That deal isn’t available to law students. That’s because admission to most state bars require potential attorneys to graduate from a law school accredited by the American Bar Association. And the ABA doesn’t accredit foreign law schools. So that’s that. (Well, except for those Americans that go to another country for law school and simply stay in that country after graduation.)

But should that really be the end of the story? Putting aside all the fluffy nonsense about the “increasing globalization” of law, foreign law schools present a possible solution to two perceived problems in the legal market right now: (1) the lack of attorneys for under-served (read: poor) populations and (2) the high cost of law school in general. Of course, these problems are related: students carrying high debt loads out of law school simply can’t afford to move to Barrow and set up shop.

The ABA has considered and declined to accredit foreign law schools one time before. Reading between the lines, the earlier refusal seemed to have stemmed from a fear that foreign lawyers would flood the market.

Yet that concern seems inconsistent with the ABA’s willingness to accept American law schools of all shapes and sizes, with seemingly no concern for “flooding the market.” And interestingly, neither the commenters nor the ABA seemed to focus on American students going abroad to receive their degree. Instead, the jingoistic fear was that foreign students would go to foreign schools and then come to America. Why don’t we want to open a door for our own students to enjoy a legal education while immersed in a different culture?

What’s more, for American law students, a good number of foreign law schools should have the advantage over the newbie American ones, given that foreign law schools often have well-established pedigrees and strong institutional support. Contrast that with the lower-tier American institutions that struggle to get by. Wouldn’t we rather have new lawyers coming out of UCL Law or McGill Law than University of North Texas at Dallas School of Law? Can’t we all concede that there are several Australian schools that could instantly produce some of the best international lawyers in the States? As a bonus, accrediting foreign law schools might result in more lawyers for a very particular under-served community: immigrants.

Some worry that allowing foreign entry into the ABA could result in a general decline in the quality of legal education. Such a concern could be easily addressed by requiring the ABA  to impose the same strict standards for accreditation on foreign schools as it does on domestic ones. If no foreign school passed muster, so be it.

In sum, why aren’t we giving this a closer look? What is the ABA afraid of? A cheaper, more interesting learning experience shouldn’t be limited to the wandering undergrad. It’s time for law students to get their shot, too.

-Michael

Right now, the only people excited about the upcoming Supreme Court argument (and ultimate decision) in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum are international law nerds. At first glance, the case presents issues only a mother scholar could love:

(1) Whether the issue of corporate civil tort liability under the Alien Tort Statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1350, is a merits question or instead an issue of subject matter jurisdiction; and (2) whether corporations are immune from tort liability for violations of the law of nations such as torture, extrajudicial executions or genocide may instead be sued in the same manner as any other private party defendant under the ATS for such egregious violations.

But even though that sounds extraordinarily technical, the facts of the case actually might provide fodder for some explosive campaign rhetoric.

At bottom, Kiobel could be thought to confront two fundamental issues: (1) the rights of aliens to enjoy certain protections in U.S. courts; and (2) the accountability of corporations for acts that caused injury. Those issues touch upon some raw feelings, driven by xenophobia, anti-corporatism, and general distrust of the Supreme Court. Either way the case goes, it’s likely to stir intense political feelings:

• If the court rules that corporations may not be held liable under the Alien Tort Statute, we’re likely to see a mini-replay of the Citizens United furor. The decision would fit neatly into the narrative that the Roberts court cares more about the interests of corporations than individuals. I can already imagine President Obama giving a speech about the Court’s unwillingness to place limits on the acts of corporations, whether those limits come in the form of campaign spending law, basic human rights laws, or otherwise.
• If the court rules that corporations may be held liable under the Alien Tort Statute, then Republicans could use this case as another example of how “those people” (i.e., aliens, foreigners, what have you) have too many rights in this country. Launching into his best “they-terk-er-jerbs” speech, the Republican candidate could use Kiobel to condemn how the government has become more interested in protecting the interests of foreign citizens, rather than protecting the interests of small business owners, family farmers, apple pie bakers, etc. Then again, Arizona v. United States might provide a better platform for anti-immigrant rants than Kiobel.
• If the court simply punts and says that the Alien Tort Statute does not apply extraterritorially, I don’t think anybody will care. Some people will scream about judicial activism, others will applaud the court’s judicial restraint. For its part, the Alien Tort Statute will be dead, squashed like a roach under the jackboot of judicial fuddyduddyness.

Personally, I think it’d be kind of nice to see candidates sparring on things of substance (like Kiobel) rather than spitting the same ‘ole sound bites. But that’s probably too much to ask for.

-Michael

The so-called “Sea Shepherd” activists — Geoffrey Tuxworth, Simon Peterffy and Glen Pendlebury — boarded the Japanese whaling vessel Shonan Maru II early Sunday morning off the southwest coast of western Australia.

….

The three men are members of an Australian environmental organization called Forest Rescue Australia and their mission was designed to prevent the Japanese whaler from tailing an anti-whaling flagship belonging to the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society.

Because this all took place about 16 miles off of the Australian coast, the men boarded the ship and were apprehended by the Japanese vessel within Australia’s contiguous zone. There now seems to be a dispute between the Sea Shepherd organization and the Australian government over the significance of this fact — with the Sea Shepherds believing, while the Australian government is stuck in the position of awkwardly noting that the three men who boarded the vessel are subject only to Japanese laws.

Although the Australian government did eventually work through diplomatic channels to arrange for the release of the three activists, its position was that Australia had no particular claims to jurisdiction over the incident, beyond the fact it involved Australian citizens:

[Federal Attorney-General Nicola Roxon] said consular officials were attempting to contact the men, and the Government’s priority was to ensure their safety and well-being, and return to Australia.
“It is a difficult situation. This incident happened outside our territorial waters, in our exclusive economic zone,” she said.
“But that doesn’t give us rights for Australian law to automatically apply.
“In fact, our advice is that Japanese law will apply because a Japanese boat is the one that’s been boarded.”

The Sea Shepherds do not agree with the Gillard Government’s view:

Capt [Paul] Watson said he had not expected the men to be taken to Japan and charged.

“Considering it was within the 24 miles contiguous zone, which is where the Australian immigration and Customs has absolute authority, we didn’t think the Australian government would allow the Japanese to take Australian citizens out of that area.”

He accused Attorney-General Nicola Roxon of “not doing her homework”, adding the vessel was only 16 miles off the beach.

“This is not some ordinary boat that was boarded, this is a criminal boat supporting a criminal operation.”

Unfortunately for the Sea Shepherds, however, their interpretation of international law is a bit misguided. The contiguous zone’s actual significance is pretty negligible in most contexts, and completely negligible here. The contiguous zone is the band of ocean territory just beyond a nation’s territorial waters, and overlapping with its EEZ. States are permitted to extend this zone up to 24 miles from their coast; this means, in the typical circumstance, a nation’s contiguous zone is a 12 mile band that begins 12 miles out at sea, where the state’s territorial sea ends.

Under Article 33 of UNCLOS,

1. In a zone contiguous to its territorial sea, described as the contiguous zone, the coastal State may exercise the control necessary to:

(a) prevent infringement of its customs, fiscal, immigration or sanitary laws and regulations within its territory or territorial sea;

(b) punish infringement of the above laws and regulations committed within its territory or territorial sea.

