The Alejandre plaintiffs/claimants had to be citizens to get jurisdiction for FSIA purposes.

I’m just wondering why it is a part of this list, clarification would be greatly appreciated!!

I don’t buy the argument for corporate liability for violations of international environmental law, at least not under the ATS. There just isn’t near enough customary law there. States could create a treaty regime to cover that, if they wanted to, but they haven’t. Also the general scheme of international environmental law just doesn’t lend itself well to ATS-type litigation. Human rights law is different — both in terms of individual standing and the particular prohibitions that the law imposes make it a much better candidate for arguing out issues of derivative liability.

“Corporate liability”, in the context of the ATS, is just a way of expressing the idea that states can’t privatize their violations of international law. Environmental treaties generally try and regulate pollution emanating from a state’s territory, whatever the source, so privatizing pollution doesn’t really provide a way to avoid treaty obligations. On the other hand, for human rights violations, it is possible for a state to accept a payment from a corporation and in exchange have the corporation be the one to commit the would-be human rights violations in the course of their business.

The rest of the list is actually not in too bad shape, but one of the major problems with finishing it is just wading through all the jailmail and other BS claims that were brought in the last decade or so. Not to mention all the new cases getting filed. But my major goals are to track down all the ATS settlements I’ve overlooked, and also get some accurate stats on ATS litigation — so hopefully I’ll get around to finishing the damn case list soon, and I’ll be able to start on the more fun parts.