in tort for the violation of the law of nations. However, few states enacted such a provision, and Congress subsequently included the ATS in the Judiciary Act of 1789.

From 1789 until 1980, only two courts based jurisdiction on the ATS.^[6]

Filartiga v. Pena-Irala

In 1980, however, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit decided Filartiga v. Pena-Irala, which "paved the way for a new conceptualization of the ATS."^[7] In Filartiga, two Paraguayan citizens resident in the United States, represented by the Center for Constitutional Rights, brought suit against a Paraguyan former police chief who was also living in the United States.^[8] The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant had tortured and murdered a member of their family, and they asserted that U.S. federal courts had jurisdiction over their suit under the ATS. The district court dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, holding that the "law of nations" does not regulate a state's treatment of its own citizens.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed. First, the Second Circuit held that the ATS, which allowed jurisdiction in the federal courts over a suit between two aliens, was a constitutional exercise of Congress's power, because "the law of nations...has always been part of the federal common law," and thus the statute fell within federal-question jurisdiction.^[9] Second, the court held that the contemporary law of nations had expanded to prohibit state-sanctioned torture. The court found that multilateral treaties and domestic prohibitions on torture evidenced a consistent state practice of proscribing official torture. The court similarly found that United Nations declarations such as the Universal Declaration on Human Rights manifested an expectation of adherence to the prohibition of official torture. The court therefore held that the right to be free from torture had become a principle of customary international law. However, one of the judges on the panel hearing the case later wrote that Filartiga "should not be misread or exaggerated to support sweeping assertions that all (or even most) international human rights norms found in the Universal Declaration or in international human rights treaties have ripened into customary international law enforceable in the domestic courts."^[10]

Since Filartiga, jurisdiction under the ATS has been upheld in dozens of cases.^[11]

Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain

The only United States Supreme Court case directly addressing the ATS is the 2004 case Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain. The plaintiff in Sosa, Alvarez, brought a claim under the ATS for arbitrary arrest and detention. Alvarez had been indicted in the United States for torturing and murdering a Drug Enforcement Agency officer. When the United States was unable to secure Alvarez's extradition, it paid Sosa, a Mexican national, to kidnap Alvarez and bring him into the United States. Alvarez claimed that his "arrest" by Sosa was arbitrary because the warrant for his arrest only authorized his arrest within the United States. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that Alvarez's abduction constituted arbitrary arrest in violation of international law.

The Supreme Court reversed. The Supreme Court Court clarified that the ATS did not create a cause of action, but instead merely "furnish[ed] jurisdiction for a relatively modest set of actions alleging violations of the law of nations."^[12] Such actions must "rest on a norm of international character accepted by the civilized world and defined with a specificity comparable to the features of the 18th-century paradigms we have recognized."^[13] Although the scope of the ATS is not limited to violations of international law recognized in the 18th century, with respect to recognizing contemporary international norms, the Court's opinion stated that "the judicial power should be exercised on the understanding that the door is still ajar subject to vigilant doorkeeping."^[14]

In Alvarez's case, "a single illegal detention of less than a day, followed by the transfer of custody to lawful authorities and a prompt arraignment, violates no norm of customary international law so well defined as to support the creation of a federal remedy."^[15]

Ongoing Controversy

The exercise of federal jurisdiction in the United States over human rights cases arising out of events that took place overseas remains controversial. Some have called for the US Congress to eliminate the statute^[16] while others have argued for a multilateral solution through the OECD or UN.^[17]

Scope of the Alien Tort Statute

"Violation of the Law of Nations"

The Supreme Court held in Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain that the ATS provides a cause of action for violations of international norms that are as "specific, universal, and obligatory" as were the norms prohibiting violations of safe conducts, infringements of the rights of ambassadors, and piracy in the 18th century.^[18] Courts have found torture; cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment; genocide; war crimes; crimes against humanity; summary execution; prolonged arbitrary detention; and forced disappearance to be actionable under the ATS.^[19]

Since Sosa, courts have struggled to define the level of specificity required for a norm to be actionable under the ATS.^[20] For example, subsequent to Sosa, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit overturned prior lower court decisions that had found cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment actionable, noting that Sosa repudiated the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights as a source of law under the ATS.^[21] Similarly, courts have held that economic, social, and cultural rights are too indeterminate to satisfy Sosa's specificity requirement. For example, in Flores v. Southern Peru Copper Corp., the Second Circuit stated that the rights to life and to health are too indeterminate to constitute a cause of action under the ATS.^[22]

The United States District Court for the Northern District of California, however, has held that the limits of a norm need not be defined with particularity to be actionable; rather, the norm need only be so defined that the particular acts upon which a claim is based certainly fall within the bounds of the norm.^[23] In Doe v. Qi, the court stated, "The fact that there may be doubt at the margins -- a fact that inheres in any definition -- does not negate the essence and application of that definition in clear cases." The court also described how to determine whether specific actions fall within the proscriptions of an international norm, holding that the actions alleged should be compared with actions that international adjudicatory bodies have found to be proscribed by the norm in question. It therefore examined decisions by institutions such as the Human Rights Committee, the European Court of Human Rights, and the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights to determine that pushing, hitting, and choking a plaintiff during one day of incarceration did not constitute cruel, unusual, or degrading treatment, whereas forcing a hand into a plaintiff's vagina did constitute cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment.