2. The contiguous zone may not extend beyond 24 nautical miles from the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured.

And that is pretty much the extent of the contiguous zone’s importance, when it comes to a coastal state’s jurisdiction over foreign ships. Moreover, as the Shonan Maru II is not itself a whaling ship or a research ship — it’s basically a bodyguard for the whaling ships, engaged in counter-harassment measures against the Sea Shepherds — it was not even taking any actions which could have subjected it to Australian regulations at the time the Forest Rescue men boarded it. As for Australian criminal laws (even presuming that the Japanese could possibly have committed any violations), such laws are only enforceable in the contiguous zone to the extent that the enforcement was related to violations that occurred or were about to occur within Australia’s territorial sea. Here, all of the events concerned took place outside of territorial waters, and so Australia’s extended enforcement jurisdiction is inapplicable.

As such, if any criminal acts occurred with regard to the boarding of the Shonan Maru, the crimes were probably committed by the Forest Rescue activists rather than the Japanese whalers. In fact, an argument can even be made that, by forcibly boarding a Japanese vessel outside of Australian territorial waters with the intent of detaining it, or at least of diverting its course, the activists were engaging in an act of piracy, pursuant to UNCLOS Article 101. Although the Japanese whalers are hardly innocent when it comes to breaches of international law, in this case, it is the Sea Shepherds that are in the wrong.

-Susan

Which is why Iran’s recently renewed threats to close down trade through the Strait of Hormuz are risky for all concerned. Risky for the rest of the world, because any disruption would contain a severe economic toll. And risky for Iran, because if it ever actually did attempt to shut down the Strait, it would intensely piss off literally the entire world. So, while Iran periodically makes noises about taking such a move, the odds of it actually carrying out on its threats are minimal. Nevertheless, given the costs involved, the risk, however small, is taken extremely seriously by the rest of the world.

But ignoring the reality of the situation for a moment, and pretending as if international law actually possessed the power to effect state’s actions in the Gulf, would Iran actually have the legal right to carry out any of its threats?

For once, international law has a straightforward answer: no. Any attempt by Iran to close the Strait of Hormuz would be unambiguously illegal; the shipping lanes through the Strait of Hormuz, as laid out by the International Maritime Organization, lay within the territorial sea of Oman. Although the 12-mile territorial seas of Iran and Oman overlap at the narrowest points of the Strait, the deepest waters — and thus the shipping channels — lay to the south, within Oman’s territorial waters. As such, any military action by Iran to shut down shipping through Hormuz would inevitably impinge on Oman’s sovereign rights.

But Iran’s legal rights over the Strait of Hormuz vis-à-vis the rest of the world, and ignoring Oman’s sovereignty concerns, are a slightly more complicated question, although even there Iran’s claims are tenuous. The precise extent of Iran’s legal authority, however, differs based upon whether one applies the doctrine of innocent passage or transit passage to the Strait.

Both doctrines concern the passage of ships (as well as planes) through a nation’s territorial sea, which extends up to 12 miles from a state’s coast. The doctrine of innocent passage, which bears a greater claim to customary international law status, applies throughout all the territorial seas of the world. The concept of transit passage, in contrast, applies solely to those sections of territorial seas provide an exclusive link between two larger bodies of waters — i.e., straits.

The right of innocent passage, laid out in Articles 17 – 26 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (“UNCLOS”), protects the right of ships in transit to pass through another nation’s territorial sea, subject to certain regulations that may be imposed by the sovereign. Passage is considered innocent “so long as it is not prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the coastal State.” Innocent passage, however, can be subject to certain conditions imposed by the sovereign state, and may in fact be suspended temporarily in times of emergency.

In contrast, transit passage, which is regulated by Articles 37 – 44 of UNCLOS, is nonsuspendable, and not limited to innocent passage. The conditions that may be imposed by sovereign states are limited, and not subject to any real teeth. So long as a ship is not engaged in any nontransit activities and complying with certain traffic and safety measures, coastal States must permit ships to pass through their territorial seas.

So if the Strait of Hormuz is governed by transit passage, Iran’s legal ability to take any action to impede transport through the strait, even against an unfriendly foreign nation’s warships, is more or less nil. If, on the other hand, the regime of innocent passage applies, Iran has a fair bit more wiggle room to work with. Particularly in a situation where hostilities are shading towards war and the use of force, where a coastal state’s territorial waters governed by a regime of innocent passage, that state has a non-negligible claim to a right to enforce extensive regulatory control over the area, up to and including an ongoing suspension of all transit rights.

The question then is whether the Strait of Hormuz is subject to transit passage or not. Textually, it would seem clear that the Strait of Hormuz falls with Article 37′s scope, as it is a “strait[] which [is] used for international navigation between one part of the high seas or an exclusive economic zone and another part of the high seas or an exclusive economic zone.” Thus, under UNCLOS’s text, a strait like the Strait of Hormuz — which connects the Persian Gulf’s EEZ to the Strait of Oman’s EEZ, as well as the high seas beyond — is subject to transit passage. So why doesn’t that settle the question for good as to what transit regime applies here?

Well, for one, neither the U.S. nor Iran have ever actually gotten around to ratifying UNCLOS. Since neither state has ever entered the treaty, its terms can only apply if the terms are also obligatory under customary international law. And there, opinions differ, with no few authorities holding that the general right of transit passage has yet to be established outside of treaty-conferred obligations.

On the other side of that argument is the United States, which, despite its somewhat contentious and complicated relationship with UNCLOS, has long held that the bulk of UNCLOS’s provisions are merely a codification of customary international law. This includes UNCLOS’s provisions regarding transit passage, as U.S. authorities have repeatedly asserted these norms to be a component of CIL:

…the United States…particularly rejects the assertions that the…right of transit passage through straits used for international navigation, as articulated in the [LOS] Convention, are contractual rights and not codification of existing customs or established usage. The regimes of…transit passage, as reflected in the Convention, are clearly based on customary practice of long standing and reflects the balance of rights and interests among all States, regardless of whether they have signed or ratified the Convention… (Diplomatic Note of August 17, 1987, to the Democratic and Popular Republic of Algeria (intermediary for Iran)).

And,

…the regime [of transit passage] applies not only in or over the waters overlapped by territorial seas but also throughout the strait and in its approaches, including areas of the territorial sea that are overlapped. The Strait of Hormuz provides a case in point: although the area of overlap of the territorial seas of Iran and Oman is relatively small, the regime of transit passage applies throughout the strait as well as in its approaches including areas of the Omani and Iranian territorial seas not overlapped by the other. (Navy JAG, telegram 061630Z June 1998).

In contrast, Iran has consistently maintained the opposite view, holding that transit passage only exists among states that have agreed to submit to that regime via ratification of an international agreement. Although Iran has not ratified UNCLOS, it has signed the convention, and with its signature it submitted the following declaration:

Notwithstanding the intended character of the Convention being one of general application and of law making nature, certain of its provisions are merely product of quid pro quo which do not necessarily purport to codify the existing customs or established usage (practice) regarded as having an obligatory character. Therefore, it seems natural and in harmony with article 34 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, that only states parties to the Law of the Sea Convention shall be entitled to benefit from the contractual rights created therein.

