Search: Sosa

Antoine Dear Kenneth, I recently wrote a note on jurisdiction and forum issues under ACTA. Hope this helps. http://lawnotepad.wordpress.com/2010/08/18/sosa/ Best, Antoine Antonin I. Pribetic Here is a basic, plain language summary: http://www.answers.com/topic/personal-jurisdiction (West's Encyclopedia of American Law via Answers.com) Kenneth Anderson Thanks! That's exactly what I'm looking for - plain, basic, and not too long....

...of disagreement on that score. Beth Stephens has written on the comparative civil/criminal approaches to addressing human rights abuses in her article in the Yale Journal of International Law. 27 YJIL 1 (2002). I recently have written on the debate regarding corporate liability in this article in the Notre Dame Law Review. Post-Sosa, U.S. courts seem to be moving in the direction of corporate responsibility for aiding-and-abetting government human rights abuses. But even those that do hold corporations liable disagree on the correct standard to apply. I am not aware...

...of the Rome Statute followed closely Article 18 of the VCT - and was designed to avoid the consequences of being under an obligation to follow object and purpose of signed, but not ratified coventions under the same Article.In addition, the Supreme Court, in Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, has now recognized customary international law as part of federal law. Unratified treaties are often regarded as an expression of customary law - often, that is, not in every instance. But that makes them even more meaningful, even within the US legal order....

...The ACLU's complaint on behalf of German citizen Khaled el-Masri, whom the CIA rendered from Macedonia to Afghanistan for interrogation purposes, has just been filed. In addition to an unlikely Bivens claim asserting substantive and procedural due process violations, el-Masri asserts ATS claims for (a) torture/CID treatment and (b) prolonged arbitrary detention. Setting aside the almost inevitable attempt by DOJ to have the case dismissed on "state secrets" grounds, this approach (particularly the prolonged arbitrary detention argument) raises issues specifically left open by the Court in 2004's Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain....

...prison. So obviously if you're a genocidaire (and you're even thinking about what happens if you fall from power) you'd be happier to have an international tribunal around to turn yourself in to. This is a fortiori true of the ICC, whose default maximum punishment is 30 years in prison. And I bet the international tribunal prisons are a lot nicer than those in Rwanda, or Sudan, or Bosnia. I talk about the forum shopping possibilities created by international tribunals in Implementing Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain: What Piracy Reveals About the...

...were actually on the ground (i.e. or one foot above landing) to be the "just before". Pakistan protesting afterward is just Claude Rains in Rick's shocked that gambling has been going on. Even without that consent, Sosa v Alvarez Machain suggests that this outside US stuff without an extradition request is not the concern of our courts in law enforcement settings. I do not buy it brother. Best, Ben George How in the world is McCann v. The United Kingdom a binding precedent for the Bin Laden killing? 1) The...

...of this blog no doubt know, customary international law is defined as “a general and consistent practice of states followed by them from a sense of legal obligation,” per the Restatement. 10) What constitutes an “obligation” imposed by customary international law should be accepted willy-nilly – certain acts clearly violate customary international law norms, like violation of “safe conducts,” infringements of the rights of ambassadors, and piracy on the high seas. (See the Supreme Court’s discussion in Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 U.S. 692 (2004).) CIL does not, however, include a...

...Professor Kontorovich: "So in establishing the contours of piracy in the law of nations, it is entirely appropriate that [the judiciary] be tough-minded about vetting purported international law norms. This is what the Supreme Court in Sosa tells the courts to do in the Alien Tort Statute context; the judge here recognizes that this caution is not just a matter of legislative intent, it is a constitutional mandate. Going outside international law does not just take the court beyond the statute, it takes it past the Define and Punish Clause."...

...members of the Executive branch, including the famous Supreme Court decision in The Paquete Habana in 1900 (and up again in 1903) -- and that opinion addressed the laws of war (contrary to the majority opinion in Sosa in 2004) and applied the laws of war to void an Executive seizure of alien vessels abroad during time of war in contrast to the Executive views about the content of the laws of war. Our courts have often noted that whether the laws of war apply, to whom, and how are...

...Genocide under the same facts... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-14725689 Kirsten I fear that this is just the latest in a long line of ATS decisions fundamentally failing to understand what constitutes customary international law. My views of the ineffectiveness of this statute aside, I find it alarming that US federal judges feel that a selective survey of a few international courts can constitute a "consistency of state practice" sufficient to satisfy the stringent requirements of customary international law generally and the ATS (post Sosa) specifically. Further, I think it is extremely dangerous to...

...Path Forward," 18 Tulane Journal of International & Comparative Law (2010). Milan Judge Reinhardt's brief concurrence is also worth a read. Key quote: "The ATS is a jurisdictional statute, enabling the federal courts to hear claims for a handful of torts with “definite content and acceptance among civilized nations.” Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 U.S. 692, 732 (2004). The role of international law is to specify these torts. The role of domestic law is to prescribe the means of their enforcement." Under this approach, the international law part of the analysis...

Jordan These are very interesting and apt points. I am struck by the fact that lawsuits led by counsel other than counsel for the losing cases (Alvarez-Machain, Sosa, Kiobel) did so much better (as you point out, e.g., Wiwa). I have also noted how even the Amici briefs are controlled by lead counsel, that the Court does not get some of the best arguments and precedent before it (and, perhaps, does not even care -- since Kiobel is an example of a case misreading the Restatement's Sec. 403 [which actually...