Corporate Liability Under the Alien Tort Statute

As of October 2011, there was a circuit split regarding whether corporations, as opposed to natural people, could be held liable under the ATS. In 2010 the Second Circuit Court of Appeals held in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co. that "customary international law has steadfastly rejected the notion of corporate liability for international crimes" and thus that "insofar as plaintiffs bring claims under the ATS against corporations, plaintiffs fail to allege violations of the law of nations, and plaintiffs' claims fall outside the limited jurisdiction provided by the ATS."^[24] However, in 2011, both the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals and the D.C. Circuit Court of appeals ruled that corporate liability is possible under the Alien Tort Statute.^[25] On October 17, 2011, the United States Supreme Court announced that it would hear an appeal in Kiobel during its 2011–2012 term.^[26]

Prominent Cases Under the Alien Tort Statute

Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum

The plaintiffs in Kiobel were citizens of Nigeria who claimed that Dutch, British, and Nigerian corporations which were engaged in oil exploration and production aided and abetted the Nigerian government during the 1990s in committing violations of customary international law. See 621 F.3d 111 (2d Cir. Sept. 17, 2010). Plaintiffs sought damages under the ATS. The defendants moved to dismiss based on a two-pronged argument. First, they argued that customary international law itself provides the rules by which to decide whether conduct violates the law of nations where non-state actors are alleged to have committed the wrong in question. Second, they contended that no norm has ever existed between nations that imposes liability upon corporate actors. On September 29, 2006, the district court dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims for aiding and abetting property destruction; forced exile; extrajudicial killing; and violation of the rights to life, liberty, security, and association. It reasoned that customary international law did not define those violations with sufficient particularity. The court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss with respect to the remaining claims of aiding and abetting arbitrary arrest and detention; crimes against humanity; and torture or cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment. The district court then certified its entire order for interlocutory appeal to the Second Circuit based on the serious nature of the questions at issue.

In a 2-1 decision issued on September 17, 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that corporations cannot be held liable for violations of customary international law, finding that: (1) under both U.S. Supreme Court and Second Circuit precedents over the previous 30 years that address ATS suits alleging violations of customary international law, the scope of liability is determined by customary international law itself; (2) under Supreme Court precedent, the ATS requires courts to apply norms of international law—and not domestic law—to the scope of defendants’ liabilities. Such norms must be “specific, universal and obligatory"; and (3) under international law, “corporate liability is not a discernible—much less a universally recognized—norm of customary international law,”^[27] that the court could apply to the ATS, and that the plaintiffs’ ATS claims should indeed be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Kiobel petitioned the Supreme Court for review of the Second Circuit's decision, which was granted on October 17, 2011. The Supreme Court is expected to decide the case by the end of June, 2012.^[28]

Civil suit against Chuckie Taylor

Charles McArthur Emmanuel^[29] (also known as "Chuckie Taylor" or "Taylor Jr."), the son of Charles Taylor, former President of Liberia,^[30] was the commander of the infamously violent Anti-Terrorist Unit (ATU), commonly known in Liberia as the "Demon Forces."

In 2006, U.S. officials arrested Taylor Jr. upon entering the United States (via the Miami International Airport) and the Department of Justice later charged him based on torture he committed in Liberia.^[31] He was convicted of multiple counts of torture and conspiracy to torture^[32] and was sentenced to 97 years in prison.^[33] The World Organization for Human Rights USA and the Florida International University College of Law filed a civil suit in the Southern District of Florida on behalf of five of Taylor Jr.’s victims pursuant to the Alien Tort Statute and the Torture Victim Protection Act.^[34] The plaintiffs won by default judgment on all counts, and in February 2010, the court found Taylor liable to the plaintiffs for damages of over $22 million.^[35]

Presbyterian Church of Sudan v. Talisman Energy, Inc.

On October 2, 2009, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in Presbyterian Church of Sudan v. Talisman Energy, Inc., held that "the mens rea standard for aiding and abetting liability in Alien Tort Statute actions is purpose rather than knowledge alone."^[36] In this case, which involves allegations against a Canadian oil company concerning its purported assistance to the government in Sudan in the forced movement of civilians residing near oil facilities, the court concluded that "plaintiffs have not established Talisman's purposeful complicity in human rights abuses." In reaching that conclusion, the Second Circuit stated that "the standard for imposing accessorial liability under the Alien Tort Statute must be drawn from international law; and that under international law a claimant must show that the defendant provided substantial assistance with the purpose of facilitating the alleged offenses."

Sinaltrainal v. Coca-Cola Company

On August 11, 2009, the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit issued a decision in Sinaltrainal v. Coca-Cola Company.^[37] In this case, plaintiffs alleged that Coca-Cola bottlers in Colombia collaborated with Colombian paramilitary forces in "the systematic intimidation, kidnapping, detention, torture, and murder of Colombian trade unionists." However, the district court dismissed the complaint and the Eleventh Circuit upheld that ruling. In doing so, the Eleventh Circuit relied upon the Supreme Court's recent Ashcroft v. Iqbal decision [1] in addressing the adequacy of the complaint, which has must have "facial plausibility" to survive dismissal, and noted that Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure demands "more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation." The Eleventh Circuit then applied the Iqbal standard to plaintiffs' allegations against Coca-Cola and held that they were insufficient to survive dismissal.

Bowoto v. Chevron Corp.

Nigerian villagers brought claims against Chevron Corp. regarding events that occurred on a Chevron offshore drilling platform in 1998, when Nigerian soldiers suppressed a protest against Chevron's environmental and business practices. The protesters, with the help of nonprofit organizations including the Center for Constitutional Rights, the Public Interest Lawyers Group, and EarthRights International, brought claims for wrongful death, torture, assault, battery, and negligence against Chevron, alleging that the company had paid the soldiers that landed on the platform and were therefore liable for the actions that they took. In December 2008, a jury found that Chevron was not liable.^[38]

Wang Xiaoning v. Yahoo!