In other words, Iran viewed Article 38 of UNCLOS, concerning the right of transit passage through straits used for international navigation, to be an exclusively treaty-based obligation, and not one of customary international law. As Iran never got around to ratifying UNCLOS, the implication would be that Iran does not in fact believe itself to have acceded to any such treaty obligation. This position has been confirmed by numerous assertions by Iranian officials in the decades prior to and since UNCLOS’s entry into force.

Iran is not alone in this belief about transit passage’s status under international law, either. Oman, motivated by a similar interest in the Strait of Hormuz, also filed a declaration along with both its signature to and ratification of UNCLOS, which questioned the CIL status of transit passage, and also suggested that Oman did not intend to adopt the obligations of transit passage conferred by treaty, either. Its ratification statement indicated that it only recognized and agreed to compliance with provisions concerning the regime of innocent passage — and not that of transit passage. As such, Oman’s ratification was subject to the condition that “innocent passage is guaranteed to warships through Omani territorial waters, subject to prior permission.”

Although these declarations have never actually been enforced or acted upon by either Oman or Iran, making the bulk of state practice with regards to the Strait of Hormuz to be in conformity with the existence of transit passage through the Strait, it does not appear that either coastal state believes itself to be legally bound by a customary international law of transit passage, either. Moreover, state practice and opinio juris elsewhere in the world likewise fails to unambiguously confirm the existence of a customary international law of transit passage. As such, it cannot be automatically assumed that Iran does not possess a right to limit transit through the Strait of Hormuz, at least to the extent permitted by the regime of innocent passage.

While the practical effect of transit passage’s precise status under international law will likely (definitely) be minimal in shaping events in the Persian Gulf in the days and weeks to come, parties on both sides of the dispute will be likely to invoke the application of international law in their rhetoric, as they seek to imbue their military actions with the color of law. Still, as the Strait of Hormuz does not belong to Iran alone, and Iran’s sovereign claims over the Strait are limited by Oman’s own claims to its territorial seas, any action taken by Iran to close the entirety of the Strait will necessarily be an act of force prohibited by the UN Charter, and unquestionably a violation of international law.

-Susan

What I find more interesting is the professors’ third argument: that “principles of federal common law” would bar Plaintiffs’ claims. The argument is interesting because, if taken to its logical limits, it would effectively nullify the Alien Tort Statute (or, at the very least, freeze the law of the ATS in its present state).  The law professors chiefly rely on two principles: (1) that federal courts should avoid implying private causes of action; and (2) judicial interference in matters of international law and foreign policy is inappropriate (and better left to Congress).

First, the law professors are mistaken in suggesting that ATS courts should not permit corporate liability claims because to do so would inappropriately imply a private cause of action.  It’s important to recognize here that the cause of action could only be “implied” from international law itself, not from the ATS.  (This must be so given the Sosa court’s admonition that the ATS is merely a jurisdictional statute that does not itself provide a cause for relief.)  Even in the best case, “implying” a private cause of action from international law would be an exceptionally difficult task, especially compared to implying rights from Congressional statutes: while Congress could be expected to speak clearly and directly if it wished to make a private right, international law does not speak with the same specificity.  Cf. Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 U.S. 692, 727 (2004) (“[T]he absence of congressional action addressing private rights of action under an international norm is more equivocal than its failure to provide such a right when it creates a statute.”). In other words, an ATS court is not faced with the same task of limiting itself to a given set of words (that is, the statute), but would be “implying” things from a much more amorphous and abstract body of international norms and principles.

The deeper problem with treating ATS liability as an issue of “implication” in the usual sense is that it would be hard to find a single rule of international law that would meet the law professors’ test.  I cannot think of a single international rule of law that contemplated individual enforcement, including the infamous Blackstone Three. (“The principal offenses against the law of nations, animadverted on as such by the municipal laws of England, are of three kinds: 1. Violation of safeconducts; 2. Infringement of the rights of embassadors; and, 3. Piracy.”). Taking the law professors’ approach would strip out any conceivable claim for relief.

The simpler approach is to recognize the context in which this statute arose.  The phrase “cause of action” didn’t come about until the late 1840s, several decades after the ATS was passed in the late 1700s.  Instead, early law simply assumed that a violation of a legal principle to the detriment of a party provided that party a right to relief. See, e.g., Tex. & Pac. R. Co. v. Rigsby, 241 U.S. 33, 39 (1916) (“A disregard of the command of the statute is a wrongful act, and where it results in damage to one of the class for whose especial benefit the statute was enacted, the right to recover the damages from the party in default is implied, according to a doctrine of the common law.”). As such, Congress likely assumed that any specific, identifiable international law norm could create a private remedy for a harmed individual.

Second, the law professors make a related argument that courts must be cautious in interfering with foreign affairs (a domain typically controlled by the executive and the legislature).  They suggest that federal common law is ordinarily used to restrain courts in international affairs.  And they note that Congress has enacted more “specific” remedies (such as the Torture Victims Protection Act) for violations of international law, such that courts should hesitate to act beyond those specific statutory instruments.

The fact that the law professors would cite the TVPA as support for their position is galling. Congress only acted to pass the TVPA after an opinion by Judge Bork strongly endorsed the positions taken by these law professors and seemed to gut the ATS.  See Tel-Oren v. Libyan Arab Repub., 726 F.2d 774, 798 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (Bork, J, concurring).  In response, Congress–which had apparently assumed previously that courts understood what the ATS said–passed the TVPA to “reinforce” and “clarify” that extrajudicial killing and torture (the specific acts at issue in Tel-Oren) were undeniably actionable.

No, the fact that the ATS refers to the law of nations suggests that courts were never expected to wait for Congress to act (again). Certainly, some amount of caution should be taken in condemning the acts of another nation. But caution must be distinguished from paralysis. Virtually every ATS case involves some foreign interest; refusing to act when such interests are involved would write the ATS out of the code books. As the Supreme Court indicated more than 100 years ago, courts must not flee from a case upon any appearance by the scary specter of international law or matters of “foreign relations”:

International law, in its widest and most comprehensive sense — including not only questions of right between nations, governed by what has been appropriately called the law of nations; but also questions arising under what is usually called private international law, or the conflict of laws, and concerning the rights of persons within the territory and dominion of one nation, by reason of acts, private or public, done within the dominions of another nation — is part of our law, and must be ascertained and administered by the courts of justice, as often as such questions are presented in litigation between man and man, duly submitted to their determination.

Hilton v. Guyot, 159 U.S. 113, 163 (1895); see also Michael Tigar, Judicial Power, The “Political Question Doctrine,” and Foreign Relations, 17 UCLA L. Rev. 1135, 1178 (1970) (“In reality, if one examines the case law and history of judicial review [of matters involving foreign policy], deference has been a burden-shifting and burden-building device. … To refer to an absolute refusal to decide, grounded in no explicit congressional command, as ‘deference’ is to misdescribe what is in fact to surrender.”).

-Michael

The Fourth Circuit takes a truly bizarre path to relying on the Rome Statute. The court correctly recognizes that the “law of nations” can be drawn from international agreements (i.e. treaties), customary international law, and general principles of law common to civilized systems of law. But then the opinion breaks down, fashioning a principle of international law that doesn’t really use any of the above three sources.

The court ostensibly relies on the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court to define the reach of aiding and abetting liability.  The treaty could useful evidence of customary international law, as treaties often are. Indeed, the United States apparently considers the Statute to be a reflection of binding international law. But the Fourth Circuit refuses to take that approach, concluding that the Rome Statute is “properly viewed in the nature of a treaty and not as customary international law.” The court apparently never considers the notion that treaties and customary international law can and often do overlap.

