Talk:Alien Tort Statute
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale. |
| Low | This article has been assessed as Low-importance on the assessment scale. |
 |
This article is within the scope of the United States WikiProject. This project provides a central approach to United States-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards. | |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
|
Contents |
[edit] Topics
I didn't quite understand whether the Alien Tort Statute refers to aliens on american soil or american on foreign soil. Can anyone clear that out? Thanks.
- The ATCA grants standing only to 'aliens,' hence the name of the law. American citizens can never sue under it, regardless of their physical locations. Foreign nationals can sue in U.S. court irrespective of their physical location.
-
- So that means aliens can sue aliens in US courts, even though the "tort" did not occur on American soil? Thanks again.
[edit] Asheville Global Report non-link
One of the external links in this article, which isn't actually linked to anything, refers to an article called "Ashcroft Goes After 200-Year-Old Human Rights Law", supposedly from the Asheville Global Report. Searching for the article title on Google turns up a bunch of hits that refer to OneWorld.net and the Asheville Global Report. Neither of these sites have the article in question. What's going on here? (I've linked the reference in the article to the Project Censored version. Come to think of it, maybe that answers my question.... ;) - dcljr (talk) 18:18, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] NPOV
The article fails to address the POV that plaintiffs' lawyers are misusing the ATS, or that the ATS impermissibly involves the judicial branch in executive-branch foreign policy issues. See, for example, this analysis, this analysis, or this one. -- THF 11:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- Recent New York Times article highlighting criticism. -- THF 21:15, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
-
- Perhaps the best way to handle that would be to start a section entitled Controversies and describe those controversies from both POVs. rewinn 04:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] ?Project China?
I deleted the project China template because ATS is neither more nor less related to China than to any other nation other than the United States. No doubt Wang Xiaoning versus Yahoo! is an important case but as such it would deserve its own page (which may well be Project China) with a short paragraph in this article. rewinn 04:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