In 2007, the World Organization for Human Rights USA filed a lawsuit against Yahoo! on behalf of Chinese dissidents Wang Xiaoning and Shi Tao (Guao Quingsheng), claiming jurisdiction under the ATS.^[39] According to the Complaint, Wang and Shi Tao used Yahoo! accounts to share pro-democracy material, and a chinese subsidiary of Yahoo! gave the Chinese government identifying information that allowed authorities to identify and arrest them.^[40] The Complaint alleges that the plaintiffs were subjected to "torture, cruel, inhuman, or other degrading treatment or punishment, arbitrary arrest and prolonged detention, and forced labor."^[41]

Yahoo! settled the case in November 2007 for an undisclosed amount of money, and it agreed to cover the plaintiff's legal costs as a part of the settlement. In a statement released after the settlement was made public, Yahoo! said that it would "provide 'financial, humanitarian and legal support to these families' and create a separate 'humanitarian relief fund' for other dissidents and their families."^[42]

Doe v. Unocal

In September 1997, thirteen Burmese villagers filed suit against Unocal and their parent company, the Union Oil Company of California under the ATCA^[43] for alleged human rights violations, including forced labour, in the construction of the Yadana gas pipeline project in Myanmar, formerly Burma.^[44] EarthRights International, the Center for Constitutional Rights, Paul Hoffman, Hadsell & Stormer, and Judith Brown Chomsky served as co-counsel to the plaintiffs. In December 2004, Unocal agreed to settle after a motion for summary judgment failed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California.^[45]

References

^ Ch. 20, § 9, 1 Stat. 73 (1789).
^ Carolyn A. D'Amore, Note, Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain and the Alien Tort Statute: How Wide Has the Door to Human Rights Litigation Been Left Open?, 39 Akron L. Rev. 593, 596 (2006); William R. Casto, The Federal Courts' Protective Jurisdiction Over Torts Committed in Violation of the Law of Nations, 18 Conn. L. Rev. 467, 468-69 (1985-1986).
^ http://www.hlrecord.org/news/debate-did-founders-want-u-s-courts-to-look-abroad-for-monsters-to-destroy-1.937204
^ Gary Clyde Hufbauer & Nicholas K. Mitrokostas, Awakening Monster: The Alien Tort Statute of 1789 3 (2003), ISBN 978-0-88132-366-5.
^ John Haberstroh, The Alien Tort Claims Act & Doe v. Unocal: A Paquete Habana Approach to the Rescue, 32 Denv. J. Int'l L. & Pol'y 231, 239-41 (2004).
^ Gary Clyde Hufbauer & Nicholas K. Mitrokostas, International Implications of the Alien Tort Statute, 16 St. Thomas L. Rev. 607, 609 (2004).
^ Id.
^ 630 F.2d 876 (2d Cir. 1980); Richard B. Lillich, Invoking International Human Rights Law in Domestic Courts, 54 U. Cin. L. Rev. 367 (1985).
^ Filartiga v. Pena-Irala, 630 F.2d 876, 885 (2d Cir. 1980)
^ Lillich, supra note 8, at 401-02.
^ Beth Stephens, Judicial Deference and the Unreasonable Views of the Bush Administration, 33 Brooklyn J. Int'l L. 773, 813 (2008).
^ Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 U.S. 692, 720 (2004)
^ Id. at 725; see also Pamela J. Stephens, Spinning Sosa: Federal Common Law, the Alien Tort Statute, and Judicial Restraint, 25 B.U. Int'l L.J. 1, 32-33 (Spring, 2007).
^ Id. at 729.
^ Id. at 738.
^ Bradley, Curtis A.; Goldsmith, Jack L. (2009-04-19). "Rights Case Gone Wrong". The Washington Post. Retrieved 2010-04-23.
^ Medish, Mark C.; Lucich, Daniel R. (2009-06-01). "Trying an Old Law". The New York Times. Retrieved 2010-04-23.
^ D'Amore, supra note 2.
^ Pamela J. Stephens, supra note 10, at 5.
^ Henry J. Steiner et al., International Human Rights in Context 1195-98 (3d ed. 2008), ISBN 978-0-19-927942-5.
^ Aldana v. Del Monte Fresh Produce, 416 F.3d 1242, 1247 (11th Cir. 2005).
^ 414 F.3d 233 (2d Cir. 2003).
^ Doe v. Qi, 349 F.Supp.2d 1258 (N.D.Cal. 2004).
^ Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 621 F.3d 111, 120 (2d Cir. 2010).
^ Flomo v. Firestone Nat. Rubber Co., LLC, 643 F.3d 1013, 1021 (7th Cir. 2011); Doe VIII v. Exxon Mobil Corp., No. 09-7125 (D.C. Cir. 2011).
^ Mike Sacks, Supreme Court To Rule On Corporate Personhood For Crimes Against Humanity, Huffington Post, Oct. 17, 2011, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/17/supreme-court_n_1015953.html.
^ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ben-kerschberg/corporate-executives-get-_b_791292.html#
^ Denniston, Lyle (October 17, 2011). "Court to rule on suing corporations and PLO". SCOTUSblog. Retrieved 2011-10-16.
^ "090109washington_lg.jpg." U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Retrieved on August 27, 2009.
^ "Ex-prisoner: Taylor's son laughed at torture." CNN. September 30, 2008.
^ "Roy Belfast Jr. aka Chuckie Taylor Indicted on Torture Charges, Department of Justice". 2006-12-06.
^ "Roy Belfast Jr. A/K/A Chuckie Taylor Convicted on Torture Charges, Department of Justice Press Release". 2008-10-30.
^ "Roy Belfast, Jr., A/K/A Chuckie Taylor, Sentenced on Torture Charges, Department of Justice Press Release". 2009-12-09.
^ http://www.humanrightsusa.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=167&Itemid=150
^ http://humanrightsusa.blogspot.com/search/label/Chuckie%20Taylor
^ http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/5ee8965d-efbf-475c-9c0d-de151c267061/1/doc/07-0016-cv_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/5ee8965d-efbf-475c-9c0d-de151c267061/1/hilite/
^ http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200615851.pdf
^ "Jury clears Chevron of charges in Nigeria clash". Reuters. 2008-12-02.
^ "Second Amended Complaint".
^ "Advocates Sue Yahoo In Chinese Torture Case". The Washington Post. 2007-04-20.
^ http://www.humanrightsusa.org/index2.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_view&gid=68&Itemid=80
^ "Yahoo settles Chinese Dissident Lawsuit". PC World. 2007-11-14.
^ Doe I v. Unocal Corp. 395 F.3d 932 C.A.9 (Cal.),2002
^ Kenderton Lynch (2000-09-29). "Plaintiff's Complaint for Damages" (PDF). Retrieved 2007-12-28.
^ Mark D. Kielsgard, Unocal and the Demise of Corporate Neutrality, 36 Cal. W. Int'l L.J. 185, 189 (2009).