Instead, the Fourth Circuit just declares that the Rome Statute provides a nice standard because “its status as a treaty cuts in favor of accepting its mens rea standard as authoritative for purposes of ATS aiding and abetting liability.” The court points out that lots of nations have signed the Rome Statute, even if Iraq (where all the action in Aziz happened) and the United States haven’t. Well, that’s great, but doesn’t that go to whether or not the Rome Statute reflects customary international law, the very question the Fourth Circuit said it had already answered? I simply don’t understand how a treaty not signed by the relevant nations and not applicable to those nations as customary international law can nevertheless provide binding principles of law for those nations’ citizens. See VCLT art. 34 (“A treaty does not create either obligations or rights for a third State without its consent.”).

It looks like what’s really behind the Fourth Circuit’s adoption of the Rome Statute standard is the court’s uneasiness with the indefiniteness of customary international law.  The decision talks a lot about how customary international law is difficult to define and of “soft” character. This whole discussion indicates one of two things: (a) the Fourth Circuit was unwilling to do the hard work of doing the international law research and legwork necessary to determine what the relevant customary international law standards are; or (b) the standards really are hopelessly indeterminate, in which case this is not a norm that is “sufficiently definite” to be actionable under the ATS.  See Sosa v. Alvarez-Marchain, 542 U.S. 692, 732 (2004). Either way, this opinion merits a big thumbs down.

Maybe Susan will explain why I’m wrong, but for now I’m convinced that this was a bad decision.

-Michael

Update (Sept. 22): This post over at Opinio Juris confirms that others are reading this opinion the same way I am.

Parry and Rafferty see this account as a tacit admission of illegality because (1) ”approval from the Security Council is a prerequisite under international law for giving legitimacy to an invasion,” and (2) Cheney’s story makes clear that the United States had no such approval at the time it sought the second resolution.  Both steps in this line of reasoning, however, are wrong.  Both authors exaggerate the import of Cheney’s statements.

First, it is not in fact the case that “approval from the Security Council is a prerequisite under international law for giving legitimacy to an invasion.” That view is of course derived from Article 2(4) of the U.N. Charter, which requires U.N. members to ”refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.” But even the U.N. Charter itself contains exceptions.* Of special relevance here is Article 51, which preserves the right of member states to act in self-defense. Bush administration officials frequently relied upon Article 51 and the notion of preemptive self-defense (without Security Council authorization) to justify the operation. Even if Cheney’s book concedes that the Security Council had never granted the United States “authorization,” this preemptive self-defense justification could still provide legal support for the administration’s actions. Although the preemptive self-defense argument is now looked upon unfavorably (to say the least), it was at least colorable at the time and undermines the notion that the Bush administration willfully violated international law.

Second, Cheney’s story about the “second resolution” does not establish that the United States lacked Security Council approval before seeking that resolution. Such an argument mistakenly assumes that the Bush administration only would have asked for such approval if it did not already have it.  (The reasoning goes something like this: “A country only requests U.N. approval if it does not already have it; the United States requested U.N. approval; therefore, the United States did not already have U.N. approval.”) The Bush administration, of course, took the position that a series of prior U.N. resolutions (mostly famously Resolution 1441) authorized the invasion of Iraq. Yet these resolutions contained ambiguous language and often conflicting terms, such as permitting nations to use “all necessary means” to secure compliance from Iraq with U.N. mandates while indicating that the Security Council was to remain “seized of the matter.” Thus, the Bush administration might have sought a “second” resolution (which wasn’t really a “second” resolution at all) merely to put the matter undeniably to rest and avoid later quibbling over the words and meaning of earlier resolutions. In other words, the request for a second resolution might have been an attempt to create purposeful redundancy out of an abundance of caution.  A second resolution might also have served political purposes even if it were legally unnecessary–it might have galvanized international support just before the invasion, it might have reiterated the United States’ strong respect for the international community’s interest in the invasion, or it might have provided political insulation from domestic opponents of the war. None of these reasons go to the existence of U.N. approval without the second resolution.

In short, Rafferty and Perry are going to have to keep hunting for any admitted international law violations in Cheney’s book. They haven’t found one yet.

-Michael

*This statement is a gross over-simplification in other ways, but I choose not to address each and every one of those ways here.

So, if you study or work on international law issues, please know that your troubling interest will forever bar you from becoming a federal judge.  At least in Oklahoma.

-Michael

My gut feeling is this is just a case of hard facts make bad law, because Defendant Anthony Bianchi, millionaire and convicted serial child rapist, is one of the least sympathetic litigants you could possibly have, and it’s not hard to see how one might be very strongly motivated to extend any assistance available to the unnamed minor plaintiffs.

But being a really horrible person does not magically invoke the jurisdiction of the ATS. Judge Bartle seems to have taken the requirement that only ‘extreme’ violations of international law are sufficient to invoke ATS liability to mean that, the more morally heinous an act is, the greater the likelihood is that there exists a cause of action for a tort in violation of the law of nations:

“Given the young age of his victims and the frequency with which Bianchi engaged in these heinous acts, this case is extreme enough for subject matter jurisdiction to exist under the ATS. What occurred here is a serious transgression of international law that is ‘specific, universal, and obligatory.’ Under all the circumstances, we conclude that Bianchi’s sexual assault of children through sex tourism falls within the ‘very limited category’ of claims cognizable under the ATS as a violation of the law of nations.” Quoting Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 U.S. 692, 732.

To put it charitably, the decision is something of an international law train wreck. Its primary justification seems to be the existence of a international instrument condemning acts like those committed by Bianchi:

“[I]n support of this court’s jurisdiction, plaintiffs point to the Optional Protocol on the Rights of the Child, Sale of Children, Child Prostitution and Child Pornography (“Optional Protocol”).” … The Optional Protocol bans the ‘offering, delivering or accepting, by whatever means, a child for the purpose of … [s]exual exploitation of the child.’ S. Treaty Doc. No. 106-37 at art. 3(1)(a)(i). It also declares that parties ‘shall ensure that all child victims of the offences described in the present protocol have access to adequate procedures to seek, without discrimination, compensation for damages from those legally responsible.’ Id. at art. 9(4).

Although the U.S. is a signatory to the Optional Protocol, because that treaty is not self-executing, Plaintiffs had to go the law-of-nations route for the ATS suit, rather than relying on the treaty alone. But calling something ‘customary international law,’ even if it were, does not mean that it automatically comes with a cause of action against private parties. Judge Bartle notes that “‘[The Optional Protocol] also provides that ‘each State Party shall take measures, where appropriate, to establish the liability of legal persons’ for these offenses, both criminal and civil,” and then blithely goes on to assume, “[t]hus, the Optional Protocol clearly contemplates the liability of private individuals.” But that’s not what it says at all. The treaty clearly contemplates obligating nations to prohibit child sex crimes as a matter of domestic law, not making child sex crimes in themselves a violation of international law.

Other than the Optional Protocol, the decision’s basis for finding a violation of international law is based on the following:

“[C]ourts across the United States have acknowledged that child sex tourism … is uniformly admonished by the international community as reprehensible.”

