In association with the International Commission of Jurists

Search: Sosa

24 Jan

to the ATS and the underlying federal common law claims, there remains the possibility that state courts could fashion state common law claims based on the criteria established in Sosa. State law routinely mirrors comparable federal law. There is nothing in Sosa or Kiobel that prevents a state court from recognizing a state cause of action for violations of “a norm of international character accepted by the civilized world and defined with a specificity comparable to the features of the 18th-century paradigms,” such as piracy, violations of safe conducts, or...
24.01.14 | |

26 Sep

...Filartiga and its progeny only by misinterpreting those cases. I would suggest that one can evade Sosa’s rejection of much of the pre-Sosa case law only by ignoring those cases or the parts of those cases that were inconsistent with Sosa. That is, Beth seems to define Filartiga and its progeny only to include those cases that took a “remarkably cautious” approach to the Alien Tort Statute. While it is true that Sosa did not reject all, or perhaps even most, of what had emanated from Filartiga, the Court’s adoption...
26.09.06 | |

01 Sep

...round of briefs to allow the parties to take the effect of Sosa into account. Since Sosa was generally seen (well, by me, anyway) as making it more difficult, if not impossible, for plaintiffs to bring environmental degradation claims under ATCA, the plaintiffs seemed to face an uphill battle in convincing the Ninth Circuit to reinstate their environmental claims. The plaintiffs may well have agreed; they didn’t even appeal the dismissal of the life/health/sustainable development claims. But, mirabile dictu, in its August 2006 decision the panel reinstated, by a 2-1...
01.09.06 | |

24 May

...under § 1350 cannot be based solely on a violation of our criminal code. For her second contention Ms. Cisneros relies on an Interpol website titled “Legislation of Interpol Member States on Sexual Offences against Children,” and on Articles 16 and 34 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. But neither source states norms of international law that satisfy the “requirement of clear definition” set forth in Sosa. See Sosa, 542 U.S. at 733 n. 21. The Interpol website simply summarizes pertinent statutes provided by member...
24.05.07 | |

18 Apr

private entities may be held liable under the ATS for aiding and abetting human rights abuses perpetrated by foreign governments. A fourth issue is how to apply Sosa’s requirement that an international-law norm be sufficiently accepted and specific. And fifth, in what circumstances should courts dismiss suits based on what Sosa referred to as “case-specific deference to the political branches”? Bellinger then highlights the costs and benefits of ATS litigation. The three principal benefits of ATS litigation he outlines are: (1) promoting accountability and providing a public voice to victims;...
18.04.08 | |

08 Dec

...in Kiobel, not least because the Exxon judgment operates as a kind of Kiobel rehearing, in that the Exxon plaintiffs relied on a number of amicus briefs that were filed in support of the petition for rehearing en banc in Kiobel, which the Second Circuit had denied. The Exxon majority opinion, authored by Judge Rogers, begins by recognizing that ‘corporate liability differs fundamentally from the conduct-governing norms at issue in Sosa’.[1] Whereas ‘Sosa instructs us that the substantive content of the common law cause of action that courts recognize in...
08.12.11 | |

28 Sep

[Opinio Juris Note: Thanks to everyone, especially David Moore, for participating in the online workshop this week. Here is David’s last post and the last contribution to what has been a very interesting and useful workshop.] Marty is, of course, right that the issue before the Court in Sosa was not whether all CIL qualifies as federal common law or whether the creation of CIL-based common law requires positive authorization. The issue was whether the ATS supports common law claims based on CIL. That does not mean, however, that Sosa...
28.09.06 | |

18 Apr

At first glance, the Court’s decision in Kiobel appears to portend a significant restriction on Alien Tort Statute jurisdiction—even for suits that allege torture, genocide, or another of what the Court in Sosa called the “modest number of international law violations” cognizable under the ATS, those with “definite content and acceptance among civilized nations” equal to that of the “historical paradigms” (such as piracy and violation of safe conducts) familiar in 1789. And perhaps that will, indeed, be Kiobel’s legacy. But perhaps not. What’s most striking about the collected opinions...
18.04.13 | |

11 Oct

I appreciate Mike taking the time to respond. I’ll address his various criticisms in separate posts; here I want to focus on the amicus brief’s claim (p. 14) that Sosa requires a norm applies in ATS litigation only if it has “undisputed international acceptance,” a standard that is satisfied only if (p. 7) “the defendant’s alleged conduct [is] universally recognized as a violation of international law.” Fortunately for ATS litigation, the “undisputed” standard is an invention of the amicus brief. The word “undisputed” does not appear in Sosa with reference...
11.10.11 | |

28 Jan

...of Congress regulating conduct applies abroad,” the Court noted. 133 S. Ct. at 1664 (emphasis added). The ATS was not such a statute; the Sosa Court had held that it was “strictly jurisdictional.” But Sosa also held that the ATS authorized courts to recognize federal common law causes of action for torts in violation of the law of nations, and it was to those causes of action that the Supreme Court applied the presumption in Kiobel. “[W]e think the principles underlying the canon of interpretation similarly constrain courts considering causes...
28.01.14 | |

02 Oct

...Kagan (p. 40), all appeared to start from the premise that piracy was an intended subject of the ATS. What is odd about this is how little historical basis there is for this assumption. Sosa explained the ATS as aimed at a different type of international law violation: violations (like the well-known Marbois incident) for which the United States would be held responsible, which if not “adequately redressed” could give rise to “serious consequences in international affairs.” Sosa goes on to express uncertainty about whether piracy was an intended subject...
02.10.12 | |

11 Oct

...not sure Kevin entirely does) that this debate arises in the unique context of the Alien Tort Statute (ATS). So the question is not purely whether there is, or could be, or might be, a rule of international law. The question is whether there is a rule of international law that meets the high standards set by the U.S. Supreme Court in Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain. In that case the Court held that the ATS permits a cause of action only for a very limited class of well-defined and undisputed violations...
11.10.11 | |