External links

[1] Ch. 20, § 9, 1 Stat. 73 (1789).

[2] Carolyn A. D'Amore, Note, Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain and the Alien Tort Statute: How Wide Has the Door to Human Rights Litigation Been Left Open?, 39 Akron L. Rev. 593, 596 (2006); William R. Casto, The Federal Courts' Protective Jurisdiction Over Torts Committed in Violation of the Law of Nations, 18 Conn. L. Rev. 467, 468-69 (1985-1986).

[3] ttp://www.hlrecord.org/news/debate-did-founders-want-u-s-courts-to-look-abroad-for-monsters-to-destroy-1.937204

[4] Gary Clyde Hufbauer & Nicholas K. Mitrokostas, Awakening Monster: The Alien Tort Statute of 1789 3 (2003), ISBN 978-0-88132-366-5.

[5] John Haberstroh, The Alien Tort Claims Act & Doe v. Unocal: A Paquete Habana Approach to the Rescue, 32 Denv. J. Int'l L. & Pol'y 231, 239-41 (2004).

[6] Gary Clyde Hufbauer & Nicholas K. Mitrokostas, International Implications of the Alien Tort Statute, 16 St. Thomas L. Rev. 607, 609 (2004).

[7] Id.

[8] 630 F.2d 876 (2d Cir. 1980); Richard B. Lillich, Invoking International Human Rights Law in Domestic Courts, 54 U. Cin. L. Rev. 367 (1985).

[9] Filartiga v. Pena-Irala, 630 F.2d 876, 885 (2d Cir. 1980)

[10] Lillich, supra note 8, at 401-02.

[11] Beth Stephens, Judicial Deference and the Unreasonable Views of the Bush Administration, 33 Brooklyn J. Int'l L. 773, 813 (2008).

[12] Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 U.S. 692, 720 (2004)

[13] Id. at 725; see also Pamela J. Stephens, Spinning Sosa: Federal Common Law, the Alien Tort Statute, and Judicial Restraint, 25 B.U. Int'l L.J. 1, 32-33 (Spring, 2007).

[14] Id. at 729.

[15] Id. at 738.

[16] Bradley, Curtis A.; Goldsmith, Jack L. (2009-04-19). "Rights Case Gone Wrong". The Washington Post. Retrieved 2010-04-23.

[17] Medish, Mark C.; Lucich, Daniel R. (2009-06-01). "Trying an Old Law". The New York Times. Retrieved 2010-04-23.

[18] D'Amore, supra note 2.

[19] Pamela J. Stephens, supra note 10, at 5.

[20] Henry J. Steiner et al., International Human Rights in Context 1195-98 (3d ed. 2008), ISBN 978-0-19-927942-5.

[21] Aldana v. Del Monte Fresh Produce, 416 F.3d 1242, 1247 (11th Cir. 2005).

[22] 414 F.3d 233 (2d Cir. 2003).

[23] Doe v. Qi, 349 F.Supp.2d 1258 (N.D.Cal. 2004).

[24] Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 621 F.3d 111, 120 (2d Cir. 2010).

[25] Flomo v. Firestone Nat. Rubber Co., LLC, 643 F.3d 1013, 1021 (7th Cir. 2011); Doe VIII v. Exxon Mobil Corp., No. 09-7125 (D.C. Cir. 2011).

[26] Mike Sacks, Supreme Court To Rule On Corporate Personhood For Crimes Against Humanity, Huffington Post, Oct. 17, 2011, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/17/supreme-court_n_1015953.html.

[27] ttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/ben-kerschberg/corporate-executives-get-_b_791292.html#

[28] Denniston, Lyle (October 17, 2011). "Court to rule on suing corporations and PLO". SCOTUSblog. Retrieved 2011-10-16.

[29] "090109washington_lg.jpg." U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Retrieved on August 27, 2009.

[CNN-30] "Ex-prisoner: Taylor's son laughed at torture." CNN. September 30, 2008.

[31] "Roy Belfast Jr. aka Chuckie Taylor Indicted on Torture Charges, Department of Justice". 2006-12-06.

[32] "Roy Belfast Jr. A/K/A Chuckie Taylor Convicted on Torture Charges, Department of Justice Press Release". 2008-10-30.

[33] "Roy Belfast, Jr., A/K/A Chuckie Taylor, Sentenced on Torture Charges, Department of Justice Press Release". 2009-12-09.

