Alien Tort Statute

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article or section has multiple issues. Please help improve the article or discuss these issues on the talk page.

It may contain original research or unverifiable claims. Tagged since August 2007.
It is in need of attention from an expert on the subject. may be able to help recruit one.

The Alien Tort Statute (28 U.S.C. § 1350; ATS, also called the Alien Tort Claims Act and Alien Torts Claim Act) is a federal law of the United States that states: "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 Doe v. Unocal
- 2.2 Wang Xiaoning versus Yahoo!
3 References
4 External links

[edit] History

ATS was part of the Judiciary Act of 1789.^[1] Proponents of limiting the scope of the act, such as Bush administration Attorney General John Ashcroft,^{[citation needed]} claim that it was originally intended to only apply to a very limited number of torts, such as those which occurred during acts of piracy, violations of safe-conducts, or interference with the rights of ambassadors.^[2]^{[citation needed]} The act 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).^{[citation needed]} 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.^{[citation needed]} Since then, about 100 suits have been filed under ATS.^{[citation needed]} Most frequently, it is used by plaintiffs as a basis for jurisdiction for claims involving torts arguably in violation of modern international law.^{[citation needed]} 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.^{[original research?]}

[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 [1].

[edit] Doe v. Unocal

This article needs additional citations for verification.
Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (December 2007)

In September 1997, 13 Burmese villagers filed suit against Unocal and their parent company, the Union Oil Company of California under the ATCA^[3] for alleged human rights violations, including forced labour, in the construction of the Yadana gas pipeline project in Myanmar, formerly Burma.^[4] In December 2004, Unocal agreed to settle after a motion for summary judgement failed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California.^{[citation needed]} Myanmar's military dictatorship has come under intense international scrutiny for its use of forced civilian labour to drive its military projects.^{[citation needed]}

[edit] Wang Xiaoning versus Yahoo!

Main article: Wang Xiaoning

Human rights organizations have taken up the cause of Chinese dissident Wang Xiaoning, basing their case on this 217-year-old U.S. law to punish corporations for human rights violations abroad, an effort the Bush administration has opposed.

The suit says that in 2001, Wang was using a Yahoo e-mail account to post anonymous writings to an Internet mailing list. The suit alleges that Yahoo, under pressure from the Chinese government, blocked that account. Wang set up a new account via Yahoo and began sending material again; the suit alleges that Yahoo gave the government information that allowed it to identify and arrest Wang in September 2002. The suit says prosecutors in the Chinese courts cited Yahoo's cooperation.^[5]

The mother of Shi Tao (Guao Quingsheng) has also joined the lawsuit on behalf of her son.^[6] Shi Tao was convicted of providing state secrets to foreign agencies when he passed the details of a memo (in which representatives of PRC warned journalists of instabilities that might arise from marking the Tiananmen Square anniversary) to a New York-based pro-democracy forum. ^[7]

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." ^[8]