Alien Tort Statute

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Alien Tort Statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1350, (ATS) is a federal law that states, in relevant part:

"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."

Recently, this statute has become significant as a means of allowing American government, military, and corporate leaders to be held responsible in a court of law for the human rights abuses committed as a result of their presence in a foreign country. This is regardless of whether the abuses were committed by someone within an American organization, or whether the abuses were committed by a local group empowered by the presence of the American organization.

1 History
2 Legal Issues
- 2.1 Unocal settlement
3 External links

[edit] History

ATS was part of the Judiciary Act of 1789. It was generally considered to include torts which occurred during acts of piracy, violations of safe-conducts, or interference with the rights of ambassadors. It was very rarely used and its limits were not tested until 1980, when plaintiffs invoked ATS in Filartiga v. Pena-Irala, 630 F.2d 876 (2d Cir. 1980). Filartiga v. Pena-Irala involved a suit by relatives of a Paraguayan who was kidnapped and tortured to death by the defendant, a Paraguayan police official.

Since then, about 100 suits have been filed under ATS. Most frequently, it is used by plaintiffs as a basis for jurisdiction for claims involving torts arguably in violation of modern international law. The Torture Victim Protection Act (1992) specifically addressed cases such as Filartiga v. Pena-Irala and may be considered to replace ATS to that extent.

In addition, there may be more opportunities [1] for more traditional use of ATS due to the increase in piracy on the high seas.

[edit] Legal Issues

The statute provides a proper legal venue to victims who could not otherwise bring their oppressors to justice by allowing U.S. courts to decide human rights cases even when neither party has any connection to the United States. The accused must be in the U.S. to be served court papers. If the defendant in a claim brought under the Alien Tort Statute is a foreign sovereign state (or some agency or subdivision thereof), the jurisdictional requirements of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act still must be satisfied before a court can hear the claim.

One area which has recently excited controversy is the use of the statute to sue American and other international corporations for damages which result from their actions in other countries. The opposing position of the National Association of Manufacturers has been adopted by the administration of George W. Bush, but has not resulted in a United States Supreme Court decision which precludes such legal actions. The most recent Supreme Court decision construing the statute is Sosa v. Álvarez-Machaín [2].

[edit] Unocal settlement

In December 2004, energy company Unocal agreed to settle a suit brought against it under the statute by Burmese villagers. The villagers filed suit in connection with alleged human rights violations, including forced labour, in Unocal's energy investment in the Yadana gas pipeline project in Myanmar, formerly Burma. Myanmar's military dictatorship has come under intense international scrutiny for its use of forced civilian labour to drive its military projects. [3]