[34] ttp://www.humanrightsusa.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=167&Itemid=150

[35] ttp://humanrightsusa.blogspot.com/search/label/Chuckie%20Taylor

[36] ttp://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/5ee8965d-efbf-475c-9c0d-de151c267061/1/doc/07-0016-cv_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/5ee8965d-efbf-475c-9c0d-de151c267061/1/hilite/

[37] ttp://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200615851.pdf

[38] "Jury clears Chevron of charges in Nigeria clash". Reuters. 2008-12-02.

[39] "Second Amended Complaint".

[40] "Advocates Sue Yahoo In Chinese Torture Case". The Washington Post. 2007-04-20.

[41] ttp://www.humanrightsusa.org/index2.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_view&gid=68&Itemid=80

[42] "Yahoo settles Chinese Dissident Lawsuit". PC World. 2007-11-14.

[43] Doe I v. Unocal Corp. 395 F.3d 932 C.A.9 (Cal.),2002

[complaint-state-b-44] Kenderton Lynch (2000-09-29). "Plaintiff's Complaint for Damages" (PDF). Retrieved 2007-12-28.

[45] Mark D. Kielsgard, Unocal and the Demise of Corporate Neutrality, 36 Cal. W. Int'l L.J. 185, 189 (2009).

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

[20]

[21]

[22]

[23]

[24]

[25]

[26]

[27]

[28]

[29]

[30]

[31]

[32]

[33]

[34]

[35]

[36]

[37]

[38]

[39]

[40]

[41]

[42]

[43]

[44]

[45]