“[Bianchi's] crimes represent a global problem, whereby individuals from developed nations travel to less developed nations to prey on young children from impoverished communities.”

“Courts have been willing to recognize claims by children under the ATS, even where the same claims would not be actionable if brought by adults.” Citing (questionably) Roe v. Bridgestone Corp., 492 F. Supp. 2d 988, 1019-22 (S.D. Ind. 2007).”

But none of this is sufficient to establish that Bianchi’s crimes were “a serious transgression of international law that is ‘specific, universal, and obligatory.’” His actions were evil and illegal, but not a matter of the law of nations.

Judge Bartle’s judicial over-reach in the name of universal jurisdiction is by no means an isolated decision. There is in fact fairly ample, if scattered, support for the idea that jurisdiction over Bianchi would be proper, under the argument that international commercialized child rape (I cannot bring myself to use the monstrously inadequate euphemism of ‘sex tourism’) is a modern crime akin to the traditional offenses of piracy and slavery. Eugene Kontorovich [PDF] has called this claim the “piracy analogy”. The piracy analogy is

the argument that [universal jurisdiction] is based on principles implicit in the earlier, piracy-only universal jurisdiction. According to the piracy analogy, international law treated piracy as universally cognizable because of its extraordinary heinousness. Universal jurisdiction was never about piracy per se, the argument goes, but about allowing any nation to punish the world’s worst and most heinous crimes. Thus universal jurisdiction over human rights violations is simply an application of the well-settled principle that the most heinous offenses are universally cognizable and not, as critics contend, a radical and dangerous encroachment on nations’ sovereignty.

The Bianchi decision is a text-book example of the piracy analogy in action, and of the mistaken belief that the world’s evils are best fought by expanding the nebulous jurisdictional reach of international law to encompass them. However, while states can and do use international law as a means of combating offenses that are universally condemned, as they have with the Option Protocol on the Rights of the Child, the mere fact that an offense can be regulated by international law cannot transform it into a violation of international law.

-Susan

I am reasonably confident that the list is a complete list of all losing ATS cases from the time of the Judiciary Act through 1990. Of course, I’ve probably jinxed myself by saying that, but other than maybe some unreported cases I couldn’t get my hands on, pretty much all of the ATS cases for that time period should be here. … That said, if you know of some I’ve missed, please let me know in the comments!

Of course, the overwhelming majority of ATS cases were brought between 2000 – 2010, so the list has a long way to go yet.

Alien Tort Statute Cases Dismissed by the Court (Complete Through 1990)

1. Moxon v. The Brigantine Fanny, 5317 F.Cas. 942 (D.C.Pa. 1793). “Neither does this suit for a specific return of the property, appear to be included in the words of the judiciary act of the United States, giving cognizance to this court of ‘all causes where an alien sues for a tort only, in violation of the laws of nations, or a treaty of the United States.’ It cannot be called a suit for a tort only, when the property, as well as damages for the supposed trespass, are sought for.”

2. O’Reilly De Camara v. Brooke, 209 U.S. 45, 28 S. Ct. 439 (1908). This is the first time the ATS went before the Supreme Court. The case “was brought by the Countess of Buena Vista, a subject of the King of Spain, residing in Havana, Cuba, against Maj. Gen. John R. Brooke, to recover damages alleged to have been caused to the plaintiff by an order of Gen. Brooke, made August 10, 1899, when he was military governor of the Island of Cuba, abolishing the right or franchise to slaughter cattle in the city of Havana, owned by the plaintiff.” “Again, if the plaintiff lost her rights once for all by General Brooke’s order, and so was disseised, it would be a question to be considered whether a disseisin was a tort within the meaning of [the ATS]. In any event, the question hardly can be avoided whether the supported tort is ‘a tort only in violation of the law of nations’ or of the Treaty with Spain. In this court the plaintiff seems to place more reliance upon the suggestion that her rights were of so fundamental a nature that they could not be displaced, even if Congress and the Executive should unite in the effort. It is not necessary to say more about that contention than that it is not the ground on which the jurisdiction of the District Court was invoked. ” “[W]e think it plain that where, as here, the jurisdiction of the case depends upon the establishment of a ‘tort only in violation of the law of nations, or of a treaty of the United States,’ it is impossible for the courts to declare an act a tort of that kind when the Executive, Congress and the treaty-making power all have adopted the act. We see no reason to doubt that the ratification extended to the conduct of [the General].”

3. Pauling v. McElroy, 164 F.Supp. 390 (D.D.C. 1958). Suit to enjoin nuclear weapons testing. Request for injunction not a tort, and accordingly no relief available under ATS.

4. Khedivial Line, S. A. E. v. Seafarers’ Union, 278 F.2d 49 (2 Cir. 1960). Right of free access to ports not sufficient to establish jurisdiction.

5. Madison Shipping Corp. v. National Maritime Union, 282 F.2d 377 (3rd Cir. 1960). “[I]njunctive relief was prayed for on the theory that the appellants’ acts were violative of the appellee’s rights under the Treaty of Friendship, Navigation and Commerce made between the United States and the Republic of Liberia on August 8, 1938, 54 Stat. 1739. Jurisdiction of both of these claims was asserted to be pursuant to Sections 1331 and 1350 of Title 28 U.S.C. [I]t was [also] alleged that the appellants tortiously interfered with the appellee’s contractual relations in violation of the law of Pennsylvania. Injunctive relief and damages were prayed for, and jurisdiction was asserted to be pursuant to Sections 1332 and 1350, Title 28 U.S.C.” Except the court was reviewing the case under interlocutory appeal, and none of the questions before it reached the requisite standard, so the case was booted out.

6. Bowater S. S. Co. v. Patterson, 303 F.2d 369 (2nd Cir. 1962) (in dissent). Interesting, although questionable, early analysis of the ATS. Majority dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction on unrelated grounds. In a dissenting opinion, Judge Lumbard, apparently raising the issue sua sponte, argues that the ATS granted the court a separate basis of federal jurisdiction. the Plaintiff, the Bowater Steamship Company, Ltd., was an English corporation. It “advance[d] a claim under the treaty ‘To regulate the Commerce between the Territories of the United States And of his Britannick Majesty,’ signed and ratified in 1815, 8 Stat. 228, and extended indefinitely on August 6, 1827, 8 Stat. 361.” According to Judge Lumbard, “This is sufficient to give the district court jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1350.” However, the relevant treaty did not provide the substantive law, but rather guaranteed a federal form for the litigant. Therefore, the dissent would have, apparently, used the ATS as a means of providing jurisdiction for an alien to assert a claim under New York state tort law.

7. Lopes v. Reederei Richard Schroder, 225 F.Supp. 292 (E.D.Pa.1963). Doctrine of unseaworthiness not part of the law of nations.

8. Upper Lakes Shipping Limited v. International Longshoremen’s Ass’n, 33 F.R.D. 348 (S.D.N.Y. 1963). Plaintiff brought claim “arising under the treaty between the United States and Canada concerning the boundary waters between the United States and Canada.” Court found that treaty’s only available remedy was for plaintiff to “seek the espousal of its claim by the Canadian Government and its presentation to the International Joint Commission.”

9. Seth v. British Overseas Airways Corp., 216 F.Supp. 244 (D.Mass. 1963). Not an interesting case. “The theory of the third count is that this Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1350 because this is a ‘civil action by an alien for a tort only, committed in violation of a treaty of the United States. … There being no evidence that BOAC committed a tort or violated any act of Congress, Counts 2 and 3 are dismissed with prejudice.”