@@ Line 40: / Line 40: @@
 As of October 2011, there was a [[circuit split]] regarding whether corporations, as opposed to natural people, could be held liable under the ATS. In 2010 the Second Circuit Court of Appeals held in ''Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co.'' that "customary international law has steadfastly rejected the notion of corporate liability for international crimes"  and thus that "insofar as plaintiffs bring claims under the ATS against corporations, plaintiffs fail to allege violations of the law of nations, and plaintiffs' claims fall outside the limited jurisdiction provided by the ATS."<ref>Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 621 F.3d 111, 120 (2d Cir. 2010).</ref> However, in 2011, both the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals and the D.C. Circuit Court of appeals ruled that corporate liability is possible under the Alien Tort Statute.<ref>Flomo v. Firestone Nat. Rubber Co., LLC, 643 F.3d 1013, 1021 (7th Cir. 2011); Doe VIII v. Exxon Mobil Corp., No. 09-7125 (D.C. Cir. 2011).</ref> On October 17, 2011, the United States Supreme Court announced that it would hear an appeal in ''Kiobel'' during its 2011–2012 term.<ref>Mike Sacks, Supreme Court To Rule On Corporate Personhood For Crimes Against Humanity, Huffington Post, Oct. 17, 2011, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/17/supreme-court_n_1015953.html.</ref>
-==Prominent cases under the Alien Tort Statute==
+==Prominent Cases Under the Alien Tort Statute==
 ===Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum===
 The plaintiffs in Kiobel were citizens of Nigeria who claimed that Dutch, British, and Nigerian corporations which were engaged in oil exploration and production aided and abetted the Nigerian government during the 1990s in committing violations of customary international law. ''See'' 621 F.3d 111 (2d Cir. Sept. 17, 2010). Plaintiffs sought damages under the ATS. The defendants moved to dismiss based on a two-pronged argument. First, they argued that customary international law itself provides the rules by which to decide whether conduct violates the law of nations where non-state actors are alleged to have committed the wrong in question. Second, they contended that no norm has ever existed between nations that imposes liability upon corporate actors. On September 29, 2006, the district court dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims for aiding and abetting property destruction; forced exile; extrajudicial killing; and violation of the rights to life, liberty, security, and association. It reasoned that customary international law did not define those violations with sufficient particularity. The court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss with respect to the remaining claims of aiding and abetting arbitrary arrest and detention; crimes against humanity; and torture or cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment. The district court then certified its entire order for interlocutory appeal to the Second Circuit based on the serious nature of the questions at issue.
@@ Line 48: / Line 48: @@
 Kiobel petitioned the Supreme Court for review of the Second Circuit's decision, which was granted on October 17, 2011.  The Supreme Court is expected to decide the case by the end of June, 2012.<ref>{{cite web | last = Denniston | first = Lyle | authorlink = Lyle Denniston | title = Court to rule on suing corporations and PLO | url = http://www.scotusblog.com/2011/10/court-to-rule-on-suing-corporations/ | date = October 17, 2011 | accessdate = 2011-10-16 | publisher = [[SCOTUSblog]]}}</ref>
-===Doe v. Unocal===
+===Civil suit against Chuckie Taylor===
-{{main|Doe v. Unocal}}
+{{main|Charles McArthur Emmanuel}}
+Charles McArthur Emmanuel<ref>"[http://www.ice.gov/images/news/newsreleases/articles/090109washington_lg.jpg 090109washington_lg.jpg]." [[U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement]]. Retrieved on August 27, 2009.</ref> (also known as "Chuckie Taylor" or "Taylor Jr."), the son of [[Charles Taylor (Liberia)|Charles Taylor]], former [[President of Liberia]],<ref name="CNN">"[http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/09/30/taylor.torture.trial.ap/index.html?iref=mpstoryview Ex-prisoner: Taylor's son laughed at torture]." ''[[CNN]]''. September 30, 2008.</ref> was the commander of the infamously violent Anti-Terrorist Unit (ATU), commonly known in Liberia as the "Demon Forces."
-In September 1997, thirteen [[Burma|Burmese]] villagers filed suit against [[Unocal]] and their parent company, the Union Oil Company of California under the ATCA<ref>Doe I v. Unocal Corp.
-F.3d 932 C.A.9 (Cal.),2002</ref> for alleged human rights violations, including forced labour, in the construction of the [[Yadana Project|Yadana gas pipeline project]] in [[Myanmar]], formerly Burma.<ref name=complaint-state-b>{{cite web |url=http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b0/Doe_v_Unocal_Plaintiffs_Complaint_and_conformed_face_sheet.pdf |format=PDF|title=Plaintiff's Complaint for Damages |author=Kenderton Lynch |date=2000-09-29 |accessdate=2007-12-28}}</ref> EarthRights International, the [[Center for Constitutional Rights]], Paul Hoffman, Hadsell & Stormer, and Judith Brown Chomsky served as co-counsel to the plaintiffs. In December 2004, Unocal agreed to settle after a [[Motion (legal)|motion for summary judgment]] failed in the [[United States District Court for the Central District of California]].<ref>Mark D. Kielsgard, ''Unocal and the Demise of Corporate Neutrality'', 36 Cal. W. Int'l L.J. 185, 189 (2009).</ref>
+In 2006, U.S. officials arrested Taylor Jr. upon entering the United States (via the Miami International Airport) and the Department of Justice later charged him based on torture he committed in Liberia.<ref>{{cite news|title= Roy Belfast Jr. aka Chuckie Taylor Indicted on Torture Charges, Department of Justice| date = 2006-12-06| url= http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2006/December/06_crm_813.html}}</ref> He was convicted of multiple counts of torture and conspiracy to torture<ref>{{cite news|title= Roy Belfast Jr. A/K/A Chuckie Taylor Convicted on Torture Charges,  Department of Justice Press Release| date = 2008-10-30| url= http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2008/October/08-crm-971.html}}</ref> and was sentenced to 97 years in prison.<ref>{{cite news|title= Roy Belfast, Jr., A/K/A Chuckie Taylor, Sentenced on Torture Charges, Department of Justice Press Release| date = 2009-12-09| url= http://humanrightsusa.blogspot.com/2010/02/breaking-news-final-judgment-issued-in.html}}</ref> The World Organization for Human Rights USA and the [[Florida International University College of Law]] filed a civil suit in the Southern District of Florida on behalf of five of Taylor Jr.’s victims pursuant to the Alien Tort Statute and the [[Torture Victim Protection Act]].<ref>http://www.humanrightsusa.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=167&Itemid=150</ref> The plaintiffs won by default judgment on all counts, and in February 2010, the court found Taylor liable to the plaintiffs for damages of over $22 million.<ref>http://humanrightsusa.blogspot.com/search/label/Chuckie%20Taylor</ref>
-===Wang Xiaoning v. Yahoo!===
-{{main|Wang Xiaoning}}
+===Presbyterian Church of Sudan v. Talisman Energy, Inc.===
-In April 2007, the World Organization for Human Rights USA filed a lawsuit against [[Yahoo!]] on behalf of Chinese dissident [[Wang Xiaoning]], claiming jurisdiction under the ATS.<ref>{{cite news|title= Second Amended Complaint| url=http://www.humanrightsusa.org/index2.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_view&gid=68&Itemid=80}}</ref>
+On October 2, 2009, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in ''Presbyterian Church of Sudan v. Talisman Energy, Inc.'', held that "the mens rea standard for aiding and abetting liability in Alien Tort Statute actions is purpose rather than knowledge alone."<ref>http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/5ee8965d-efbf-475c-9c0d-de151c267061/1/doc/07-0016-cv_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/5ee8965d-efbf-475c-9c0d-de151c267061/1/hilite/</ref> In this case, which involves allegations against a Canadian oil company concerning its purported assistance to the government in Sudan in the forced movement of civilians residing near oil facilities, the court concluded that "plaintiffs have not established Talisman's purposeful complicity in human rights abuses."  In reaching that conclusion, the Second Circuit stated that "the standard for imposing accessorial liability under the Alien Tort Statute must be drawn from international law; and that under international law a claimant must show that the defendant provided substantial assistance with the purpose of facilitating the alleged offenses."
+===Sinaltrainal v. Coca-Cola Company===
-:As noted in the Complaint, in 2001, Wang used a Yahoo! e-mail account to post anonymous writings to an Internet mailing list. Yahoo!, under pressure from the Chinese government, blocked that account. Wang set up a new account via Yahoo! in order to continue to share his pro-democracy material.  According to the Complaint, Yahoo! gave the Chinese government information that allowed authorities to identify and arrest Wang in September 2002.  Prosecutors in the Chinese courts cited Yahoo's cooperation.<ref>{{cite news|title= Advocates Sue Yahoo In Chinese Torture Case | date = 2007-04-20| publisher= The Washington Post | url =http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/18/AR2007041802510.html?hpid=moreheadlines}}</ref>
+On August 11, 2009, the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit issued a decision in ''Sinaltrainal v. Coca-Cola Company''.<ref>http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200615851.pdf</ref>  In this case, plaintiffs alleged that Coca-Cola bottlers in Colombia collaborated with Colombian paramilitary forces in "the systematic intimidation, kidnapping, detention, torture, and murder of Colombian trade unionists."  However, the district court dismissed the complaint and the Eleventh Circuit upheld that ruling.  In doing so, the Eleventh Circuit relied upon the Supreme Court's recent ''[[Ashcroft v. Iqbal]]'' decision [http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/08pdf/07-1015.pdf] in addressing the adequacy of the complaint, which has must have "facial plausibility" to survive dismissal, and noted that Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure demands "more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation."  The Eleventh Circuit then applied the ''Iqbal'' standard to plaintiffs' allegations against Coca-Cola and held that they were insufficient to survive dismissal.
-The mother of [[Shi Tao]] (Guao Quingsheng) joined the lawsuit on behalf of her son.<ref>{{cite news|title= Yahoo sued by China Reporter | date = 2007-06-11| publisher= Al Jazeera | url =http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/94F29289-C5F1-4650-A3FA-061625408C04.htm}}</ref> Shi Tao, a Chinese journalist, was detained in 2004, and convicted for emailing a description of the Chinese government’s instructions to journalists for the upcoming anniversary of the 1989 Tiananmen Square Massacre<ref>http://www.humanrightsusa.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=15&Itemid=35</ref> (in which representatives of [[People's Republic of China|PRC]] warned journalists of instabilities that might arise from marking the [[Tiananmen Square Protests of 1989|Tiananmen Square]] anniversary) to a New York-based pro-democracy forum.<ref>{{cite news|title= Shi Tao | date = 2007-06-11| publisher= HRIC | url =http://www.hrichina.org/public/highlight/index.html}}</ref>
-Both men were punished for speaking against the Chinese government after Yahoo!, through its Chinese subsidiary, provided their identifying information to the Chinese government.
-Yahoo! settled the case in November 2007 for an undisclosed amount of money, although they did agree to cover the plaintiff's legal costs as a part of the agreement. In a statement released after the settlement was made public, Yahoo! said that it would "provide 'financial, humanitarian and legal support to these families' and create a separate 'humanitarian relief fund' for other dissidents and their families."<ref>{{cite news|title= Yahoo settles Chinese Dissident Lawsuit | date = 2007-11-14| publisher= PC World | url =http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,139619-c,yahoo/article.html}}</ref>
 ===Bowoto v. Chevron Corp.===
 {{main|Bowoto v. Chevron Corp.}}
-One high-profile ATS case involved claims by Nigerian villagers regarding events that occurred on a Chevron offshore drilling platform in 1998, when Nigerian soldiers suppressed a protest against Chevron's environmental and business practices. The protesters, with the help of nonprofit organizations including the [[Center for Constitutional Rights]], the Public Interest Lawyers Group, and EarthRights International, brought claims for wrongful death, torture, assault, battery, and negligence against Chevron, alleging that the company had paid the soldiers that landed on the platform and were therefore liable for the actions that they took. In December 2008, a jury found that Chevron was not liable.<ref>{{cite news| url=http://www.reuters.com/article/ousiv/idUSTRE4B093N20081202 | work=Reuters | title=Jury clears Chevron of charges in Nigeria clash | date=2008-12-02}}</ref>
+Nigerian villagers brought claims against Chevron Corp. regarding events that occurred on a Chevron offshore drilling platform in 1998, when Nigerian soldiers suppressed a protest against Chevron's environmental and business practices. The protesters, with the help of nonprofit organizations including the [[Center for Constitutional Rights]], the Public Interest Lawyers Group, and EarthRights International, brought claims for wrongful death, torture, assault, battery, and negligence against Chevron, alleging that the company had paid the soldiers that landed on the platform and were therefore liable for the actions that they took. In December 2008, a jury found that Chevron was not liable.<ref>{{cite news| url=http://www.reuters.com/article/ousiv/idUSTRE4B093N20081202 | work=Reuters | title=Jury clears Chevron of charges in Nigeria clash | date=2008-12-02}}</ref>
-===Sinaltrainal v. Coca-Cola Company===
+===Wang Xiaoning v. Yahoo!===
+{{main|Wang Xiaoning}}
-On August 11, 2009, the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit issued a decision in ''Sinaltrainal v. Coca-Cola Company''.<ref>http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200615851.pdf</ref>  In this case, plaintiffs alleged that Coca-Cola bottlers in Colombia collaborated with Colombian paramilitary forces in "the systematic intimidation, kidnapping, detention, torture, and murder of Colombian trade unionists."  However, the district court dismissed the complaint and the Eleventh Circuit upheld that ruling.  In doing so, the Eleventh Circuit relied upon the Supreme Court's recent ''[[Ashcroft v. Iqbal]]'' decision [http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/08pdf/07-1015.pdf] in addressing the adequacy of the complaint, which has must have "facial plausibility" to survive dismissal, and noted that Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure demands "more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation."  The Eleventh Circuit then applied the ''Iqbal'' standard to plaintiffs' allegations against Coca-Cola and held that they were insufficient to survive dismissal.