10. Damaskinos v. Societa Navigacion Interamericana, S. A., Pan., 255 F.Supp. 923 (S.D.N.Y.1966). “Negligence in providing a seaman with a safe place in which to work, and unseaworthiness of a vessel in that respect, are not violations of the law of nations.”

11. Valanga v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., 259 F.Supp. 324 (E.D.Pa. 1966). “[A]ctions to recover funds based upon life insurance contract obligations do not impress this Court as being of the calibre of the cases which have been allowed recourse to § 1350. Plaintiff has failed to indicate the impact of defendant’s conduct as violating the “law of nations.” The mere fact that an individual breaches the contractual duty owed to an alien does not mean that such conduct is so flagrant as to warrant this court to conclude, as a matter of law, that it constitutes a violation of the rules of conduct which govern the affairs of this nation, acting in its national capacity, in its relationships with any other nation.”

12. Abiodun v. Martin Oil Service, Inc., 475 F.2d 142 (7th Cir. 1973). Nigerians’ claims alleging fraudulent employment training contracts failed to state a claim involving an international law violation.

13. IIT v. Vencap, Ltd., 519 F.2d 1001 (2d Cir. 1975). Source of the famous ATS quote: “This old but little used section is a kind of legal Lohengrin; although it has been with us since the first Judiciary Act, § 9, 1 Stat. 73, 77 (1789), no one seems to know whence it came.” Court found that “Thou shalt not steal” is not part of the law of nations.

14. Nguyen Da Yen v. Kissinger, 528 F.2d 1194 (9th Cir. 1975). “[T]he illegal seizure, removal and detention of an alien against his will in a foreign country would appear to be a tort . . . and it may well be a tort in violation of the “law of nations’… We are reluctant to decide the applicability of § 1350 to this case without adequate briefing. Moreover, we are reluctant to rest on it in any event. The complaint presently does not join the adoption agencies as defendants.”

15. Dreyfus v. Von Finck, 534 F.2d 24 (2d Cir. 1976). Seizure of Jewish plaintiff’s property in Nazi Germany and repudiation of 1948 settlement agreement may have been tortious but not an international law violation.

16. Papageorgiou v. Lloyds of London, 436 F. Supp. 701 (E.D.Pa. 1977). Dismissed under the doctrine of forum non conveniens.

17. Soultanoglou v. Liberty Trans. Co., 1980 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9177 (S.D.N.Y.). “Negligence in providing a seaman with a safe place in which to work, and unseaworthiness of a vessel in that respect, are not violations of the law of nations. Lopes v. Reederei Richard Schroder. Soultanoglou has failed to provide the Court with contrary authority. … The Court accepts Magistrate Raby’s conclusion that section 1350 is inapplicable here.”

18. Huynh Thi Anh v. Levi, 586 F. 2d 625 (6th Cir. 1978). There is no universally accepted international right that grants grandparents rather than foster parents custody of children.

19. Benjamins v. British European Airways, 572 F.2d 913 (2d Cir. 1978). Claims arising out of crashed airplane are a tort, but not one in violation of international law or U.S. treaty.

20. Akbar v. New York Magazine Co., 490 F. Supp. 60 (D.D.C. 1980). Libel not a violation of international law or treaty.

21. Canadian Transport Co. v. U.S., 663 F.2d 1081 (D.C.Cir. 1980). “Appellants’ second cause of action alleged that the exclusion of TROPWAVE violated the Treaty of Commerce and Navigation of 1815 between the United States and Great Britain (the 1815 Treaty), 8 Stat. 228. 33 Appellants argue that the District Court had jurisdiction to award them damages under 28 U.S.C. § 1350 (1976), which provides: ‘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.’ Because nothing in the language of this statute indicates that the United States has waived its sovereign immunity from tort suits for treaty violations, the District Court’s decision dismissing this cause of action must be affirmed unless appellants can show another basis for concluding that sovereign immunity has been waived.”

22. Trans-Continental Inv. Corp. v. Bank of Commonwealth, 500 F. Supp. 565 (C.D. Cal. 1980). “Plaintiffs do not claim that any treaty has been violated nor do they suggest that any such claim can be pleaded. Thus, the invocation of Section 1350 jurisdiction is posited directly on their claim that ‘fraud is a universally recognized tort.’ This is essentially the same argument that was made in IIT v. Vencap, Ltd., and the answer must be the same, while the statement is undoubtedly true, universal recognition does not, per se, make the rule a part of ‘the law of nations,’ construed in accordance with Article III.”

23. Cohen v. Hartman, 634 F.2d 318 (5th Cir. 1981). Tortious conversion of funds (embezzlement) is not a violation of the law of nations.

24. Jafari v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 539 F.Supp. 209 (N.D.Ill. 1982). “[T]he ‘law of nations’ does not prohibit a government’s expropriation of the property of its own nationals.”

25. B.T. Shanker Hedge v. British Airways, 1982 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16469 (N.D. Ill.). “The plaintiff alleges that he suffered physical injuries when he was struck by a luggage cart while he stood at the lost and found area controlled by the defendant at the airport in Geneva, Switzerland.” Yeah, not exactly a tort in violation of the law of nations. Now maybe if he’d sued for tortiously bad airline food… *rim shot*. But a somewhat interesting note: “This case alleges a tort, but not one in violation of the law of nations or any treaty of the United States. If jurisdiction were held to exist under this statute over this cause, the exercise of such jurisdiction would probably be in violation of Article III of the Constitution.”

26. Canadian Overseas Ores Ltd. v. Compania de Acero, 528 F. Supp. 1337 (SDNY 1982). Suit to recover “spare parts and related equipment.” “[T]his suit is not one to recover allegedly expropriated property and accordingly 28 U.S.C. § 1350, conferring jurisdiction over suits “by an alien for a tort only, committed in violation of the law of Nations,” does not provide a constitutional jurisdictional predicate for the suit. As the Court of Appeals stated in the footnote relied on by CANOVER, ‘commercial violations … do not constitute violations of international law.’”

27. De Wit v. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines, 570 F. Supp. 613 (S.D.N.Y. 1983). Trade secret and employment action. “The court finds that such extraordinary circumstances are not present here and therefore de Wit’s claim of jurisdiction under this provision is also lacking.”

28. Zapata v. Quinn, 707 F.2d 691, 1983 U.S. App. LEXIS 27589 (2d Cir. N.Y. 1983). “This is an unusually frivolous civil rights action brought under 28 U.S.C. § 1350 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by the winner of $273,178 in the New York State Lottery against its director, claiming that New York regulations, which provide that the winnings will be paid partly in cash and the balance by way of an annuity over 10 years instead of in one lump sum, deprived her of property without due process of law.”

29. Ramirez de Arellano v. Weinberger, 724 F.2d 143 (D.C.Cir. 1983). “As for remedies (available to the Honduran corporations alone) under the Alien Tort Statute: Assuming without deciding that that legislation allows suits against the United States, in the case.it nonetheless applies only to so-called transitory causes of action. Neither an action seeking ejectment nor an action seeking money damages for trespass would lie, since they are both local actions.”

30. Tel-Oren v. Libyan Arab Republic, 726 F.2d 774 (D.C.Cir. 1984). This case is famous enough, I don’t need to talk about it.

31. Ramirez de Arellano v. Weinberger, 745 F.2d 1500 (D.C.Cir.1984). Boring case, court found it not necessary to address the ATS claim by one of the parties.

32. Munusamy v. McClelland Eng’r, Inc., 579 F. Supp. 149 (E.D. Tex. 1984). This case is a weird one and should probably be discarded for purposes of looking at ATS issues. “The Plaintiffs insist the court has jurisdiction by virtue of” the ATS and three other jx statutes, and the causes of action were various, but included “the General Maritime Law of the United States and of Nation.” But the ATS issue is never discussed, and then the case got lost in FNC procedural mire, and I just did not care enough to track down the ultimate resolution.

33. Tamari v. Bache & Co., 730 F.2d 1103 (7th Cir. 1984). Boring case. “The alleged violations include excessive trading and churning of the accounts; making false representations, false reports and false statements to the Tamaris; and deceiving the Tamaris as to the true condition of the accounts.” “We note that 28 U.S.C. § 1350 has been narrowly construed and would not supply a basis for federal jurisdiction over the common law claim.”

34. Sanchez-Espinoza v. Reagan, 770 F.2d 202 (D.C. Cir. 1985). My favorite part of this case is the dismissive reference to “so-called ‘customary international law’”. Court found that either the acts of the defendants were private acts, and not covered by the ATS, or were the acts of officials, and therefore barred by sovereign immunity: “It would make a mockery of the doctrine of sovereign immunity if federal courts were authorized to sanction or enjoin, by judgments nominally against present or former Executive officers, actions that are, concededly and as a jurisdictional necessity, official actions of the United States.”

35. Greenham Women Against Cruise Missiles v. Reagan, 591 F.Supp. 1332 (S.D.N.Y. 1984). Plaintiffs, British citizens, sought to enjoin the deployment of ninety-six cruise missiles at Greenham Common, Great Britain. “Based on these alleged consequences of deployment, the Greenham plaintiffs contend that the deployment of cruise missiles contravenes several customary norms of international law, subjecting them to tortious injury actionable under the Alien Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1350.” No surprise that the court found that “[t]he instant case presents a non-justiciable political question.” Besides which, their claim wasn’t for a tort.

36. Jaffe v. Boyles, 616 F. Supp. 1371 (W.D.N.Y. 1985). Interesting case, and not just because it involves bounty hunters. Plaintiff was seized and dragged across the Canadian border into the US, where he was prosecuted. Court found that the US-Canada extradition treaty did not create private right of action, and as ATS is jurisdictional only, there was no tort a private person could sue for: “Any alien torts committed against Jaffe in violation of the law of nations occurred in Toronto with his seizure and continued with the crossing of the border here. The extradition treaty may well have been violated at the moment the border was crossed, but as already discussed, plaintiffs have no private right of action under that treaty.” So in a way, this case could go down into the “jurisdiction under ATS” column — the court did find that there may well have been a tort in violation of a US treaty, but it’s not one that Plaintiff was able to recover for.

37. Guinto v. Marcos, 654 F.Supp. 276 (S.D.Cal. 1986). Plaintiffs brought suit alleging Philippines government and seized and suppressed a film. Court rejected the filmmaker’s ATS claims: “However dearly our country holds First Amendment rights, I must conclude that a violation of the First Amendment right of free speech does not rise to the level of such universally recognized rights and so does not constitute a “law of nations.”

38. Saltany v. Reagan, 702 F. Supp. 319 (D.D.C. 1988). Boring case. ATS claim brought and then smacked down under FSIA.

39. Carmichael v. United Technologies Corp., 835 F.2d 109 (5th Cir. 1988). Plaintiff, a British citizen, was stuck in a Debtor’s Prison in Saudi Arabia, for two years, and brought claims against his creditors for false imprisonment and assault and battery. Plaintiff “allege[d] that the defendant corporations conspired with the Saudi government to have him jailed. He further alleges that, knowing of his incarceration and the type of treatment he was receiving, the defendants purposefully delayed giving their unilateral release of their claims in order to force him to sign mutual releases and covenants not to sue.” The court found it lacked PJx over all all defendants but Price Waterhouse. Those claims were dismissed because Plaintiff “simply cannot demonstrate any causal connection between Price Waterhouse’s conduct and his prolonged imprisonment or torture. In this case, there is no evidence that Price Waterhouse was responsible, directly or indirectly, for Carmichael’s initial incarceration. Second, Price Waterhouse owed no affirmative duty to Carmichael simply to release him from an obligation that he admitted owing. And finally, no evidence was adduced in the 12(b)(1) proceeding that Price Waterhouse in any way conspired with or aided and abetted in the act that we have assumed constituted the violation of international law, that is, the official torture of Carmichael.

40. Jones v. Petty-Ray Geophysical Geosource, Inc., 722 F. Supp. 343 (S.D. Tex. 1989). Complaint did not allege Plaintiff was an alien, nor did it plead any violation of the law of nations. “The plaintiff’s complaint alleges that Sudan was negligent in failing to warn plaintiff’s decedent of imminent political danger and violence and failing to provide adequate police protection and security to decedent. However, the plaintiff has not shown where this cause of action arises under the ‘law of nations’ and has not cited any persuasive source that recognizes a sovereign’s duty to protect foreign nationals from harm.”

41. Von Dardel v. Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, 736 F. Supp. 1 (D.D.C. 1990). Dismissing default judgment against USSR that was granted for, inter alia, claims under the ATS. Court found FSIA barred judgment.

42. Adras v. Nelson, 917 F.2d 1552 (11th Cir. 1990). Dismissed, court found “all claims were barred by doctrines of absolute immunity, qualified immunity, and for failure to state a claim, and lack of pendent jurisdiction.”

43. Castillo v. Spiliada Maritime Corp., 732 F.Supp. 50 (E.D.La. 1990). Plaintiffs claimed “retaliatory discharge under the Alien Tort Statute, 28 U.S.C. 1350 et seq.” Didn’t go anywhere.

44. Amlon Metals, Inc. v. FMC Corp., 775 F. Supp. 668 (S.D.N.Y. 1991). Amlon involved the shipment of allegedly hazardous copper residue to a purchaser in England for metallic reclamation purposes. Among its claims, the purchaser sought recovery in tort under the Alien Tort Statute, and “assert[ed] that the complaint does allege facts that constitute a violation of the law of nations. In particular, plaintiffs argue that FMC’s conduct is violative of the Stockholm Principles, United Nations Conference on the Human Environment (adopted June 16, 1972), to which the U.S. is a signatory.” The court said yeah right, nice try: “reliance on the Stockholm Principles is misplaced, since those Principles do not set forth any specific proscriptions, but rather refer only in a general sense to the responsibility of nations to insure that activities within their jurisdiction do not cause damage to the environment beyond their borders.”

45. Koohi v. U.S., 976 F.2d 1328 (9th Cir. 1992). No waiver of sovereign immunity. ATS claim dismissed in a quick footnote.

45. Hamid v. Price Waterhouse, 51 F.3d 1411 (9th Cir. 1995). “The wrongs alleged are in substance fraud, breach of fiduciary duty and misappropriation of funds. Although the conduct was international in scope, no violation of what has traditionally been the subject of international law is claimed. International law includes more than international treaties. But looting of a bank by its insiders, and misrepresentations about the bank’s financial condition, have never been in the traditional classification of international law.”