+In 2007, the World Organization for Human Rights USA filed a lawsuit against [[Yahoo!]] on behalf of Chinese dissidents [[Wang Xiaoning]] and [[Shi Tao]] (Guao Quingsheng), claiming jurisdiction under the ATS.<ref>{{cite news|title= Second Amended Complaint| url=http://www.humanrightsusa.org/index2.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_view&gid=68&Itemid=80}}</ref> According to the Complaint, Wang and Shi Tao used Yahoo! accounts to share pro-democracy material, and a chinese subsidiary of Yahoo! gave the Chinese government identifying information that allowed authorities to identify and arrest them.<ref>{{cite news|title= Advocates Sue Yahoo In Chinese Torture Case | date = 2007-04-20| publisher= The Washington Post | url =http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/18/AR2007041802510.html?hpid=moreheadlines}}</ref> The Complaint alleges that the plaintiffs were subjected to "torture, cruel, inhuman, or other degrading treatment or punishment, arbitrary arrest and prolonged detention, and forced labor."<ref>http://www.humanrightsusa.org/index2.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_view&gid=68&Itemid=80</ref>
+Yahoo! settled the case in November 2007 for an undisclosed amount of money, and it agreed to cover the plaintiff's legal costs as a part of the settlement. In a statement released after the settlement was made public, Yahoo! said that it would "provide 'financial, humanitarian and legal support to these families' and create a separate 'humanitarian relief fund' for other dissidents and their families."<ref>{{cite news|title= Yahoo settles Chinese Dissident Lawsuit | date = 2007-11-14| publisher= PC World | url =http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,139619-c,yahoo/article.html}}</ref>
-===Presbyterian Church of Sudan v. Talisman Energy, Inc.===
-On October 2, 2009, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued another important ruling.   In ''Presbyterian Church of Sudan v. Talisman Energy, Inc.'', the Second Circuit imposed a higher pleading standard, requiring that "the mens rea standard for aiding and abetting liability in Alien Tort Statute actions is purpose rather than knowledge alone."<ref>http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/5ee8965d-efbf-475c-9c0d-de151c267061/1/doc/07-0016-cv_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/5ee8965d-efbf-475c-9c0d-de151c267061/1/hilite/</ref> In this case, which involves allegations against a Canadian oil company concerning its purported assistance to the government in Sudan in the forced movement of civilians residing near oil facilities, the court concluded that "plaintiffs have not established Talisman's purposeful complicity in human rights abuses."  In reaching that conclusion, the Second Circuit stated that "the standard for imposing accessorial liability under the Alien Tort Statute must be drawn from international law; and that under international law a claimant must show that the defendant provided substantial assistance with the purpose of facilitating the alleged offenses."
-===Civil suit against Chuckie Taylor===
+===Doe v. Unocal===
-{{main|Charles McArthur Emmanuel}}
+{{main|Doe v. Unocal}}
+In September 1997, thirteen [[Burma|Burmese]] villagers filed suit against [[Unocal]] and their parent company, the Union Oil Company of California under the ATCA<ref>Doe I v. Unocal Corp.
-Charles McArthur Emmanuel<ref>"[http://www.ice.gov/images/news/newsreleases/articles/090109washington_lg.jpg 090109washington_lg.jpg]." [[U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement]]. Retrieved on August 27, 2009.</ref> (also known as "Chuckie Taylor" or "Taylor Jr."), the son of [[Charles Taylor (Liberia)|Charles Taylor]], former [[President of Liberia]],<ref name="CNN">"[http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/09/30/taylor.torture.trial.ap/index.html?iref=mpstoryview Ex-prisoner: Taylor's son laughed at torture]." ''[[CNN]]''. September 30, 2008.</ref> is a U.S. citizen, born in Boston to Charles Taylor Sr.'s college girlfriend. Raised by his mother in Florida until he was 17, Taylor Jr. traveled to Liberia in 1997 to live with his father.  While in Liberia, Taylor Jr. became the commander of the infamously violent Anti-Terrorist Unit (ATU), commonly known in Liberia as the "Demon Forces."
+F.3d 932 C.A.9 (Cal.),2002</ref> for alleged human rights violations, including forced labour, in the construction of the [[Yadana Project|Yadana gas pipeline project]] in [[Myanmar]], formerly Burma.<ref name=complaint-state-b>{{cite web |url=http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b0/Doe_v_Unocal_Plaintiffs_Complaint_and_conformed_face_sheet.pdf |format=PDF|title=Plaintiff's Complaint for Damages |author=Kenderton Lynch |date=2000-09-29 |accessdate=2007-12-28}}</ref> EarthRights International, the [[Center for Constitutional Rights]], Paul Hoffman, Hadsell & Stormer, and Judith Brown Chomsky served as co-counsel to the plaintiffs. In December 2004, Unocal agreed to settle after a [[Motion (legal)|motion for summary judgment]] failed in the [[United States District Court for the Central District of California]].<ref>Mark D. Kielsgard, ''Unocal and the Demise of Corporate Neutrality'', 36 Cal. W. Int'l L.J. 185, 189 (2009).</ref>
-In 2006, U.S. officials arrested Taylor Jr. upon entering the United States (via the Miami International Airport) and the Department of Justice later charged him based on torture he committed in Liberia.<ref>{{cite news|title= Roy Belfast Jr. aka Chuckie Taylor Indicted on Torture Charges, Department of Justice| date = 2006-12-06| url= http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2006/December/06_crm_813.html}}</ref> On October 20, 2008, a federal jury convicted Taylor Jr. of multiple counts of torture and conspiracy to torture.<ref>{{cite news|title= Roy Belfast Jr. A/K/A Chuckie Taylor Convicted on Torture Charges,  Department of Justice Press Release| date = 2008-10-30| url= http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2008/October/08-crm-971.html}}</ref> On January 9, 2009, he was sentenced to 97 years in prison.<ref>{{cite news|title= Roy Belfast, Jr., A/K/A Chuckie Taylor, Sentenced on Torture Charges, Department of Justice Press Release| date = 2009-12-09| url= http://humanrightsusa.blogspot.com/2010/02/breaking-news-final-judgment-issued-in.html}}</ref>
-That same day, the World Organization for Human Rights USA and the [[Florida International University College of Law]] filed a civil suit in the Southern District of Florida on behalf of five of Taylor Jr.’s victims pursuant to the Alien Tort Statute and the [[Torture Victim Protection Act]].<ref>http://www.humanrightsusa.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=167&Itemid=150</ref> The plaintiffs won by default judgment on all counts and the civil trial to determine damages took place in late December 2009 and January 2010. In February 2010, the court found Taylor liable to the plaintiffs for damages of over $22 million.<ref>http://humanrightsusa.blogspot.com/search/label/Chuckie%20Taylor</ref>
 ==References==