46. Aquinda v. Texaco, Inc., 945 F. Supp. 625, 627 (S.D.N.Y. 1996). Court in Aquinda referenced the possible application of § 1350 for environmental practices “which might violate international law.” Suit was subsequently dismissed on grounds of comity, forum non-conveniens, and failure to join a necessary party.

47. Beanal v. Freeport-McMoRan, Inc., 969 F.Supp. 362 (E.D.La. 1997). Court found that plaintiff “failed to articulate a violation of the international law. Plaintiff states that the allegations support a cause of action based on three international environmental law principles: (1) the Polluter Pays Principle; (2) the Precautionary Principle; and (3) the Proximity Principle. None of the three rises to the level an international tort.” Court also suggested that corporation could not violate international environmental law.

48. Jogi v. Piland, 131 F. Supp.2d 1024 (C.D. Ill. 2001). Dismissed, court held that ATS claims require a tort in violation of treaty, not just any treaty violation.

49. Mendonca v. Tidewater, Inc., 159 F.Supp.2d 299 (E.D.La. 2001). Boring case; lots of alleged violations of international law that make no sense. “the plaintiff can cite no solid support for his claim that the conduct complained of rises to the level recognized by the law of nations.”

50. Doe I v. The Gap, Inc., 2001 WL 1842389 (D.N.Mar.I. 2001). Plaintiffs brought claims of forced labor and deprivation of fundamental human rights in violation of international law. Interestingly, the court accepted the idea that a purely private actor could be held liable under the ATS, but that plaintiffs failed to prove their slavery claims, so the ATS claim was dismissed: “Although international law generally governs the relationship between nations, and thus a violation thereof almost always requires state action, it has been recognized that a handful of particularly egregious acts — genocide, war crimes, piracy, and slavery — by purely private actors can violate international law. As of now, however, only the acts mentioned above have been found to result in private individuals being held liable under international law.” “The court has above determined that plaintiffs have failed to make out a claim for the less egregious act of involuntary servitude and thus it need not consider whether the Unocal court’s equation of forced labor with slavery is sustainable on the facts as alleged here. As to plaintiffs’ claims of other alleged human rights violations, no court has yet accepted plaintiffs’ contention that the freedom to associate and the right to be free from discrimination are standards that have as yet evolved into norms of customary international law sufficient to invoke and be actionable under the ATCA.”

51. Tachiona v. Mugabe, 386 F.3d 205 (2d Cir. 2004). Dismissal of ATS claims for sovereign and head of state immunity.

52. Bancoult v. McNamara, 370 F.Supp.2d 1 (D.D.C. 2004). Plaintiffs tried to claim a “violation of the ATS.” Dismissed.

53. Schneider v. Kissinger, 310 F.Supp.2d 251 (D.D.C. 2004). Claims under TVPA and ATS against Kissinger dismissed. ATS claims did no fulfill the requirements of §2679(b)(2)(B), although TVPA claims “arguably did.” But TVPA claims still dismissed, as “[i]n carrying out the direct orders of the President of the United States, Dr. Kissinger was most assuredly acting pursuant to U.S. law, if any, despite the fact that his alleged foreign coconspirators may have been acting under color of Chilean law. In addition, the TVPA claims appear to be barred by Dr. Kissinger’s qualified immunity from suit.”

54. Ganguly v. Charles Schwab & Co., Inc., 2004 WL 213016, (S.D.N.Y. 2004). Foreign investor seeking to hold brokerage firm liable for losses failed to allege any violation of international law.

55. Mujica v. Occidental Petroleum Corp., 381 F.Supp.2d 1164 (C.D.Cal. 2005). Court found act of state doctrine did not apply, and refused to dismiss certain ATS claims. It then, however, dismissed the entire case, under the political question doctrine.

56. Holland v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 496 F.Supp.2d 1 (D.D.C. 2005). TVPA only good against individual defendants.

57. Joo v. Japan, 413 F.3d 45 (2005). “We hold the appellants’ complaint presents a nonjusticiable political question, namely, whether the governments of the appellants’ countries resolved their claims in negotiating peace treaties with Japan. In so doing we defer to “the considered judgment of the Executive on [this] particular question of foreign policy.”

58. In re Iraq and Afghanistan Detainees Litigation, 479 F.Supp.2d 85 (D.D.C. 2007). Defendants were immune under the Westfall Act. Because the Geneva Convention is not a law enacted by Congress, but rather an international agreement, it does not fall within the Westfall Act’s exception for statutes.

59. Taveras v. Taveraz, 477 F.3d 767 (6th Cir. 2007). Court found parental child abduction does not violate law of nations. Further, “the nexus between Mr. Taveras’s asserted injury and the alleged law of nations violation (that the right of the United States to control who enters its borders was infringed) is highly tenuous, at best. As Sosa definitively established that the underlying tort itself must be in violation of the law of nations to be cognizable under the ATS, we reject Mr. Taveras’s Adra-styled argument that Ms. Taveraz’s fraudulent entry into the United States is sufficient to implicate a law of nations infraction and thereby propel his purely domestic tort action within the jurisdictional ambit of the ATS.”

60. Jama v. Esmor Corr. Serv., 2008 WL 724337 (D.N.J. 2007). “Four of Jama’s claims went to the jury [including] violation of the Alien Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1350.” Ignoring the fact that you cannot violate a jurisdictional statute, the jury found “no liability against any defendant under the Alien Tort Claims Act.” However, it several of the Defendants did settle, so this one can go in both the win column and the loss column.

61. Ruiz v. Fed. Gov’t of the Mexican Republic, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 74736 (W.D. Tex. 2007). “In his Complaint, Ruiz contends that the defendants’ actions have violated the UN Charter and the UDHR. Neither of these documents create a tort actionable under the ATS.

62. Harbury v. Hayden, 522 F.3d 413 (D.C.C. 2008). Stating that “the ATCA cannot be the subject of ‘a violation’ of a federal statute because the ATCA provides no substantive rights that could be the subject of any claimed violation”.

63. Presbyterian Church of Sudan v. Talisman Energy, Inc. (2d Cir. 2009). Second Circuit found that corporate defendant not liable for assisting others’ alleged violations of the ATS in the absence of evidence it intended that those violations be committed.

65. Hurst v. Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, 474 F.Supp.2d 19 (D.D.C. 2007): “In their Opposition, Plaintiffs assert for the first time a claim by Mulroy under the Alien Tort Statute (“ATS”), 28 U.S.C. § 1350, on the grounds that they asserted jurisdiction under the statute in their complaint, and they seek leave to amend if the claim was not sufficiently pleaded. The ATS does not provide jurisdiction over foreign states.”

66. Hoang Van Tu v. Koster, 364 F.3d 1196 (10th Cir. 2004). 10-year statute of limitations adopted from TVPA to bar claims.

67. Rojas Mamani v. Sanchez Berzain, 636 F.Supp.2d 1326 (S.D.Fla. 2009). TVPA claim — dismissed for failure to exhaust all remedies.

68. Turedi v. Coca-Cola Co., 343 Fed.Appx. 623 (2nd Cir. 2009): Dismissed for forum non conveniens.

-Susan